IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00751861.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fiabilité des tests génétiques et architecture des contrats d'équilibre

Author

Listed:
  • Mouhamadou Fall

    (GERSEG - Groupe d'Etude et de Recherche en Sciences Economiques - UGB - Université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis Sénégal, LEO - Laboratoire d'Économie d'Orleans [UMR7322] - UO - Université d'Orléans - UT - Université de Tours - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The genetic tests spread in almost all the domains of the society. However, several authors following the example of Penacino and al. (2003) pull the alarm bell and draw the attention on the deceptive results that the genetic tests can engender. On the insurance market, the lack of reliability of the genetic tests is sometimes one of the reasons evoked by the insurers to go without the genetic information. In our analysis, we show that the use of the genetic tests, even with a lack of reliability, will not prevent the insurance market from working well. First of all, we characterized the insurance market. Because of the error on a test, the low-risk agents keep present in the spirit that they have a chance to be high-risk agent and the high-risk agents the hope to have a chance to be good risk. Consequently, the market will consist of pessimistic low-risk agents and optimistic high-risk agents. Then, we tried to determine contracts offered on the market. When the insurer has no same faiths as the agents, the offered contracts can go of a pooling contract to a menu of partial insurance contracts. On the other hand, if the insurer has the same faiths as the policyholders, he offers to the optimists a full insurance contract and at the pessimists a contract with partial coverage. The full insurance contract of the optimists is however different from the full insurance contract of Stiglitz (1977 ) in the sense that the agents have a higher utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Mouhamadou Fall, 2012. "Fiabilité des tests génétiques et architecture des contrats d'équilibre," Working Papers halshs-00751861, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00751861
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00751861
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00751861/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. Meglena Jeleva & Bertrand Villeneuve, 2004. "Insurance contracts with imprecise probabilities and adverse selection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(4), pages 777-794, May.
    4. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1977. "Monopoly, Non-linear Pricing and Imperfect Information: The Insurance Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(3), pages 407-430.
    5. 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..
    6. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5358 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Strohmenger, R. & Wambach, A., 2000. "Adverse selection and categorical discrimination in the health insurance markets: the effects of genetic tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 197-218, March.
    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 & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    2. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    3. Leitner, Johannes, 2005. "Dilatation monotonous Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 994-1006, December.
    4. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    5. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    6. Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & Juan Pablo Gama & Rodrigo Novinski, 2018. "General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1859-1871, September.
    7. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    8. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    9. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Dorian Jullien & Alexandre Truc, 2024. "Towards a history of behavioural and experimental economics in France," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 998-1033, November.
    11. Chateauneuf, Alain & Ventura, Caroline, 2010. "The no-trade interval of Dow and Werlang: Some clarifications," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Grant Simon & Guerdjikova Ani & Quiggin John, 2021. "Ambiguity and Awareness: A Coherent Multiple Priors Model," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 571-612, June.
    13. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Belles-Sampera, Jaume & Merigó, José M. & Guillén, Montserrat & Santolino, Miguel, 2013. "The connection between distortion risk measures and ordered weighted averaging operators," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 411-420.
    15. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    16. Erling Eide & Kristine von Simson & Steinar Strøm, 2011. "Rank-Dependent Utility, Tax Evasion, and Labor Supply," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 67(3), pages 261-281, September.
    17. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    18. Beissner, Patrick & Werner, Jan, 2023. "Optimal allocations with α-MaxMin utilities, Choquet expected utilities, and Prospect Theory," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    19. Ghossoub, Mario, 2019. "Budget-constrained optimal insurance without the nonnegativity constraint on indemnities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 22-39.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2022. "Source and Rank-dependent Utility," Post-Print hal-03924295, HAL.

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-00751861. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.