Skip to main content

An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand

Abstract

This paper examines the problem of “charity hazard,” which is the crowding out of private insurance demand by government compensation. In the context of flood insurance and disaster financing, charity hazard is particularly worrisome given current trends of increasing flood risks as a result of climate change and more people choosing to locate in high-risk areas. We conduct an experimental analysis of the influence on flood insurance demand of risk and ambiguity preferences and the availability of different forms of government compensation for disaster damage. Certain and risky government compensation crowd out demand, confirming charity hazard, but this is not observed for ambiguous compensation. Ambiguity averse subjects have higher insurance demand when government compensation is ambiguous relative to risky. Policy recommendations are discussed to overcome charity hazard.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. These data are available on the FEMA website.

  2. Acronym in Dutch.

  3. See also Deryugina and Kirwan (2018).

  4. Their examination of the charity hazard was conducted within-subjects, so contrast effects cannot be ruled out (Greenwald, 1976).

  5. The Klibanoff et al. (2005) smooth model has also been applied in various empirical and theoretical papers in this journal, such as Bajtelsmit et al. (2015), Snow (2011), Conte and Hey (2013) and Qiu and Weitzel (2016).

  6. For simplicity, the extent of relief, \(\theta\), is assumed to be objectively known to the individual, as it is in our experiment.

  7. In our experiment, we examine attitude towards ambiguity due to the existence of multiple non-excludable priors.

  8. See Chakravarty and Roy (2009, pp. 215–216) for a discussion of this assumption. More specifically, the assumption has the potential to confound ambiguity preference parameters. Indeed, values of \(\sigma\) may be impacted by factors like fear and hope (Viscusi & Chesson, 1999). We acknowledge, as do Chakravarty and Roy (2009), that the assumption is a limitation of our study.

  9. It was a design choice to elicit risk and ambiguity attitudes first, then insurance choices. One could argue that subjects have some subconscious motivation to restate their risk and ambiguity preferences in their insurance decisions for some desire to be consistent. We could have studied order effects, although Harrison and Ng (2016) mention that it is likely to be empirically unimportant whether insurance choices or preferences are elicited first. Moreover, we randomly select one decision from either phase one or phase two to be paid, so it was in subjects’ best interest to treat all decisions independently as the only one that they were facing (Papon, 2008). We acknowledge that there are also possible disadvantages of only paying one choice (see e.g., Cubitt et al., 1998).

  10. The rationale for this earnings task was to eliminate the potential for a “house money effect”, where subjects are more risk taking when endowed with a prior monetary gain (Thaler & Johnson, 1990).

  11. For an earlier risk preference elicitation where probabilities are held constant see also Wakker and Deneffe (1996).

  12. The prospects are written: (probability: monetary outcome in currency units, probability: monetary outcome in currency units).

  13. 60,000 CU was endowed to all subjects since every subject answered eight or more questions correctly.

  14. More subjects were randomly assigned to the baseline condition to increase statistical power, given that subjects in this condition faced half as many insurance decisions as in the other versions of the experiment. Subjects were 1.5 times more likely to face the baseline condition than either of the other versions. Otherwise, there was an equal chance subjects would face the other government compensation versions according to the random assignment.

  15. We acknowledge that there are potential confounding variables, given our flood risk context. We do not claim our results are transferrable to other contexts.

  16. In a recruitment flyer individuals were told that in addition to the participation fee, they have ~ 25% chance of earning up to €60 based on their decisions, and a small chance of earning up to €600 based on the one randomly selected subject. In addition to the €15 participation fee, the green card subject earned €599.70. On average the orange card subjects earned €53.73 (min: €0, max: €60).

  17. If subjects were risk neutral, i.e., indifferent between the risky prospects with the same expected value in the risk preference tasks, we flipped a coin to decide which option would decide payment (in the case that the decision line was selected for payment).

  18. This finding is comparable to ours because in our experiment there is one expected loss, which may remove subjects’ entire endowment when flooding probability = 0.001.

