IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00243023.html

Costly risk verification without commitment in competitive

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Picard

    (CECO - Laboratoire d'économétrie de l'École polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the equilibrium of an insurance market where applicants for insurance have a duty of good faith when they reveal private information about their risk type. Insurers can, at some cost, verify the type of insureds who file a claim and they are allowed to retroactively void the insurance contract if it is established that the policyholder has misrepresented his risk when the contract was taken out. However, insurers cannot precommit to their risk verification strategy. The paper analyzes the relationship between second-best Pareto-optimality and the insurance market equilibrium in a game theoretic framework. It characterizes the contracts offered at equilibrium, the individuals' contract choice as well as the conditions under which an equilibrium exists.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Picard, 2005. "Costly risk verification without commitment in competitive," Working Papers hal-00243023, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00243023
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00243023v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00243023v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crocker, Keith J. & Snow, Arthur, 1985. "The efficiency of competitive equilibria in insurance markets with asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 207-219, March.
    2. A. Dixit & P. Picard, 2002. "On the Role of Good Faith in Insurance Contracting," Thema Working Papers 2002-01, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    3. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium: I. Observable Actions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 191-219, October.
    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. Picard, Pierre, 2009. "Costly risk verification without commitment in competitive insurance markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 893-919, July.
    2. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2020. "The Social Costs of Side Trading," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1608-1622.
    3. Abito, Jose Miguel & Chen, Cuicui, 2023. "A partial identification framework for dynamic games," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2010. "Quality, Upgrades, and Equilibrium in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 10-36, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    5. Robert Akerlof & Hongyi Li & Jonathan Yeo, 2022. "Ruling the Roost: The Vicious Circle and the Emergence of Pecking Order," Discussion Papers 2023-03, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    6. Kifmann, Mathias, 2002. "Community rating in health insurance and different benefit packages," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 719-737, September.
    7. Joao Macieira, 2010. "Oblivious Equilibrium in Dynamic Discrete Games," 2010 Meeting Papers 680, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    8. Jayakumar Subramanian & Amit Sinha & Aditya Mahajan, 2023. "Robustness and Sample Complexity of Model-Based MARL for General-Sum Markov Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 56-88, March.
    9. Federico Gabriele & Aldo Glielmo & Marco Taboga, 2025. "Heterogeneous RBCs via deep multi-agent reinforcement learning," Papers 2510.12272, arXiv.org.
    10. Michael Woodford, 2013. "Macroeconomic Analysis Without the Rational Expectations Hypothesis," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 303-346, May.
    11. Susanne Goldlücke & Sebastian Kranz, 2018. "Discounted stochastic games with voluntary transfers," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(1), pages 235-263, July.
    12. Colombo, Luca & Labrecciosa, Paola & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2025. "A dynamic analysis of criminal networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    13. Tilson, Vera & Zheng, Xiaobo, 2014. "Monopoly production and pricing of finitely durable goods with strategic consumers׳ fluctuating willingness to pay," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 217-232.
    14. Kalandrakis, Anastassios, 2004. "A three-player dynamic majoritarian bargaining game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 294-322, June.
    15. Leonardo Felli & Alessandro Riboni & Luca Anderlini, 2007. "Statute Law or Case Law?," 2007 Meeting Papers 952, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    16. V. Bhaskar & George J. Mailathy & Stephen Morris, 2009. "A Foundation for Markov Equilibria in Infinite Horizon Perfect Information Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000178, David K. Levine.
    17. Daniel McFadden & Carlos Noton & Pau Olivella, "undated". "Remedies for Sick Insurance," Working Papers 620, Barcelona School of Economics.
    18. Wilson, Alistair J. & Wu, Hong, 2017. "At-will relationships: How an option to walk away affects cooperation and efficiency," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 487-507.
    19. Chaim Fershtman & Ariel Pakes, 2000. "A Dynamic Oligopoly with Collusion and Price Wars," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 207-236, Summer.
    20. Federico Bonetto & Maurizio Iacopetta, 2019. "A dynamic analysis of nash equilibria in search models with fiat money," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03403584, HAL.

    More about this item

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-00243023. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.