Advertisement

The Role of Insurance in Reducing Losses from Extreme Events: The Need for Public–Private Partnerships

  • Howard Kunreuther
Shin Research Excellence Award-winning Paper

Abstract

This paper describes the challenges that consumers, insurers and insurance regulators face in dealing with insurance for low-probability, high-consequence events. Given their limited experience with catastrophes, there is a tendency for all three parties often to engage in short-term intuitive thinking rather than long-term deliberative thinking when making these insurance-related decisions. Public–private partnerships can encourage investment in protective measures prior to a disaster, deal with affordability problems and provide coverage for catastrophic risks. Insurance premiums based on risk provide signals to residents and businesses as to the hazards they face and enable insurers to lower premiums for properties where steps have been taken to reduce risk. To address issues of equity and fairness, homeowners who cannot afford insurance could be given vouchers tied to loans for investing in loss reduction measures. The National Flood Insurance Program provides an opportunity to implement a public–private partnership that could eventually be extended to other extreme events.

Keywords

natural disasters flood insurance earthquake insurance disaster insurance terrorism public–private partnerships 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper reflects research and helpful discussions with my colleagues at the Wharton Risk Center and at other universities and research institutions, notably Jeffrey Czjakowski, Dwight Jaffee, Daniel Kahneman, David Krantz, Robert Meyer, Erwann Michel-Kerjan, Mark Pauly, Robert Shiller, Paul Slovic and Elke Weber. I also appreciate helpful interactions with members of the Wharton Risk Center’s Extreme Events project as to the challenges and opportunities faced by the insurance industry. Special thanks to the reviewers of the paper and to Carol Heller, Joan Lamm-Tennant and Erwann Michel-Kerjan for suggestions on an earlier draft of the paper. Funding for this research comes from the National Science Foundation (SES-1061882 and SES-1062039); the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California; the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED; NSF Cooperative Agreement SES-0345840 to Columbia University), the Zurich Insurance Foundation on community flood resilience and the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center.