  19. It can also be assumed that unobserved subject-specific effects are uncorrelated with government compensation versions, because the versions were randomly assigned across subjects. Our qualitative results are robust to pooled Probit and pooled OLS estimates with clustered standard errors by subject.

  20. As suggested by a reviewer, we investigated in OLS regressions the correlation between risk aversion and ambiguity aversion and the control variables, gender, age, being Dutch, flood risk perceptions and perceptions about government compensation. A Probit model is used when the outcome variable is the stated risk aversion dummy. Males and Dutch subjects are more risk seeking according to risk preferences elicited in the gain domain and regarding the stated risk aversion dummy variable (p-values < 0.05). This gender effect is in line with a large literature base on the impact of gender on risk preferences (Croson & Gneezy, 2009). Moreover, risk preferences can change depending on country-specific variables like cultural factors (Rieger et al., 2015).

  21. We examined different specifications of models 1 to 12, with interaction terms between the order variable and the risk and ambiguity aversion variables, as well as the control variables, gender, age, being Dutch, flood risk perceptions and perceptions about government compensation. The interaction terms are included separately across all specifications to avoid concerns of multi-collinearity that may occur if one were to include all of these terms in the same model. The coefficients on all of these interacting terms are insignificant (p-values > 0.05), which suggests that any learning effects in our experiment are driven by unobserved factors. As an aside, our results are robust to dropping the flood risk and government compensation perceptions variables, which may be perceived as bad controls as they were elicited after the experiment.

  22. The smooth model is commonly used in theoretical examinations of insurance demand under ambiguity or uncertainty of the loss probability (e.g., Alary et al., 2013; Bajtelsmit et al., 2015; Berger, 2016; Brunette et al., 2013; Snow, 2011). Ambiguity aversion increases insurance demand when the probability of loss is more ambiguous according to these studies.

  23. This is true for any insurance coverage level \(\alpha \in (\mathrm{0,1}\)). We consider full insurance is a pure simplification.

  24. An increase in the loading factor (\(\lambda\)) increases the insurance premium of full insurance (\(P(1)\)) and hence reduces the utility of buying full insurance (\(U\left[W-P\left(1\right)\right]\)).

  25. Mossin (1968) and Smith (1968) showed that risk averse \(EU\) maximizers should demand full insurance when \(\lambda =1\), although partial coverage is optimal when \(\lambda >1\). However, in our experiment we observe only full insurance and zero insurance.

  26. An increase in government compensation (\(\theta\)) leads to an increase in final wealth in the loss state (\(W-\left(1-\theta \right)L\)), and the corresponding \(EU\) without insurance.

  27. In our experiment we consider Eq. 16 evaluated at \(\pi =0.5\) and \(\theta =1\) (risky full government compensation), as well as Eq. 16 evaluated at \(\pi =1\) and \(\theta =0.5\) (certain half government compensation).

  28. This holds so long as \(U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]>{\pi }_{2}U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\right]+\left(1-{\pi }_{2}\right)U\left[W-L\right]\), which always holds in our experiment under risk aversion where we compare \({\pi }_{1}=1\) and \({\theta }_{1}=0.5\) to \({\pi }_{2}=0.5\) and \({\theta }_{2}=1\).

  29. Note that this also holds under the more general condition: \(\sigma =\pi\).

References

  • Alary, D., Gollier, C., & Treich, N. (2013). The effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and self-protection. The Economic Journal, 123(573), 1188–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andor, M. A., Osberghaus, D., & Simora, M. (2020). Natural disasters and governmental aid: Is there a charity hazard? Ecological Economics, 169.

