IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jeurec/v17y2019i5p1428-1469..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity Aversion Decreases the Impact of Partial Insurance: Evidence from African Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Gharad Bryan

Abstract

Indemnifying smallholder farmers against crop loss is thought to play an important role in encouraging the adoption of new technologies and facilitating productivity growth, but to be infeasible due to information problems. Consequently there is interest in developing alternative, partial, insurance products. Examples include rainfall insurance and the limited liability inherent in credit contracts. I argue that although these products may reduce information asymmetry, ambiguity averse farmers struggle to assess whether the contracts reduce risk. This problem is most pronounced when the production technology is ambiguous, as is likely the case for new technologies. I formalize this argument and test the theory using data from two RCTs, conducted in Malawi and Kenya. Comparative statics from the theory are consistent with both sets of data, and I argue that income losses from ambiguity aversion may be substantial.

Suggested Citation

  • Gharad Bryan, 2019. "Ambiguity Aversion Decreases the Impact of Partial Insurance: Evidence from African Farmers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(5), pages 1428-1469.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jeurec:v:17:y:2019:i:5:p:1428-1469.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jeea/jvy056
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yingmei Tang & Huifang Cai & Rongmao Liu, 2022. "Will marketing strategies affect farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for catastrophe insurance? Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1376-1389, January.
    2. Takahashi, Kazushi & Noritomo, Yuma & Ikegami, Munenobu & Jensen, Nathaniel D., 2020. "Understanding pastoralists’ dynamic insurance uptake decisions: Evidence from four-year panel data in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Antoine Billot & Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2020. "Market Allocations under Ambiguity: A Survey," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(2), pages 267-282.
    4. Cosmin L. Ilut & Martin Schneider, 2022. "Modeling Uncertainty as Ambiguity: a Review," NBER Working Papers 29915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.
    6. Guillemin, François, 2020. "Governance by depositors, bank runs and ambiguity aversion," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    7. Quentin Stoeffler & Michael Carter & Catherine Guirkinger & Wouter Gelade, 2022. "The Spillover Impact of Index Insurance on Agricultural Investment by Cotton Farmers in Burkina Faso," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(1), pages 114-140.
    8. Enrico Biffis & Erik Chavez & Alexis Louaas & Pierre Picard, 2022. "Parametric insurance and technology adoption in developing countries," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 7-44, March.
    9. Crentsil, Christian & Gschwandtner, Adelina & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2020. "The effects of risk and ambiguity aversion on technology adoption: Evidence from aquaculture in Ghana," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 46-68.
    10. Norton, Benjamin P. & Hoel, Jessica B. & Michelson, Hope, 2020. "The demand for (fake?) fertilizer: Using an experimental auction to examine the role of beliefs on agricultural input demand in Tanzania," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304444, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Caceres, Daniela & Valdivia, Melissa & Barron, Manuel, 2024. "Information on Cancer Prevalence and Oncologic Insurance Take-up," MPRA Paper 120274, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Pitthan, Francisco & De Witte, Kristof, 2021. "Puzzles of insurance demand and its biases: A survey on the role of behavioural biases and financial literacy on insurance demand," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    13. Williams Ali & Awudu Abdulai & Renan Goetz & Victor Owusu, 2021. "Risk, ambiguity and willingness to participate in crop insurance programs: Evidence from a field experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(3), pages 679-703, July.
    14. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Dougherty, John P. & Flatnes, Jon Einar & Gallenstein, Richard A. & Miranda, Mario J. & Sam, Abdoul G., 2020. "Climate change and index insurance demand: Evidence from a framed field experiment in Tanzania," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 155-184.
    16. Yulian Ding & Jianyu Yu & Yangyang Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yunyun Liu, 2023. "Gene‐edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 414-428, May.

    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:oup:jeurec:v:17:y:2019:i:5:p:1428-1469.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jeea .

    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.