IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v167y2020i1d10.1007_s10551-019-04171-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness in Uncertainty: Some Limits and Misinterpretations of Actuarial Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvestre Frezal

    (Covéa)

  • Laurence Barry

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Chaire PARI
    Datastorm)

Abstract

The recent proliferation of new data and technologies enables increasingly finer personalization of products and prices in every domain. In insurance, this revives and enlarges old debates around fairness that have never been completely settled. We will argue that the commonly accepted “actuarial fairness” as based on the “individual cost of risk” derives in fact from a conflation: while it indicates the average cost for a group of insureds from the perspective of an insurance company—and is therefore sound from a business profitability viewpoint—it is arguable whether it represents the “fair price” for the individual insured. We first show in a historical perspective the intertwinement of conceptions of fairness with knowledge, in order to point to the alternative to actuarial fairness for insurance. We then describe the intrinsic difference between the insured and the insurer (or portfolio manager) when underwriting an insurance contract. Finally, we build on this distinction to discuss the meaning of fairness in insurance prices. We thus hope to re-center the debate around insurance fairness on its underlying solidarity mechanisms rather than technical and actuarial considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:167:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04171-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04171-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-019-04171-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-019-04171-2?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. de Wit, G. W. & van Eeghen, J., 1984. "Rate Making and Society's Sense of Fairness," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 151-163, October.
    2. Xavier Landes, 2015. "How Fair Is Actuarial Fairness?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 519-533, May.
    3. Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2014. "The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 167-188, October.
    4. Amy Finkelstein & James Poterba, 2004. "Adverse Selection in Insurance Markets: Policyholder Evidence from the U.K. Annuity Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 183-208, February.
    5. R Guy Thomas, 2007. "Some Novel Perspectives on Risk Classification," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 32(1), pages 105-132, January.
    6. Tom Baker, "undated". "Risk, Insurance, and (the Social Construction of) Responsibility," University of Connecticut School of Law Working Papers uconn_ucwps-1007, University of Connecticut School of Law.
    7. Antonio José Heras Martínez & David Teira & Pierre-Charles Pradier, 2016. "What was fair in acturial fairness?," Post-Print halshs-01400213, HAL.
    8. Georges Dionne & Casey Rothschild, 2014. "Economic Effects of Risk Classification Bans," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 39(2), pages 184-221, September.
    9. 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..
    10. Feldman, Roger & Dowd, Bryan, 2000. "Risk segmentation: goal or problem?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 499-512, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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..
    13. Tom Baker, "undated". "Insurance and the Law," University of Connecticut School of Law Working Papers uconn_ucwps-1004, University of Connecticut School of Law.
    14. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    15. Lemaire, Jean, 1984. "The Influence of Expense Loadings on the Fairness of a Tariff," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 165-171, October.
    16. Nicholas Barberis, 2013. "The Psychology of Tail Events: Progress and Challenges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 611-616, May.
    17. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    18. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    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. Senara Eggleton & Özlem Gürses, 2023. "Reinsuring pandemics: the role of government and public–private partnerships between reinsurers and governments," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 48(3), pages 552-576, July.

    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. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    2. Dacey, Raymond & Gallant, Kenneth S., 1997. "Crime control and harassment of the innocent," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 325-334.
    3. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    4. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "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 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    5. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    6. Georges Dionne & Casey Rothschild, 2014. "Economic Effects of Risk Classification Bans," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 39(2), pages 184-221, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Samuel Shye & Ido Haber, 2019. "Risk as Challenge: A Dual System Stochastic Model for Binary Choice Behavior," Papers 1910.04487, arXiv.org.
    9. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    10. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    11. Leland, Jonathan W, 1994. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 151-172, October.
    12. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    13. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    14. Webb, Craig S. & Zank, Horst, 2011. "Accounting for optimism and pessimism in expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 706-717.
    15. Loehman, Edna, 1998. "Testing risk aversion and nonexpected utility theories," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 285-302, January.
    16. Tapiero, Charles, 2003. "Risk Management: An Interdisciplinary Framework," ESSEC Working Papers DR 03014, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    18. Plisson, Manuel, 2009. "Assurabilité et développement de l'assurance dépendance," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/5064 edited by Lorenzi, Jean-Hervé.
    19. Nathaniel Hendren, 2017. "Knowledge of Future Job Loss and Implications for Unemployment Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(7), pages 1778-1823, July.
    20. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, 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:167:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04171-2. 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.