  • Aseervatham, V., Jaspersen, J. G., & Richter, A. (2015). The affection effect in an incentive compatible insurance demand experiment. Economics Letters, 131, 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attanasi, G., Gollier, C., Montesano, A., & Pace, N. (2014). Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A smooth ambiguity model experimental study. Theory and Decision, 77(4), 485–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajtelsmit, V., Coats, J. C., & Thistle, P. (2015). The effect of ambiguity on risk management choices: An experimental study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50(3), 249–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, L. (2016). The impact of ambiguity and prudence on prevention decisions. Theory and Decision, 80(3), 389–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzen, W. W., Kunreuther, H., & Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2019). Protecting against disaster risks: Why insurance and prevention may be complements. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 59(2), 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzen, W. W., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2008). Insurance against climate change and flooding in the Netherlands: Present future and comparison with other countries. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzen, W. W., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2012). Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(1), 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. J., & Hoyt, R. E. (2000). The demand for flood insurance: Empirical evidence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(3), 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., Couture, S., & Stenger, A. (2013). The impact of governmental assistance on insurance demand under ambiguity: A theoretical model and an experimental test. Theory and Decision, 75(2), 153–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The Samaritan’s dilemma. In E.S. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism Morality and Economic Theory. New York, USA: Russel Sage Foundation.

  • Camerer, C. F., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(4), 565–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

  • Chakravarty, S., & Roy, J. (2009). Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 66(3), 199–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Halladay, B. (2016). Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 131, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, C., Reager, J. T., & Small, E. (2018). CYGNSS data map flood inundation during the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Nature, 8, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coate, S. (1995). Altruism the Samaritan’s dilemma and government transfer policy. The American Economic Review, 85(1), 46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, A., & Hey, J. D. (2013). Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(2), 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2).

  • Csermely, T., & Rabas, A. (2016). How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(2–3), 107–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dari-Mattiacci, G., & Faure, M. G. (2015). The economics of disaster relief. Law & Policy, 37(3), 180–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., & Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41(3), 219–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Moel, H., van Vliet, M., & Aerts, J. C. (2014). Evaluating the effect of flood damage-reducing measures: A case study of the unembanked area of Rotterdam the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(3), 895–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deryugina, T., & Kirwan, B. (2018). Does the samaritan’s dilemma matter? Evidence from US Agriculture. Economic Inquiry, 56(2), 983–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, L., Clancy, N., Seabury, S. A., & Overton, A. (2006). The National Flood Insurance Program’s market penetration rate: Estimates and policy implications. RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drichoutis, A. C., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(2–3), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermolieva, T., Filatova, T., Ermoliev, Y., Obersteiner, M., de Bruijn, K. M., & Jeuken, A. (2017). Flood catastrophe model for designing optimal flood insurance program: Estimating location-specific premiums in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 37(1), 82–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004). Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etchart-Vincent, N. (2009). Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, T. A., & Sobel, R. S. (2003). The political economy of FEMA disaster payments. Economic Inquiry, 41(3), 496–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gsottbauer, E., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2011). Environmental policy theory given bounded rationality and other-regarding preferences. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(2), 263–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., & Ng, J. M. (2016). Evaluating the expected welfare gain from insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 91–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J. C., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1980). Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: An expected utility analysis. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47(1), 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge University Press.

  • Jaspersen, J. G. (2016). Hypothetical surveys and experimental studies of insurance demand: A review. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 217–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M., & Kleffner, A. E. (2003). Optimal loss mitigation and contract design. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 70(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousky, C. (2018). Financing flood losses: A discussion of the National Flood Insurance Program. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 21(1), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousky, C., Michel-Kerjan, E. O., & Raschky, P. A. (2018). Does federal disaster assistance crowd out flood insurance.? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 87, 150–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., & Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2015). Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51(2), 171–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., & Pauly, M. (2004). Neglecting disaster: Why don’t people insure against large losses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., & Pauly, M. (2018). Dynamic insurance decision-making for rare events: The role of emotions. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 43(2), 335–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusev, P., van Schaik, P., Ayton, P., Dent, J., & Chater, N. (2009). Exaggerated risk: Prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(6).

  • Landry, C. E., Petrolia, D. R., & Turner, D. (2019). Flood insurance market penetration and expectations of disaster assistance. Environmental and Resource Economics, 79(2), 357–386. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3371980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laury, S. K., McInnes, M. M., & Swarthout, J. T. (2009). Insurance decisions for low-probability losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 17–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R., & Kunreuther, H. (2017). The ostrich paradox: Why we underprepare for disasters. Wharton Digital Press.

