IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v49y2020i3p410-436_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, Ying (Jessica)
  • Weersink, Alfons
  • Ferner, Emma

Abstract

Risk management tools are at the core of farm policy in many developed countries, and their effectiveness relies on the appropriate mechanism design. This study developed a gain-loss framework based on prospect theory to examine the reasons for the declining use of the main risk management tool offered to farmers despite growing volatility in returns. Using the administrative Ontario Farm Income Database (OFID) 2003 to 2013 and taking the beef sector as the example, this study found that the gain-loss framework predicts and explains the dynamic program participation pattern better than the conventional expected utility framework. Farms were found to be more likely to stay enrolled in the program when they experienced either larger gains or losses in revenue compared to previous years, suggesting that they were using the insurance programs both as an investment strategy (to seek government subsidies) and as a risk management tool (to protect against business risks), though the effects of revenue losses and hence risk management needs were stronger than gains. In addition, the program payment history and farm characteristics also shape the dynamic participation patterns. The findings increased the understanding of the drivers of withdrawal behavior associated with government-sponsored business risk management programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Weersink, Alfons & Ferner, Emma, 2020. "A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 410-436, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:410-436_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280519000157/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    2. Amarjit Gill & Harvinder S. Mand & Afshin Amiraslany & Neil Mathur, 2021. "Risk of investment losses from operations and casualties and insurance coverage decisions," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 20(3), pages 265-285, December.
    3. Kulawik Jacek, 2023. "Expected Utility and Prospect Theories Versus Agricultural Insurance," Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics, Sciendo, vol. 374(1), pages 62-84, March.
    4. Hwang, In Do, 2024. "Behavioral aspects of household portfolio choice: Effects of loss aversion on life insurance uptake and savings," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 1029-1053.
    5. Kulawik, Jacek, 2023. "Expected Utility and Prospect Theories Versus Agricultural Insurance," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 333731, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:agrerw:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:410-436_2. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.