Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Much Internalization of Nuclear Risk Through Liability Insurance?

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important source of conflict surrounding nuclear energy is that with a very small probability, a large-scale nuclear accident may occur. One way to internalize the associated financial risks is through mandating nuclear operators to have liability insurance. This paper presents estimates of consumers' willingness to pay for increased financial security provided by an extension of coverage, based on the 'stated choice' approach. A Swiss citizen with median characteristics may be willing to pay 0.14 US cents per kwh to increase coverage beyond the current CHF 0.7 billion (bn.) (US$ 0.47 bn.). Marginal willingness to pay declines with higher coverage but exceeds marginal cost at least up to CHF 4 bn.(US$ 2.7 bn.). An extension of nuclear liability insurance coverage therefore may be efficiency-enhancing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bonomo, Susanne, Massimo Filippini, and Peter Zweifel. (1998). “Neue Aufschl¨ usse ¨ uber die Elek-trizit¨ atsnachfrage der schweizerischen Haushalte (NewEvidence on Electricity Demand by Swiss Households),” Zeitschrift f ¨ ur Volkswirtschaft und Statistik134, 415–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Howard Kunreuther. (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implications,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management8, 565–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, Robert G. and John Quiggin. (2000). Uncertainty, Production, Choice and Agency. Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

  • Ganderton, Philip T., David S. Brookshire, Michael McKee, Steve Stewart, and Hale Thurston. (2000). “Buy-ing Insurance for Disaster-Type Risks: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty20, 271–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegax, D. and L. R. Stanley. (1997). “Validating Conjoint and Hedonic Preference Measures: Evidence from Valuing Reductions in Risk,” Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics36, 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, William H. (1997). Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall International.

  • Haener, M., P. C. Boxall, and W. L. Adamowicz. (2000). “Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?” Working Paper Staff Paper 00-01, Departement of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 49, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. H. and N. J. A. Sloane. (1993). “A New Approach to the Construction of Optimal Designs,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference37, 339–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. H. and N. J. A. Sloane. (1994). “Operating Manual for Gosset: A general purpose program for con-structing experimental designs (second edition).” http://www.research.att.com/~njas/gosset/.

  • Hausman, J. A. (1993). Contingent Valuation-A Critical Assessment. North Holland.

  • Hedayat, A. S., N. J. A. Sloane, and John Stufken. (1999). Orthogonal Arrays-Theory and Applications. Springer.

  • Hirschberg, Stephan, G. Spiekerman, and R. Dones. (1998). Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector. Paul Scherrer Insitute, Report 98–16.

  • Johnson, Reed F. and William H. Desvousges. (1997). “Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management34, 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, Barbara J. (2002). “Optimal Design for Multinomial Choice Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research39, 214–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, Alan, Anna Alberini, Maureen Cropper, Nathalie Simon, Bernie O'Brien, Ron Goeree, and Martin Heintzelman. (2002). “Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty24, 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, Howard, Nathan Novemsky, and Daniel Kahneman. (2001). “Making Low Probabilities Useful,” The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty23, 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, Kevin. (1966). “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy74, 132–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., R. J. Meyer, and D. S. Bunch. (1999). “Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modeling Complex Decision Processes,” Marketing Letters10, 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan J. and David A. Hensher. (1982). “On the Design and Analysis of Simulated or Allocation Experiments in Travel Choice Modelling,” Transportation Research Record890,111–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan J., David A. Hensher, and Joffre D. Swait. (2000). Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

  • Magat, Wesley A., W. Kip Viscusi, and Joel Huber. (1988). “Paired Comparison and Contingent Valuation Ap-proaches to Morbidity Risk Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 395-411.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel. (2001). “Economic Choices,” American Economic Review91, 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Robert Cameron. (1989). “Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method,” Ressources for the Future.

  • Polsky, Daniel, Henry Glick, Richard Willke, and Kevin Schulman. (1997). “Confidence Intervals for Cost-Effectivness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods,” Health Economics 6, 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, Steven. (1986). “The Judgement Proof Problem,” International Review of Law and Economics 6, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, Royce A. Jr. and Bruce C. Straits. (1999). Approaches to Social Research, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press.

  • Telser, Harry. (2002). “Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen-Die Methode der Discrete Choice Experimente (Preference Elicitation in Health Care-The Technique of Discrete Choice Experiments).” University of Zurich, Ph.D. dissertation.

  • Telser, Harry and Peter Zweifel. (2002). “Measuring Willingness-to-Pay for Risk Reduction: An Application of Conjoint Analysis,” Health Economics11, 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. Kip (1998). Rational Risk Policy. Oxford University Press.

  • Zweifel, Peter and Roland D. Umbricht. (2002). “Verbesserte Deckung des Nuklearrisikos-zu welchen Bedingungen? (Extended Coverage of Nuclear Risk-on What Conditions),” Forschungsprogramm En-ergiewirtschaftliche Grundlagen, Bundesamt für Energie.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socioeconomic Institute, University of Zurich, Hottingerstrasse 10, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland

    Yves Schneider & Peter Zweifel

Authors
  1. Yves Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Zweifel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Zweifel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, Y., Zweifel, P. How Much Internalization of Nuclear Risk Through Liability Insurance?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 29, 219–240 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000046144.89048.9e

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000046144.89048.9e

Search

Navigation