IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijfaec/321779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on Revenue Insurance Buying for Custard Apple in Taiwan: Perspectives from Prospect Theory and Ambiguity Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Min-Hsien
  • Lu, Richard

Abstract

This paper studies why the demand for Agricultural revenue insurance is so low in Taiwan even the government subsidize almost half of the premium. We look into how risk attitude, probability ambiguity and claim payment ambiguity can affect the lower demand of the insurance, and control factors like age, education, farming experience, scale, and loan borrowing. By the survey data of 199 farmers, we find that half of the sample farmers are kind of risk lovers, and, about half of them haver problem of probability ambiguity or claim payment ambiguity. By using the two-class logistic model of insurance buying or no buying, we find that the risk attitude as risk aversion has significant positive impacts on the insurance buying, or the risk lover has less demand for the insurance. However, the probability ambiguity and claim payment ambiguity, which are expected to have negative impacts on the insurance demand, is not statistically significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Min-Hsien & Lu, Richard, 2022. "A Study on Revenue Insurance Buying for Custard Apple in Taiwan: Perspectives from Prospect Theory and Ambiguity Preference," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 10(2), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijfaec:321779
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.321779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/321779/files/vol10.no2.pp111.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.321779?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MOSSIN, Jan, 1968. "Aspects of rational insurance purchasing," LIDAM Reprints CORE 23, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    3. Froot, Kenneth A & Scharfstein, David S & Stein, Jeremy C, 1993. "Risk Management: Coordinating Corporate Investment and Financing Policies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(5), pages 1629-1658, December.
    4. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    5. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier & H. Schlesinger, 2005. "Economic and financial decisions under risk," Post-Print hal-00325882, HAL.
    6. Brenner, Menachem & Izhakian, Yehuda, 2018. "Asset pricing and ambiguity: Empirical evidence⁎," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 503-531.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt, 2015. "Testing Ambiguity Models through the Measurement of Probabilities for Gains and Losses," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 77-100, May.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    11. Neil A. Doherty & Clifford W. Smith, 1993. "Corporate Insurance Strategy: The Case Of British Petroleum," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 6(3), pages 4-15, September.
    12. Mayers, David & Smith, Clifford W, Jr, 1982. "On the Corporate Demand for Insurance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 281-296, April.
    13. Falola, Abraham & Ayinde, Opeyemi Eyitayo & Agboola, Babatola Olasunkanmi, 2013. "Willingness To Take Agricultural Insurance By Cocoa Farmers In Nigeria," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 1(1), pages 1-12, July.
    14. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    15. David Alary & Christian Gollier & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "The Effect of Ambiguity Aversion on Insurance and Self‐protection," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(12), pages 1188-1202, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    3. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    4. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    5. repec:hal:journl:hal-03031751 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    7. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    9. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    10. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    11. Joyita Banerji & Kaushik Kundu & Parveen Ahmed Alam, 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Individuals’ Financial Choices under Uncertainty: An Empirical Approach," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 11(3), pages 401-424, September.
    12. Stephen Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2015. "Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 219-244, December.
    13. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A. & Zeng, Jingjing, 2022. "Travel choice behaviour under uncertainty in real-market settings: A source-dependent utility approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    14. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    15. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    16. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    17. Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2012. "Psychology and behavioral economics lessons for the design of a green growth strategy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6240, The World Bank.
    18. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2023. "Three Layers of Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 2209-2236.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:104-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    21. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    22. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2017. "Do familiarity and awareness influence voting intention: The case of road pricing reform?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 11-27.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijfaec:321779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiaaktr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.