  • Miller, S., Muir-Wood, R., & Boissonnade, A. (2008). An exploration of trends in normalized weather-related catastrophe losses. In H. F. Diaz, & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Climate Extremes and Society. Cambridge University Press.

  • Mol, J. M., Botzen, W. W., & Blasch, J. E. (2020a). Behavioral motivations for self-insurance under different disaster risk insurance schemes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 180, 967–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, J .M., Botzen, W. W., & Blasch, J. E. (2020). Risk reduction in compulsory disaster insurance: Experimental evidence on moral hazard and financial incentives. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 84.

  • Mossin, J. (1968). Aspects of rational insurance purchasing. Journal of Political Economy, 76(4), 553–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papon, T. (2008). The effect of pre-commitment and past-experience on insurance choices: An experimental study. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 33(1), 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paudel, Y., Aerts, J. C., & Botzen, W. W. (2012). A comparative study of public—private catastrophe insurance systems: Lessons from current practices. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 37(2), 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrolia, D. R., Landry, C. E., & Coble, K. H. (2013). Risk preferences risk perceptions and flood insurance. Land Economics, 89(2), 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porrini, D., & Schwarze, R. (2014). Insurance models and European climate change policies: An assessment. European Journal of Law and Economics, 38(1), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, J., & Weitzel, U. (2016). Experimental evidence on valuation with multiple priors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(1), 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raschky, P. A., Schwarze, R., Schwindt, M., & Zahn, F. (2013). Uncertainty of governmental relief and the crowding out of flood insurance. Environmental and Resource Economics, 54(2), 179–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raschky, P. A., & Weck-Hannemann, H. (2007). Charity hazard—A real hazard to natural disaster insurance? Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 321–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 171–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2015). Risk preferences around the world. Management Science, 61(3), 637–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. J., & Botzen, W. W. (2018). The impact of regret and worry on the threshold level of concern for flood insurance demand: Evidence from Dutch homeowners. Judgment & Decision Making, 13(3), 237–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. J., & Botzen, W. W. (2019). Economic experiments, hypothetical surveys and market data studies of insurance demand against low‐probability/high‐impact risks: A systematic review of designs, theoretical insights and determinants of demand. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(5).

  • Sauter, P. A., Möllmann, T. B., Anastassiadis, F., Mußhoff, O., & Möhring, B. (2016). To insure or not to insure? Analysis of foresters’ willingness-to-pay for fire and storm insurance. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J., & Kunreuther, H. (1979). An experimental study of insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46, 603–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarcz, D. (2010). Insurance demand anomalies and regulation. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(3), 557–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, R., Schwindt, M., Weck-Hannemann, H., Raschky, P. A., Zahn, F., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Natural hazard insurance in Europe: Tailored responses to climate change are needed. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, I., Botzen, W. W., Kreibich, H., & Aerts, J. C. (2013). Influence of flood risk characteristics on flood insurance demand: A comparison between Germany and the Netherlands. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(7), 1691–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Corrigan, B., & Combs, B. (1977). Preference for insuring against probable small losses: Insurance implications. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44(2), 237–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1968). Optimal insurance coverage. Journal of Political Economy, 76(1), 68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. (2011). Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(1), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surminski, S., Aerts, J. C., Botzen, W. W., Hudson, P., Mysiak, J., & Pérez-Blanco, C. D. (2015). Reflections on the current debate on how to link flood insurance and disaster risk reduction in the European Union. Natural Hazards, 79(3), 1451–1479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surminski, S., & Thieken, A. H. (2017). Promoting flood risk reduction: The role of insurance in Germany and England. Earth’s Future, 5(10), 979–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suykens, C., Priest, S. J., van Doorn-Hoekveld, W. J., Thuillier, T., & van Rijswick, M. (2016). Dealing with flood damages: Will prevention mitigation and ex post compensation provide for a resilient triangle? Ecology and Society, 21(4).

  • Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thieken, A. H., Petrow, T., Kreibich, H., & Merz, B. (2006). Insurability and mitigation of flood losses in private households in Germany. Risk Analysis, 26(2), 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015). Ambiguity attitudes. Forthcoming. In G. Keren, & G. Wu (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Vari, A., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Ferencz, Z. (2003). Stakeholder views on flood risk management in Hungary’s upper tisza basin. Risk Analysis, 23(3), 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., & Chesson, H. (1999). Hopes and fears: The conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 47(2), 157–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2006). National survey evidence on disasters and relief: Risk beliefs, self-interest, and compassion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33(1–2), 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.

  • Wakker, P. P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42(8), 1131–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. T. (2008). Replacing incomplete markets with a complete mess: Katrina and the NFIP. International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 561–568.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Vidi grant number 45214005. The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam for helping with the implementation pre-tests. Peter Wakker provided useful suggestions for developing the theoretical framework. We appreciate the comments of Mark Andor on the experiment design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter John Robinson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 3821 KB)

Appendices

Appendix 1 Derivation of the hypotheses

Without government compensation the individual will choose a level of \(\alpha\) to maximize his/her Expected Utility (\(EU\)):

$$EU=pU\left[W-P\left(\alpha \right)-\left(L-V\left(\alpha \right)\right)\right]+\left(1-p\right)U[W-P\left(\alpha \right)]$$
(5)

Assuming the individual anticipates the government will provide compensation, \(\theta\) (\(0<\theta <1)\), to pay for a proportion of the uninsured damage, Eq. 5 is modified to:

$$EU=pU\left[W-P\left(\alpha \right)-\left(1-\theta \right)\left(L-V\left(\alpha \right)\right)\right]+\left(1-p\right)U[W-P\left(\alpha \right)]$$
(6)

If the individual decides not to purchase insurance, her/his \({EU}_{NI}\) (\(EU\) with no insurance) is:

$${EU}_{NI}=pU\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right)L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U[W]$$
(7)

We denote willingness-to-pay for full insurance (\(\alpha =1\)) as \(WTP\), defined by:

$${EU}_{NI}=U[W-WTP]$$
(8)

Under linear \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk neutrality), \({EU}_{NI}\) is equal to the utility of the expected value:

$$U[W-WT{P}_{RN}]={EU}_{NI}=U[p[W-\left(1-\theta \right)L]+\left(1-p\right)[W]]$$
(9)

Under concave \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk aversion), \({EU}_{NI}\) is less than the utility of the expected value:

$$U[W-WT{P}_{RA}]={EU}_{NI}<U[p[W-\left(1-\theta \right)L]+\left(1-p\right)[W]]=U[W-WT{P}_{RN}]$$
(10)

Under convex \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk seeking), \({EU}_{NI}\) is greater than the utility of the expected value:

$$U[W-WT{P}_{RS}]=E{U}_{NI}>U[p[W-\left(1-\theta \right)L]+\left(1-p\right)[W]]=U[W-WT{P}_{RN}]$$
(11)

Assuming \(p\), \(\theta\), \(\alpha\) and \(\lambda\) remain constant across levels of risk aversion, we can infer from Eqs. 9, 10, and 11 that \(U\left[W-WT{P}_{RA}\right]<U\left[W-WT{P}_{RN}\right]<U[W-WT{P}_{RS}]\), hence \(WT{P}_{RS}<WT{P}_{RN}<WT{P}_{RA}\). That is, willingness-to-pay for full insurance increases with the degree of risk aversion.Footnote 23

H1: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is positively related to the degree of risk aversion.

We assume that the individual will purchase full insurance if her/his \(EU\) with full insurance is greater than \(EU\) without insurance, therefore \(WTP>P\left(1\right)\):

$${EU}_{NI}=U[W-WTP]<U\left[W-P\left(1\right)\right]$$
(12)

More insurance premium loading reduces \(EU\) with full insurance because \(P(1)=Lp\lambda\) is increasing in \(\lambda\).Footnote 24 Consequently, the gap between \(EU\) with full insurance and \(EU\) without insurance becomes smaller. There is a critical value of \(\lambda\) where \(EU\) without insurance becomes greater than the \(EU\) with full insurance, and so the individual chooses not to insure, i.e., \(WTP<P\left(1\right)\).

H2: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is negatively related to the loading factor.Footnote 25

Consider two risks of loss, \({R}_{1}({p}_{1},{L}_{1})\) and \({R}_{2}({p}_{2},{L}_{2})\), i.e., a loss \({L}_{1}\) (\({L}_{2}\)) occurs with probability \({p}_{1}\) (\({p}_{2}\)). The two risks have the same expected value, but \({L}_{2}>{L}_{1}\) and \({p}_{2}<{p}_{1}\). That is, \({R}_{1}\) and \({R}_{2}\) have equal mean but \({R}_{2}\) has higher variance than \({R}_{1}\). Under concave \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk aversion), without insurance \(EU\) across the two scenarios are given by:

$${EU}_{NI}^{1}={p}_{1}U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{1}\right]+\left(1-{p}_{1}\right)U\left[W\right]=U\left(W-WT{P}_{RA}^{1}\right)$$
(13)
$${EU}_{NI}^{2}={p}_{2}U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{2}\right]+\left(1-{p}_{2}\right)U\left[W\right]=U\left(W-WT{P}_{RA}^{2}\right)$$
(14)

When loss occurs, since \({L}_{2}>{L}_{1}\):

$$U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{1}\right]>U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{2}\right]$$
(15)

For both \({R}_{1}\) and \({R}_{2}\), the alternative utility without loss is the same (\(U\left[W\right]\)). Also, \(U\left[W\right]>U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{1}\right]>U\left[W-\left(1-\theta \right){L}_{2}\right]\). Under concave \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk aversion), \({EU}_{NI}^{1}>{EU}_{NI}^{2}\), hence \(U\left(W-WT{P}_{RA}^{1}\right)>U\left(W-WT{P}_{RA}^{2}\right)\) and \({WTP}_{RA}^{1}<{WTP}_{RA}^{2}\).

H3: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is negatively related to the probability of loss for risk averse individuals, holding the expected value of loss constant.

Consider again Eq. 8. Higher levels of government compensation increases the \(EU\) without insurance because the share of uninsured loss \(L\) becomes lower.Footnote 26 Consequently, \(U[W-WTP]\) increases and \(WTP\) decreases. This result follows from the charity hazard highlighted in the introduction section.

H4: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is negatively related to government compensation.

Assuming an objective probability of receiving government compensation equal to \(\pi\), \(EU\) is given by:

$$EU=\pi \left\{pU\left[{W}_{LG}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}+\left(1-\pi \right)\left\{pU\left[{W}_{L}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}$$
(16)

We define \({W}_{LG}=W-P\left(\alpha \right)-\left(1-\theta \right)\left(L-V\left(\alpha \right)\right)\) as final wealth in the loss with government compensation state. Similarly, let \({W}_{L}=W-P\left(\alpha \right)-\left(L-V\left(\alpha \right)\right)\) be final wealth in the loss state without government compensation, and \({W}_{NL}=W-P\left(\alpha \right)\) be final wealth in the no loss state. Note that \({W}_{LG}>{W}_{L}\) when \(\theta >0\).Footnote 27 There is a risk of government compensation \(G(\pi ,\theta )\) in Eq. 16, i.e., the individual receives government compensation \(\theta\) with probability \(\pi\) in the event of a loss. Assume two risks of government compensation, \({G}_{1}({\pi }_{1},{\theta }_{1})\) and \({G}_{2}({\pi }_{2},{\theta }_{2})\) with the same expected value, but \({\theta }_{2}>{\theta }_{1}\) and \({\pi }_{2}<{\pi }_{1}\). Under concave \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) (risk aversion), without insurance \(EU\) across the two scenarios are given by:

