Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 73–86 | Cite as

Adverse selection, moral hazard and propitious selection

  • Philippe De DonderEmail author
  • Jean Hindriks


We propose a simple model with preference-based adverse selection and moral hazard that formalizes the cherry picking/propitious selection argument. This argument assumes that individuals differ in risk aversion, potentially resulting in more risk averse agents buying more insurance while being less risky. The propitious selection argument is summarized by two properties: regularity (more risk averse agents exert more caution) and single-crossing (more risk averse agents have a higher willingness to pay for insurance). We show that these assumptions are incompatible with a pooling equilibrium, and that they do not imply a negative correlation between risk and insurance coverage at equilibrium.


Cherry picking Propitious selection Advantageous selection Precaution choice Social insurance 

JEL Classifications

D82 G22 


  1. Cawley, J., & Philipson, T. (1999). An empirical examination of information barriers to trade in insurance. American Economic Review, 89, 827–846.Google Scholar
  2. Chiappori, P.-A., Jullien, B., Salanié, F., & Salanié, B. (2006). Asymmetric information in insurance: General testable implications. Rand Journal of Economics, 37(4), 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiappori, P.-A., & Salanié, B. (2000). Testing for asymmetric information in insurance markets. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clyde, A. T., Hemenway, D., & Nagurney, J. T. (1996). Seat belt use, insurance status, and hospital bad debt. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, 41(1), 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutler, D. M., Finkelstein, A., & McGarry, K. M. (2008). Preference heterogeneity and insurance markets: Explaining a puzzle of insurance. NBER Working Paper 13746.Google Scholar
  6. De Donder, P., & Hindriks, J. (2003). The politics of redistributive social insurance. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2639–2660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Feo, G., & Hindriks, J. (2005). Efficiency of competition in insurance markets with adverse selection. Discussion Paper 2005-42, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  8. de Meza, D., & Webb, D. C. (2001). Advantageous selection in insurance markets. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(2), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eeckhoudt, L., & Gollier, C. (2005). The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Economic Theory, 26(4), 989–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finkelstein, A., & McGarry, K. M. (2003). Private information and its effect on market equilibrium: New evidence from long-term care insurance. NBER Working Paper 9957.Google Scholar
  11. Hemenway, D. (1990). Propitious selection. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 1063–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemenway, D. (1992). Propitious selection in insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jullien, B., Salanié, B., & Salanié, F. (1999). Should more risk averse agents exert more effort? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 24, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jullien, B., Salanié, B., & Salanié, F. (2007). Screening risk averse agents under moral hazard: Single-crossing and the CARA case. Economic Theory, 30(1), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lloyd, L. E., Lauderdale, M., & Betz, T. G. (1987). Motorcycle deaths and injuries in Texas: Helmets make a difference. Texas Medicine, 83, 30–33.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, D. E., Peterson, T. D., Chorba, T. L., Devine, O. J., & Sacks, J. J. (1993). Costs savings associated with increased safety belt use in Iowa, 1987–1988. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25(5), 521–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saito, K. (2006). Testing for asymmetric information in the automobile insurance market under rate regulation. Journal of Risk & Insurance, 73(2), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Villeneuve, B. (2000). The consequences for a monopolistic insurer of evaluating risk better than customers: The adverse selection hypothesis reversed. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 25, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Viscusi, W. K., & Hakes, J. J. (2008). Risk beliefs and smoking behavior. Economic Enquiry, 46(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse School of Economics (GREMAQ-CNRS & IDEI)ToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of Economics and COREUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations