Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 160, Issue 3–4, pp 481–499 | Cite as

Kidnap insurance and its impact on kidnapping outcomes

  • Alexander Fink
  • Mark Pingle
Article

Abstract

In the developing world, kidnapping is relatively common, and a market for kidnap insurance has arisen in response. We provide a model that allows us to analyze how kidnap insurance affects the interaction between the kidnapper and the victim’s family when both are self-interested and have complete knowledge. We find that a market for kidnap insurance can be supported because it benefits a risk-averse family, as long as the introduction of insurance does not increase the risk of kidnapping too much. Families should fully insure if purchasing insurance does not increase the probability of kidnapping, and partially insure otherwise. Kidnapping insurance allows families to redeem hostages from kidnappers with a greater willingness to kill, which may reduce the number of kidnapping fatalities as long as the insurance does not increase the risk of kidnapping too much.

Keywords

Kidnapping Insurance Unintended consequences Fatalities from kidnappings 

JEL Classification

G22 C72 K4 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Andreas Hoffmann, Marek Hudik, Benjamin Larin, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the paper. Alexander Fink gratefully acknowledges the support of the International Center for Economic Research (ICER).

References

  1. Apps, P. (2011). Kidnap and ransom: negotiating lives for cash. Reuters. 17 February 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-crime-kidnap-ransom-idUSTRE71G3U520110217. Accessed 10 September 2012.
  2. Atkinson, S. E., Sandler, T., & Tschirhart, J. (1987). Terrorism in a bargaining framework. The Journal of Law & Economics, 30(1), 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auerbach, A. H. (1998). Ransom: the untold story of international kidnapping. New York: Holt. Google Scholar
  4. Bohlen, C. (1998). Italian ban on paying kidnappers stirs anger. The New York Times, 1 February 1998. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/world/italian-ban-on-paying-kidnappers-stirs-anger.html. Accessed 5 July 2013.
  5. Brandt, P. T., & Sandler, T. (2009). Hostage taking: understanding terrorism event dynamics. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31, 758–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briggs, R. (2001). The kidnapping business. London: The Foreign Policy Center. Google Scholar
  7. Briggs, R. (2002). Hostage Inc. Foreign Policy, 131, 28–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bueno de Mesquita, E. (2008). The political economy of terrorism: a selective overview of recent work. Polit. Econ., 10(1), 1–12. Google Scholar
  9. Clendenin, M. (2006–2007). ‘No concessions’ with no teeth: how kidnap and ransom insurers and insureds are undermining U.S. counterterrorism policy. Emory Law Journal, 56(3), 741–775. Google Scholar
  10. Crettez, B., & Deloche, R. (2009). A cliometric analysis of the Aldo Moro kidnapping and assassination. Cliometrica, 3, 123–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Detotto, C., McCannon, B. C., & Vannini, M. (2012). Understanding ransom kidnapping and its duration. Contributi di Recerca Crenos working paper 2012/19. Google Scholar
  12. Elster, J. (2004). Kidnappings in civil wars. In Prepared for the workshop on “techniques of violence”, Oslo, 20–21 August 2004. http://www.seminario2005.unal.edu.co/Trabajos/Elster/Kidnappings%20in%20civil%20wars.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2011. Google Scholar
  13. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2006). The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Flesch, C. F. (1993). Warenerpressungs- und Entführungs-Versicherung. Versicherungswirtschaft, 48(2), 108. Google Scholar
  15. Flesch, C. F. (1998). Wer braucht eine Entführungsversicherung? Versicherungswirtschaft, 53(13), 900. Google Scholar
  16. Flesch, C. F. (2001). Perspektiven der Entführungs- und Erpressungsversicherung. Versicherungswirtschaft, 56(5), 308. Google Scholar
  17. Gailbulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2009). Hostage taking: determinants of terrorist logistical and negotiation success. Journal of Peace Research, 46(6), 739–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. German Federal Insurance Supervisory Office (1998). Guidelines on the provision of ransom insurance. http://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Rundschreiben/rs_9803_provisionguide_en_va.html. Accessed 5 July 2013.
  19. Gumbel, A. (1998). Kidnap makes an ass of Italy’s ransom law. The Independent, 12 February 1998. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/kidnap-makes-an-ass-of-italys-ransom-law-1144285.html. Accessed 5 July 2013.
  20. Hiscox (2012). Specialty. http://www.hiscox.com/Products/specialty.aspx#kidnap. Accessed 22 August 2012.
  21. Kenney, S. (2007–2008). Regional shortcomings and global solutions: kidnap, ransom, and insurance in Latin America. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 14(2), 557–588. Google Scholar
  22. Lapan, H. E., & Sandler, T. (1988). To bargain or not to bargain: that is the question. The American Economic Review, 78(2), 16–21. Google Scholar
  23. Lechner, A. (2007). Cosh and carry. Intersec, July/August, 26–28. Google Scholar
  24. Leeson, P. T., & Nowrasteh, A. (2011). Was privateering plunder efficient? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 79, 303–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Margaret Thatcher Foundation (2013a). 1985 July18 Th Margaret Thatcher House of Commons PQs. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106100. Accessed 21 June 2013.
  26. Margaret Thatcher Foundation (2013b). 1988 Dec 6 Tu Margaret Thatcher HC Stmnt. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107407. Accessed 21 June 2013.
  27. Merkling, S., & Davies, D. (2001). Kidnap & ransom insurance: a rapidly growing benefit. Compensation and Benefit Review, 30, 40–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miroff, N. (2011). As kidnappings for ransom surge in Mexico, victims’ families and employers turn to private U.S. firms instead of law enforcement. The Washington Post, 26 February 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022603384.html. Accessed 26 July 2011.
  29. Mohamed, M. K. N. (2008). Kidnap for ransom in South East Asia: the case for a regional recording standard. Asian Criminology, 3, 61–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moor, M., & Zumpolle, L. (2001). The kidnap industry in Colombia. Our business? Utrecht: Pax Christi. Google Scholar
  31. Moor, M., & Remijnse, S. (2008). Kidnapping is a booming business. Utrecht: IKV PAX Christi. Google Scholar
  32. Ochoa, R. (2009). A look at kidnapping, trust and employer-employee relationships in Mexico City households. Mimeo. Google Scholar
  33. Overseas Security Advisory Council (2011). Colombia 2011 crime and safety report. https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportPDF.aspx?cid=10559. Accessed 26 July 2011.
  34. Phillips, E. (2009). The business of kidnap for ransom. In D. Canter (Ed.), The faces of terrorism: multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 189–207). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar
  35. Pshiva, R., & Suarez, G. (2006). Captive markets: the impact of kidnappings on corporate investment in Colombia. Mimeo. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/FEDS/2006/200618/200618pap.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2011.
  36. Rodriguez, C., & Villa, E. (2012). Kidnap risks and migration: evidence from Colombia. Journal of Population Economics, 25(3), 1139–1164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Santifort, C., & Sandler, T. (2013). Terrorist success in hostage-taking missions: 1978–2010. Public Choice, 156, 125–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott, J. L. (1991). Reputation building in hostage taking incidents. Defence Economics, 2(3), 209–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selten, R. (1977). A simple model of kidnapping. In R. Henn & O. Moeschlin (Eds.), Lecture in economics and mathematical systems. Mathematical economics and game theory (pp. 139–156). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Special Contigency Risks (2010). Annual kidnap review. http://www.humanrisksolutions.com/sites/www.humanrisksolutions.com/files/PDFs/AnnualKidnapReviewSCR2009.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2011.
  41. Varian, H. R. (1978). Microeconomics analysis. New York: Norton. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für WirtschaftspolitikUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations