IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crs/wpaper/2017-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Compulsory insurance and voluntary self-insurance: substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • François Pannequin

    (CREST; Ecole Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay)

  • Anne Corcos

    (CURAPP; Université de Picardie Jules Verne,)

Abstract

Based on Ehrlich and Becker’s model (1972) on insurance and self-insurance substitutability, we study the effects of a compulsory partial insurance on self-insurance decisions of both risk-averters and (mixed) risk-lovers. We show that when insurance is compulsory, risk-averters adjust (by substituting) their self-insurance behavior to compensate for the level (too high or too low) of the compulsory coverage level. By contrast, even though they would refuse to invest in any voluntarily hedging scheme, (mixed) risk-lovers freely invest in self-insurance to complete a compulsory partial insurance coverage. Moreover, we prove that for a (mixed) risk-lover, an increase in the partial compulsory insurance coverage induces simultaneously a rise of the self-insurance marginal benefit and a decrease of its marginal cost. Therefore, while compulsory insurance and self-insurance are substitutes for risk-averters, they are complements for (mixed) risk-lovers. This last result brings an unexpected justification for compulsory insurance policies.

Suggested Citation

  • François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2017. "Compulsory insurance and voluntary self-insurance: substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-78, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    • Handle: RePEc:crs:wpaper:2017-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://crest.science/RePEc/wpstorage/2017-78.pdf
    File Function: CREST working paper version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    2. Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Charles N. Noussair & Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2014. "Higher Order Risk Attitudes, Demographics, and Financial Decisions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 325-355.
    4. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    5. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Even (Mixed) Risk Lovers Are Prudent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1529-1535, June.
    6. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
    7. 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..
    8. Jindapon, Paan, 2013. "Do risk lovers invest in self-protection?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 290-293.
    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. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Claude Montmarquette, 2017. "Leaving the market or reducing the coverage? A model-based experimental analysis of the demand for insurance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 836-859, December.
    11. 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)

    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. François Pannequin & Anne Corcos, 2020. "Are compulsory insurance and self-insurance substitutes or complements? A matter of risk attitudes," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(1), pages 24-35, March.
    2. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    3. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    4. Wang, Hongxia & Wang, Jianli & Li, Jingyuan & Xia, Xinping, 2015. "Precautionary paying for stochastic improvements under background risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 180-185.
    5. Heinzel Christoph & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers SMART 21-09, INRAE UMR SMART.
    6. Eeckhoudt, Louis R. & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Schlesinger, Harris, 2020. "Risk apportionment: The dual story," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2014. "Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 231-252, June.
    8. Han (H.) Bleichrodt & Paul van Bruggen, 2018. "Reflection for higher order risk preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-079/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Pannequin, François & Corcos, Anne & Montmarquette, Claude, 2020. "Are insurance and self-insurance substitutes? An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 797-811.
    10. Bi, Hongwei & Zhu, Wei, 2022. "Nonmonotonic risk preferences over lottery comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1458-1468.
    11. Paan Jindapon & Christopher Whaley, 2015. "Risk lovers and the rent over-investment puzzle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 87-101, July.
    12. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    13. Christoph Heinzel & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments [Motifs de précaution en cas de multiples instruments]," Working Papers hal-03484875, HAL.
    14. Heinzel, Christoph & Peter, Richard, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers 316521, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    15. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," CESifo Working Paper Series 7202, CESifo.
      • Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," NBER Working Papers 24931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Mayrhofer, Thomas & Krieger, Miriam, 2012. "Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk: An Economic Laboratory Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62033, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Schneider, Sebastian O. & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Higher Order Risk Preferences: Experimental Measures, Determinants and Related Field Behavior," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224643, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    19. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    20. Donatella Baiardi & Marco Magnani & Mario Menegatti, 2020. "The theory of precautionary saving: an overview of recent developments," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 513-542, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    self-insurance; compulsory insurance; risk attitudes; risk-lovers;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:crs:wpaper:2017-78. 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: Secretariat General (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crestfr.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.