IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v128y2015i3p519-533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Fair Is Actuarial Fairness?

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Landes

Abstract

Insurance is pervasive in many social settings. As a cooperative device based on risk pooling, it serves to attenuate the adverse consequences of various risks (health, unemployment, natural catastrophes and so forth) by offering policyholders coverage against the losses implied by adverse events in exchange for the payment of premiums. In the insurance industry, the concept of actuarial fairness serves to establish what could be adequate, fair premiums. Accordingly, premiums paid by policyholders should match as closely as possible their risk exposure (i.e. their expected losses). Such premiums are the product of the probabilities of losses and the expected losses. This article presents a discussion of the fairness of actuarial fairness through three steps: (1) defining the concept based on its formulation within the insurance industry; (2) determining in which sense it may be about fairness; and (3) raising some objections to the actual fairness of actuarial fairness. The necessity of a normative evaluation of actuarial fairness is justified by the influence of the concept on the current reforms of public insurance systems and the fact that it highlights the question of the repartition of the gains and burdens of social cooperation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Landes, 2015. "How Fair Is Actuarial Fairness?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 519-533, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:128:y:2015:i:3:p:519-533
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0?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. Michael Hoy & Michael Ruse, 2005. "Regulating Genetic Information in Insurance Markets," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 8(2), pages 211-237, September.
    2. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, 1993. "Is Health Insurance Crippling the Labor Market?," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_97, Levy Economics Institute.
    3. Turo-Kimmo Lehtonen & Jyri Liukko, 2011. "The Forms and Limits of Insurance Solidarity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 33-44, April.
    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. Meike Will & Jürgen Groeneveld & Karin Frank & Birgit Müller, 2021. "Informal risk-sharing between smallholders may be threatened by formal insurance: Lessons from a stylized agent-based model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Alexander Nill & Gene Laczniak & Paul Thistle, 2019. "The Use of Genetic Testing Information in the Insurance Industry: An Ethical and Societal Analysis of Public Policy Options," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 105-121, April.
    3. Sylvestre Frezal & Laurence Barry, 2020. "Fairness in Uncertainty: Some Limits and Misinterpretations of Actuarial Fairness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 127-136, November.
    4. Angela Zeier Röschmann & Matthias Erny & Joël Wagner, 2022. "On the (future) role of on-demand insurance: market landscape, business model and customer perception," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 47(3), pages 603-642, July.
    5. Antonio José Heras Martínez & David Teira & Pierre-Charles Pradier, 2016. "What was fair in acturial fairness?," Post-Print halshs-01400213, HAL.

    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. Paul O'Hare & Iain White & Angela Connelly, 2016. "Insurance as maladaptation: Resilience and the ‘business as usual’ paradox," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1175-1193, September.
    2. Antonio José Heras Martínez & David Teira & Pierre-Charles Pradier, 2016. "What was fair in acturial fairness?," Post-Print halshs-01400213, HAL.
    3. Amegashie, J. Atsu, 2008. "Socially-Tolerable Discrimination," MPRA Paper 8543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Van der Aa, Maartje J. & Paulus, Aggie T.G. & Klosse, Saskia & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Maarse, Johannes A. M., 2019. "The impact of reforms of national health insurance on solidarity in the Netherlands: comparing health care insurance and long-term care insurance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106225, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. M. Martin Boyer & Franca Glenzer, 2021. "Pensions, annuities, and long-term care insurance: on the impact of risk screening," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(2), pages 133-174, September.
    6. Francesca Barigozzi & Dominique Henriet, 2011. "Genetic Information: Comparing Alternative Regulatory Approaches When Prevention Matters," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(1), pages 23-46, February.
    7. Filipova-Neumann, Lilia & Hoy, Michael, 2014. "Managing genetic tests, surveillance, and preventive medicine under a public health insurance system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 31-41.
    8. Adams, Mike & Baker, Paul L., 2021. "Does boardroom nationality affect the performance of UK insurers?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    9. Chloe H. Lucas & Kate I. Booth, 2020. "Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    10. Francesca Barigozzi & Dominique Henriet, 2006. "Endogenous Information and Self-Insurance in Insurance Markets : a Welfare Analysis," Working Papers halshs-00411337, HAL.
    11. Karlsson Linnér, Richard & Koellinger, Philipp D., 2022. "Genetic risk scores in life insurance underwriting," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    12. David Crainich, 2017. "Self-Insurance With Genetic Testing Tools," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(1), pages 73-94, March.
    13. Laurence Barry & Arthur Charpentier, 2022. "The Fairness of Machine Learning in Insurance: New Rags for an Old Man?," Papers 2205.08112, arXiv.org.
    14. Collier, Stephen J. & Elliott, Rebecca & Lehtonen, Turo-kimmo, 2021. "Climate change and insurance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110452, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Biener, Christian & Eling, Martin & Lehmann, Martin, 2020. "Balancing the desire for privacy against the desire to hedge risk," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 608-620.
    16. Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
    17. Amegashie, A., 2008. "Socially-Tolerable Discrimination," Working Papers 0806, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    18. Michael Hoy & Michael Ruse, 2008. "“No Solution to This Dilemma Exists”: Discrimination, Insurance, and the Human Genome Project," Working Papers 0808, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    19. Sylvestre Frezal & Laurence Barry, 2020. "Fairness in Uncertainty: Some Limits and Misinterpretations of Actuarial Fairness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 127-136, November.
    20. Arthur Charpentier & Laurence Barry & Molly R. James, 2022. "Insurance against natural catastrophes: balancing actuarial fairness and social solidarity," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 47(1), pages 50-78, January.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:128:y:2015:i:3:p:519-533. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.