IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/14028.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disasters and Risk Perception: Evidence from Thailand Floods

Author

Listed:
  • NAKATA Hiroyuki
  • SAWADA Yasuyuki
  • SEKIGUCHI Kunio

Abstract

This paper examines if and how past experience affects people's perception towards disasters. In particular, we study if past experience enables people to form a probabilistic belief as opposed to ambiguity or unawareness, i.e., Knightian uncertainty. To answer the question, we use a unique micro data set of firms operating in Thailand, which includes firms that incurred losses during the 2011 Thailand floods as well as those that did not. The empirical evidence indicates that firms with direct loss experience are more likely to form a probabilistic belief compared to those without one. In contrast, subjective probabilities across firms are very diverse regardless of loss experience. This suggests that the level or scale of the prevention measures firms or people would deploy on a voluntary basis would be diverse and that arranging a widely subscribed formal catastrophe insurance scheme targeting a specific catastrophe peril would be very difficult.

Suggested Citation

  • NAKATA Hiroyuki & SAWADA Yasuyuki & SEKIGUCHI Kunio, 2014. "Disasters and Risk Perception: Evidence from Thailand Floods," Discussion papers 14028, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:14028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/14e028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dekel, Eddie & Lipman, Barton L & Rustichini, Aldo, 2001. "Representing Preferences with a Unique Subjective State Space," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 891-934, July.
    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. Adachi, Daisuke & Nakata, Hiroyuki & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Sekiguchi, Kunio, 2023. "Adverse selection and moral hazard in corporate insurance markets: Evidence from the 2011 Thailand floods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 376-386.

    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. Peter J. Hammond, 2016. "Catastrophic Risk, Rare Events, and Black Swans: Could There Be a Countably Additive Synthesis?," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 17-38, Springer.
    2. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    3. Chambers, Christopher P. & Miller, Alan D. & Yenmez, M. Bumin, 2020. "Closure and preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 161-166.
    4. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2014. "A Behavioral Definition of States of the World," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14047, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    5. McClellon, Morgan, 2016. "Confidence models of incomplete preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 30-34.
    6. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman & Aldo Rustichini, 2009. "Temptation-Driven Preferences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 937-971.
    7. , G. & , & ,, 2008. "Non-Bayesian updating: A theoretical framework," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), June.
    8. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    9. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    10. Lefgren, Lars J. & Stoddard, Olga B. & Stovall, John E., 2021. "Rationalizing self-defeating behaviors: Theory and evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Riella, Gil, 2013. "Preference for Flexibility and Dynamic Consistency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2467-2482.
    12. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2018. "Cost-benefit analysis in reasoning," Economics Working Papers 1621, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Huseynov, Samir & Palma, Marco A. & Ahmad, Ghufran, 2021. "Does the magnitude of relative calorie distance affect food consumption?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 530-551.
    14. Eddie eckel & Barton L Lipman & Aldo Rustichini & Todd Sarver, 2005. "Representing Preferences with a Unique Subjective State Space: Corrigendum," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-042, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    15. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Fact-Free Learning," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 8, pages 185-210, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Alexander M. Jakobsen, 2021. "An Axiomatic Model of Persuasion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2081-2116, September.
    17. Domenico Cantone & Alfio Giarlotta & Stephen Watson, 2021. "Choice resolutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 713-753, May.
    18. Kraus, Alan & Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Inter-temporal preference for flexibility and risky choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 698-709, September.
    19. Jawwad Noor, 2011. "Temptation and Revealed Preference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 601-644, March.
    20. Brian Hill, 2009. "Living without state-independence of utilities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 405-432, October.

    More about this item

    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:eti:dpaper:14028. 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: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.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.