$$\begin{aligned}E{U}_{NI,1}&={\pi }_{1}\left\{pU\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}+\left(1-{\pi }_{1}\right)\left\{pU\left[W-L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}\\&=p\left\{{\pi }_{1}U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]+\left(1-{\pi }_{1}\right)U\left[W-L\right]\right\}+\left(1-p\right)U[W]\\&=U[W-WT{P}_{RA,1}]\end{aligned}$$
(17)
$$\begin{aligned}E{U}_{NI,2}&={\pi }_{2}\left\{pU\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}+\left(1-{\pi }_{2}\right)\left\{pU\left[W-L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}\\&=p\left\{{\pi }_{2}U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\right]+\left(1-{\pi }_{2}\right)U\left[W-L\right]\right\}+\left(1-p\right)U[W]\\&=U[W-WT{P}_{RA,2}]\end{aligned}$$
(18)

Comparing \({\pi }_{1}U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]+\left(1-{\pi }_{1}\right)U\left[W-L\right]\) with \({\pi }_{2}U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\right]+\left(1-{\pi }_{2}\right)U\left[W-L\right]\), because \({\theta }_{2}>{\theta }_{1}\), we can infer that \(W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L>W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\) and \(U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\right]>U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]\). Moreover, \(W-L<W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L<W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L\), therefore \(U\left[W-L\right]<U\left[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{1}\right)L\right]<U[W-\left(1-{\theta }_{2}\right)L]\). Similar to H3, the concavity of \(U\left(\bullet \right)\) implies that \(E{U}_{NI,1}>E{U}_{NI,2}\), or equivalently \(U[W-WT{P}_{RA,1}]>U[W-WT{P}_{RA,2}]\), hence \(WT{P}_{RA,1}<WT{P}_{RA,2}\).Footnote 28

H5: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is negatively related to the probability of government compensation for risk averse individuals, holding the expected value of government compensation constant.

Under ambiguous government compensation, decisions can be made in accordance with the second order \(EU\) function, i.e., the Klibanoff et al. smooth model value (\(KMM\)):

$$KMM=E\left\{\varphi \left\{\overline{\pi }\left\{pU\left[{W}_{LG}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}+\left(1-\overline{\pi }\right)\left\{pU\left[{W}_{L}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}\right\}\right\}$$
(19)

In our experiment, under ambiguous government compensation, there are two possible objective probability distributions regarding \(\overline{\pi }\), either probability 1 is assigned to \(\{pU\left[{W}_{LG}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\}\), or probability 1 is assigned to \(\left\{pU\left[{W}_{L}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}\). Evaluation of the insurance decision is then given by:

$$KMM={\sigma }_{1}\varphi \left\{pU\left[{W}_{LG}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}+{\sigma }_{0}\varphi \left\{pU\left[{W}_{L}\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[{W}_{NL}\right]\right\}$$
(20)

If the individual decides not to purchase insurance:

$${KMM}_{NI}={\sigma }_{1}\varphi \left\{U\left[W\right]\right\}+{\sigma }_{0}\varphi \left\{pU\left[W-L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}=E\left\{\varphi \left\{EU(\overline{\pi })\right\}\right\}$$
(21)

Under linear \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity neutrality):

$$\varphi {\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\}=KMM}_{NI}=\varphi \left\{E\left(EU\left(\overline{\pi }\right)\right)\right\}$$
(22)

Under concave \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity aversion):

$$\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AA}\right]\right\}={KMM}_{NI}<\varphi \left\{E\left(EU\left(\overline{\pi }\right)\right)\right\}=\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\}$$
(23)

Under convex \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity seeking):

$$\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AS}\right]\right\}={KMM}_{NI}>\varphi \left\{E\left(EU\left(\overline{\pi }\right)\right)\right\}=\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\right\}$$
(24)

We can infer from Eqs. 22, 23, and 24 that \(\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AA}\right]\}<\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\}<\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AS}\right]\}\), therefore \(WT{P}_{AS}<WT{P}_{AN}<WT{P}_{AA}\). That is, willingness-to-pay for full insurance increases with the degree of ambiguity aversion under ambiguous government compensation.

