IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p11922-d921313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of the Peer Effect on Farmers’ Agricultural Insurance Decision: Evidence from the Survey Data of the Karst Region in China

Author

Listed:
  • Guoyong Wu

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    China Center of Western Capacity Development Research, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    Guizhou Grassroots Social Governance Innovation High-End Think Tank, Ecological Civilization (Guizhou) Research Institute, Guiyang 550025, China
    Rural Revitalization Institute in Karst Region of China, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Jianwei Cheng

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Fan Yang

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    Guizhou Grassroots Social Governance Innovation High-End Think Tank, Ecological Civilization (Guizhou) Research Institute, Guiyang 550025, China)

Abstract

Low insurance participation rate and low willingness to insure among farmers have always been major problems in the sustainable development of agricultural insurance in China. This paper attempts to examine the peer effect on farmers’ agricultural insurance buying decisions and explore its mechanism. We have established an IVprobit model, using the survey data of 9452 farmers in the karst regions in China. The empirical results show that: (1) Peer effect has a significant influence on farmers’ participation in agricultural insurance. A 10% increase in farmers’ neighbors’ participation in agricultural insurance increases the likelihood of farmers’ participation by 3.25%. (2) Peer effect promotes farmers’ participation by enhancing farmers’ risk perception and insurance cognition. (3) Peer effect is asymmetrical: male and larger-scale farmers have more significant effects on their peers and probably lead the participation in agricultural insurance. The results of the study have the following policy implications: (1) Increasing policy publicity and enforcing policy advocacy would magnify the positive impact of peer effect. (2) Increasing the participation rate of male and larger-scale farmers by policy interventions, which would give full play and a positive demonstration effect of specific groups. (3) Innovating insurance publicity methods to enhance farmers’ risk awareness and insurance cognition. (4) More concentration should be focused on the primary-level governance in rural China. We should advance the stock of rural social capital on all fronts to leverage the role of peer effect within rural areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Guoyong Wu & Jianwei Cheng & Fan Yang, 2022. "The Influence of the Peer Effect on Farmers’ Agricultural Insurance Decision: Evidence from the Survey Data of the Karst Region in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11922-:d:921313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11922/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11922/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael J. Roberts & Nigel Key & Erik O'Donoghue, 2006. "Estimating the Extent of Moral Hazard in Crop Insurance Using Administrative Data," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 381-390.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Saez, Emmanuel, 2002. "Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of colleagues' choices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 121-148, July.
    5. Liu, Hong & Sun, Qi & Zhao, Zhong, 2014. "Social learning and health insurance enrollment: Evidence from China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 84-102.
    6. Ulrich Kohler & Kristian Bernt Karlson & Anders Holm, 2011. "Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(3), pages 420-438, September.
    7. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    8. Keith H. Coble & Barry J. Barnett, 2013. "Why Do We Subsidize Crop Insurance?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 498-504.
    9. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    10. Cory G. Walters & C. Richard Shumway & Hayley H. Chouinard & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2015. "Asymmetric Information and Profit Taking in Crop Insurance," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 107-129.
    11. Teresa Serra & Barry K. Goodwin & Allen M. Featherstone, 2003. "Modeling changes in the U.S. demand for crop insurance during the 1990s," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 63(2), pages 109-125, November.
    12. Veronika K. Pool & Noah Stoffman & Scott E. Yonker, 2015. "The People in Your Neighborhood: Social Interactions and Mutual Fund Portfolios," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(6), pages 2679-2732, December.
    13. Bruce J. Sherrick & Peter J. Barry & Paul N. Ellinger & Gary D. Schnitkey, 2004. "Factors Influencing Farmers' Crop Insurance Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 103-114.
    14. Ulrich Kohler, 2011. "Comparing coefficients between nested nonlinear probability models," German Stata Users' Group Meetings 2011 08, Stata Users Group.
    15. repec:oup:apecpp:v:37:y:2015:i:1:p:107-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Sushil Bikhchandani & David Hirshleifer & Ivo Welch, 1998. "Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 151-170, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaoxu Zhang & Xinyu Du, 2023. "Industry and Regional Peer Effects in Corporate Digital Transformation: The Moderating Effects of TMT Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Huanhuan Zhang & Guogang Wang & Jinge Liu & Shuai Hao & Shengnan Huang, 2022. "The Influence of Converting Food Crops to Forage Crops Policy Implementation on Herbivorous Livestock Husbandry Development—Based on Policy Pilot Counties in Hebei, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, November.

    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. Xueling Bao & Fengwan Zhang & Shili Guo & Xin Deng & Jiahao Song & Dingde Xu, 2022. "Peer Effects on Farmers’ Purchases of Policy-Based Planting Farming Agricultural Insurance: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    3. Dimant, Eugen, 2015. "On Peer Effects: Behavioral Contagion of (Un)Ethical Behavior and the Role of Social Identity," MPRA Paper 68732, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Liu, Hong & Sun, Qi & Zhao, Zhong, 2014. "Social learning and health insurance enrollment: Evidence from China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 84-102.
    5. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    6. Feng, Yao, 2011. "Local spillovers and learning from neighbors: Evidence from durable adoptions in rural China," MPRA Paper 33924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    8. Yann Bramoullé & Habiba Djebbari & Bernard Fortin, 2020. "Peer Effects in Networks: A Survey," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 603-629, August.
    9. Assar Lindbeck & Mårten Palme & Mats Persson, 2016. "Sickness Absence and Local Benefit Cultures," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 118(1), pages 49-78, January.
    10. Peter Kooreman, 2007. "Time, money, peers, and parents; some data and theories on teenage behavior," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 20(1), pages 9-33, February.
    11. Bardsley, Nicholas & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2005. "Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 664-681, October.
    12. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    13. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    14. Hsieh, Hsu-Sheng, 2020. "Transport policy evaluation based on elasticity analysis with social interactions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 273-296.
    15. Lucks, Konstantin E. & Lührmann, Melanie & Winter, Joachim, 2020. "Assortative matching and social interaction: A field experiment on adolescents’ risky choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 313-340.
    16. Antonia Grohmann & Sahra Sakha, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on Consumption Choices: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1525, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    18. Anastasia Girshina & Thomas Y. Mathä & Michael Ziegelmeyer, 2019. "Peer effects in stock market participation: Evidence from immigration," BCL working papers 137, Central Bank of Luxembourg.
    19. Stephen Gibbons & Shqiponja Telhaj, 2016. "Peer Effects: Evidence from Secondary School Transition in England," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(4), pages 548-575, August.
    20. Srinivasan, Suchita & Carattini, Stefano, 2020. "Adding fuel to fire? Social spillovers in the adoption of LPG in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11922-:d:921313. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.