IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eptddp/16084.html

Demand For Rainfall-Index Based Insurance: A Case Study From Morocco

Author

Listed:
  • McCarthy, Nancy

Abstract

In this paper, we derive estimates for willingness to pay for rainfall-index based insurance contracts. Surveys were undertaken in four regions in Morocco, representing different mean and variability of rainfall conditions. Results indicate that respondents in the high variability regions preferred contracts that paid out more often (had higher rainfall trigger levels), and which were more costly. In fact, a strong majority of respondents indicated they would purchase these contracts at the fair-value price; the estimated median willingness to pay for such contracts was between 12-20 percent above the fair value contract. However, in the lower rainfall variability regions, the cheaper contracts with lower trigger values were the only contracts for which the estimated median willingness to pay was greater than the fair-value of the contract. Finally, estimated coefficients for explanatory variables such as human and physical assets, debt levels, etc. did not have consistent impacts, either across or within regions.

Suggested Citation

  • McCarthy, Nancy, 2003. "Demand For Rainfall-Index Based Insurance: A Case Study From Morocco," EPTD Discussion Papers 16084, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eptddp:16084
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.16084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16084/files/ep030106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.16084?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Sarris, Alexander, 2002. "The demand for commodity insurance by developing country agricultural producers - theory and an application to cocoa in Ghana," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2887, The World Bank.
    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. Nancy McCarthy, 2003. "Demand for rainfall-index based insurance: a case study from Morocco," EPTD discussion papers 106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Michael R. CARTER & Alain de JANVRY & Elisabeth SADOULET & Alexandros SARRIS, 2014. "Index-based weather insurance for developing countries: A review of evidence and a set of propositions for up-scaling," Working Papers P111, FERDI.
    3. Omar Galárraga & Sandra Sosa-Rubí & César Infante & Paul Gertler & Stefano Bertozzi, 2014. "Willingness-to-accept reductions in HIV risks: conditional economic incentives in Mexico," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(1), pages 41-55, January.
    4. Sharon Chang & Renuka Mahadevan, 2018. "To preserve or enhance precious memories: a segmented market analysis of the history museum in Singapore," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(1), pages 75-89, February.
    5. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Veronica Farreras & Jaime de Bobadilla, 2008. "Willingness to pay for a reduction in mortality risk after a myocardial infarction: an application of the contingent valuation method to the case of eplerenone," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 69-78, February.
    8. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
    10. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
    11. Leong, Waiyan & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Embedding multiple heuristics into choice models: An exploratory analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 131-144.
    12. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    13. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    14. Jordan Louviere & Kenneth Train & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Chandra Bhat & David Brownstone & Trudy Cameron & Richard Carson & J. Deshazo & Denzil Fiebig & William Greene & David Hensher & Donald Waldman, 2005. "Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 255-265, December.
    15. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    16. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    17. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    18. Nobuyuki Ito & Kenji Takeuchi & Takahiro Tsuge & Atsuo Kishimoto, 2012. "The Motivation behind Behavioral Thresholds: A Latent Class Approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 1831-1847.
    19. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    20. Irene Mussio & Sylvia Brandt & Michael Hanemann, 2021. "Parental beliefs and willingness to pay for reduction in their child's asthma symptoms: A joint estimation approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 129-143, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:eptddp:16084. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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.