H6: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is positively related to the degree of ambiguity aversion when government compensation is ambiguous.

Under risky full government compensation (Eq. 16 evaluated at \(\pi =0.5\) and \(\theta =1\)), and without insurance \(EU\) becomes:

$${EU}_{NI,RF}=0.5U\left[W\right]+0.5\left\{pU\left[W-L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}=U\left[W-WT{P}_{RF}\right]$$
(25)

Assuming \(\sigma =\left(\mathrm{0.5,0.5}\right)\), under ambiguous full government compensation, without insurance \(KMM\) becomes:

$${KMM}_{NI}=0.5\varphi \left\{U\left[W\right]\right\}+0.5\varphi \left\{pU\left[W-L\right]+\left(1-p\right)U\left[W\right]\right\}=\varphi \{U\left[W-WTP\right]\}$$
(26)

Under linear \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity neutrality), the individual is a (subjective) \(EU\) maximizer:

$$U\left[W-WT{P}_{RF}\right]=E{U}_{NI,RF}={KMM}_{NI}=\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\right\}$$
(27)

Under concave \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity aversion):

$$U\left[W-WT{P}_{RF}\right]=E{U}_{NI,RF}>{KMM}_{NI}=\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AA}\right]\}$$
(28)

Under convex \(\varphi \left(\bullet \right)\) (ambiguity seeking):

$$U\left[W-WT{P}_{RF}\right]=E{U}_{NI,RF}<{KMM}_{NI}=\varphi \{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AS}\right]\}$$
(29)

We can infer from Eqs. 27, 28, and 29 that \(\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AA}\right]\right\}<\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AN}\right]\right\}=U\left[W-WT{P}_{RF}\right]<\varphi \left\{U\left[W-WT{P}_{AS}\right]\right\}\), therefore\(WT{P}_{AA}>WT{P}_{AN}=WT{P}_{RF}>WT{P}_{AS}.\)Footnote 29

H7: Willingness-to-pay for full insurance is higher under ambiguous full government compensation vs. risky full government compensation for ambiguity averse individuals.

H6 and H7 are robust to other ambiguity theories like Maxmin \(EU\) (Gilboa & Schmeidler, 1989), because an ambiguity averse individual following Maxmin \(EU\) will consider the minimal \(EU\) under ambiguous full compensation, which is \(EU\) under no government compensation. Note that Maxmin \(EU\) is a special case of the Klibanoff et al. (2005) smooth model, where \(\varphi\) places all of the weight on the worst \(EU\). Online Resource 1 provides a welfare evaluation of the insurance decision over the experimental parameters involved in our study using simulations that illustrate our hypotheses numerically.

Appendix 2 Descriptive statistics and coding of variables

Table 8 Descriptive statistics and coding of the dependent and independent variables
Fig. 2
figure 2

Distributions of risk and ambiguity preferences in the gain and loss domain with the MPL tasks. Higher values represent more risk and ambiguity aversion; 1 means a switch from left to right in the first row (very risk or ambiguity seeking) and 11 or 10 means a subject never switches (very risk or ambiguity averse, respectively); risk neutral = 6 for risk aversion loss domain, and = 7 for risk aversion gain domain; the ambiguity neutral switching point is on decision line 6 in the loss domain, and decision line 5 in the gain domain

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of stated risk preference. Higher values represent more risk aversion

Appendix 3 Results from additional analyses

Table 9 Random effects Probit regression of variables of influence on flood insurance purchases with risk and ambiguity preferences elicited in the loss domain

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robinson, P.J., Botzen, W.J.W. & Zhou, F. An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand. J Risk Uncertain 63, 275–318 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09365-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09365-6

Keywords

  • Ambiguity preferences
  • Charity hazard
  • Economic experiment
  • Flood insurance demand
  • Risk preferences

JEL Classification

  • C91
  • G52