IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v180y2020icp797-811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach

Author

Listed:
  • Pannequin, François
  • Corcos, Anne
  • Montmarquette, Claude

Abstract

Our theory-driven laboratory experiment tests a broadened Ehrlich and Becker substitutability property between insurance and self-insurance. The data show that an increase in insurance prices does lead to a substitution effect between insurance and self-insurance. Disentangling the two components of the coverage (whether and how much to invest) suggests that the substitution effect is multilayered: a rise in the unit price is likely to crowd the subjects out of the insurance market while fostering the likelihood of investing in self-insurance. Also, the demand for insurance of those who remain in the market decreases, whereas their demand for self-insurance increases. However, the substitutability effect is mitigated by insufficient sensitivity of the subjects to the price. Therefore, a price subsidy policy is far from being as damaging to self-insurance as theory suggests. Conversely, a high-priced insurance policy does not encourage investment in loss reduction activities as much as it should. Policy issues notably for public health as well as for insurers’ policy are discussed as this research suggests possible ways of steering the pricing policy for insurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Pannequin, François & Corcos, Anne & Montmarquette, Claude, 2020. "Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 797-811.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:180:y:2020:i:c:p:797-811
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.05.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268119301684
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.05.018?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    2. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Hela Maafi & David Masclet & Antoine Terracol, 2012. "Risk aversion and framing effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-144, March.
    3. Kousky, Carolyn & Michel-Kerjan, Erwann O. & Raschky, Paul A., 2018. "Does federal disaster assistance crowd out flood insurance?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 150-164.
    4. Dionne, Georges & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 1985. "Self-insurance, self-protection and increased risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 39-42.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    6. MOSSIN, Jan, 1968. "Aspects of rational insurance purchasing," LIDAM Reprints CORE 23, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    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. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    9. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein, 2018. "Moral Hazard in Health Insurance: What We Know and How We Know It," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 957-982.
    10. Brunette Marielle & Corcos Anne & Couture Stéphane & Pannequin François, 2019. "On the uselessness of self-insurance clauses?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 830-837.
    11. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
    12. Christophe Courbage, 2001. "Self-Insurance, Self-Protection and Market Insurance within the Dual Theory of Choice," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 26(1), pages 43-56, June.
    13. Mary Kelly & Anne E. Kleffner, 2003. "Optimal Loss Mitigation and Contract Design," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 70(1), pages 53-72, March.
    14. Francesca Barigozzi, 2004. "Reimbursing Preventive Care," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 29(2), pages 165-186, December.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    16. 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.
    17. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
    18. James M. Carson & Kathleen A. McCullough & David M. Pooser, 2013. "Deciding Whether to Invest in Mitigation Measures: Evidence From Florida," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 80(2), pages 309-327, June.
    19. Ellis, Randall P. & Manning, Willard G., 2007. "Optimal health insurance for prevention and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1128-1150, December.
    20. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 836-859, December.
    21. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00617673 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Jaspersen, Johannes G. & Richter, Andreas, 2015. "The wealth effects of premium subsidies on moral hazard in insurance markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 139-153.
    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. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Behavioral foundations of the substitutability between insurance and self-insurance: An experimental study," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-12, CIRANO.
    2. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    3. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 836-859, December.
    4. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    5. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Risk reduction in compulsory disaster insurance: Experimental evidence on moral hazard and financial incentives," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2020. "Are compulsory insurance and self-insurance substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(1), pages 24-35, March.
    7. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette,, 2017. "Measuring individual risk-attitudes: an experimental comparison between Holt & Laury measure and an insurance-choices-based procedure," Working Papers 2017-79, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    8. Claire Mouminoux & Jean-Louis Rullière & Stéphane Loisel, 2018. "Obfuscation and Honesty Experimental Evidence on Insurance Demand with Multiple Distribution Channels," Working Papers hal-01819522, HAL.
    9. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    10. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2023. "Risk Management and Public Policies: How prevention challenges monopolistic insurance markets," Documents de recherche 23-02, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    11. James M. Carson & Kathleen A. McCullough & David M. Pooser, 2013. "Deciding Whether to Invest in Mitigation Measures: Evidence From Florida," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 80(2), pages 309-327, June.
    12. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2016. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage?," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-26, CIRANO.
    13. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    14. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    15. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    16. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    17. Craig E. Landry & Dylan Turner & Daniel Petrolia, 2021. "Flood Insurance Market Penetration and Expectations of Disaster Assistance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 357-386, June.
    18. Tim Lohse & Julio R. Robledo & Ulrich Schmidt, 2012. "Self‐Insurance and Self‐Protection as Public Goods," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(1), pages 57-76, March.
    19. Stéphane Couture & Marielle Brunette & François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2016. "The self-insurance clauses puzzle : risk versus ambiguity," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-02801783, HAL.
    20. Brunette Marielle & Corcos Anne & Couture Stéphane & Pannequin François, 2019. "On the uselessness of self-insurance clauses?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 830-837.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Insurance; Self-insurance; Substitutability; Marginal equalization rule; Lab experiment; Risk aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:eee:jeborg:v:180:y:2020:i:c:p:797-811. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.