References

  1. Anderson, D.R. (1974) ‘The national flood insurance program: Problems and potential’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 41 (4): 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bainbridge, J. (1952) Biography of an Idea: The Story of Mutual Fire and Casualty Insurance, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Botzen, W., Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015) Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City, Wharton Risk Center Working Paper. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  4. Cabantous, L., Hilton, D., Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2011) ‘Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 42 (93): 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. California Department of Insurance (1997-1998) California Earthquake Zoning and Probable Maximum Loss Evaluation Program, Los Angeles, CA: California Department of Insurance.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, D.J. and Lewis, C.M. (2003) ‘Catastrophic events, parameter uncertainty and the breakdown of implicit long-term contracting in the insurance market: The case of terrorism insurance’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26 (2/3): 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutler, D.M. and Zeckhauser, R.J. (2004) Extending the Theory to Meet the Practice of Insurance, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  8. FM Global (2011) The FM Global Brand Story, Johnston, RI: FM Global.Google Scholar
  9. Gerdes, V. (1963) ‘Insuring against flood peril’, Journal of Insurance 30 (4): 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grace, M. and Klein, R. (2007) ‘Facing mother nature’, Regulation 30 (3): 28–34.Google Scholar
  11. Grace, M., Klein, R. and Kleindorfer, P. (2004) ‘Homeowners insurance with bundled catastrophe coverage’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 71 (3): 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossi, P. and Kunreuther, H. (eds) (2005) Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (2013) ‘Hurricane Sandy rebuilding strategy: Stronger communities, a resilient region’, August, from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.pdf.
  14. Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) (2007) The Benefits of Modern Wind Resistant Building Codes on Hurricane Claim Frequency and Severity—A Summary Report, Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).Google Scholar
  15. Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR) (1995) Homes and Hurricanes: Public Opinion Concerning Various Issues Relating to Home Builders, Building Codes and Damage Mitigation, Boston, MA: IIPLR.Google Scholar
  16. Jaffee, D., Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2010) ‘Long Term Property Insurance (LTI) for Addressing Catastrophe Risk’, Journal of Insurance Regulation 29 (07): 167–187.Google Scholar
  17. Jaffee, D. and Russell, T. (2003) ‘Markets under stress: The case of extreme event insurance’, in R. Arnott, B. Greenwald, R. Kanbur and B. Nalebuff (eds) Economics for an Imperfect World: Essays in Honor of Joseph E. Stiglitz, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, E.J., Shu, S.B., Dellaert, B.C.G., Fox, C., Goldstein, D.G., Häubl, G., Larrick, R.P., Payne, J.W., Peters, E., Schkade, D., Wansink, B. and Weber, E.U. (2012) ‘Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture’, Marketing Letters 23 (2): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  20. Knowles, S.G. and Kunreuther, H.C. (2014) ‘Troubled waters: The National Flood Insurance Program in historical perspective’, Journal of Policy History 26 (03): 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kousky, C. and Kunreuther, H. (2014) ‘Addressing affordability in the national flood insurance program’, Journal of Extreme Events 1 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krantz, D. and Kunreuther, H. (2007) ‘Goals and plans in decision-making’, Judgment and Decision Making 2 (3): 137–68.Google Scholar
  23. Kunreuther, H., Hogarth, R. and Meszaros, J. (1993) ‘Insurer ambiguity and market failure’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7 (1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R.J. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2013a) ‘Overcoming Decision Biases to Reduce Losses from Natural Catastrophes’, in E. Shafir (ed.) Behavioral Foundations of Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2011) At War with the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (forthcoming) ‘Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.Google Scholar
  27. Kunreuther, H., Michel-Kerjan, E., Lewis, C., Muir-Wood, R. and Woo, G. (2014) TRIA after 2014, Wharton Risk Management Center, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  28. Kunreuther, H., Michel-Kerjan, E. and Ranger, N. (2013b) ‘Insuring against future climate catastrophes’, Climatic Change 18 (2): 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kunreuther, H., Novemsky, N. and Kahneman, D. (2001) ‘Making low probabilities useful’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23 (2): 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kunreuther, H., Pauly, M.V. and McMorrow, S. (2013c) Insurance and Behavioral Economics: Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kunreuther, H. and Roth, R., Sr, (eds) (1998) Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance against Natural Disasters in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lecomte, E. and Gahagan, K. (1998) ‘Hurricane insurance protection in Florida’, in H. Kunreuther and R. Roth (eds) Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance against Natural Disasters in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press 97–124.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, C. and Murdock, L. (1996) ‘The role of government contracts in discretionary reinsurance markets for natural disasters’, The Journal of Risk and Insurance 63 (4): 567–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madrian, B.C. and Shea, D.F. (2001) ‘The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 16 (4): 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michel-Kerjan, E. (2003) ‘Large-scale terrorism: Risk sharing and public policy’, Revue d’Economie Politique 113 (5): 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michel-Kerjan, E. (2010) ‘Catastrophe economics: The national flood insurance program’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (4): 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michel-Kerjan, E. and Kunreuther, H. (2011) ‘Reforming flood insurance’, Science 333 (6014): 408–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michel‐Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S. and Kunreuther, H. (2012) ‘Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)’, Risk Analysis 32 (4): 644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Michel-Kerjan, E. and Pedell, B. (2005) ‘Terrorism risk coverage in the post-9/11 era: A comparison of new public-private partnerships in France, Germany and the U.S.’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 30 (1): 144–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (2012) Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2015) Affordability of National Flood Insurance Program Premiums—Report 1, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. New York City Panel on Climate Change (2015) ‘Building the knowledge base for climate resiliency’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1336 (1): 1–150.Google Scholar
  43. NYC (2013) PlaNYC: A Stronger More Resilient New York, New York, NY: Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, from www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report.shtml.Google Scholar
  44. OECD (2012) Disaster Risk Assessment and Risk Financing: A G20/OECD Methodological Framework, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  45. Overman, E.S. (1957) ‘The flood peril and the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 309 (1): 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Palm, R. (1995) Earthquake Insurance: A Longitudinal Study of California Homeowners, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Palm, R. and Carroll, J. (1998) Illusions of Safety: Cultural and Earthquake Hazard Response in California and Japan, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Repetto, R. and Easton, R. (2012) ‘Climate change and damage from extreme weather events’, Environment 52 (2): 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Risk Management Solutions (2014) ‘When “the big one” hits’, from rms.com/images/loma-prieta/pdf/WhenTheBigOneHits.pdf.
  50. Roth, R.J., Jr (1998) ‘Earthquake Insurance Protection in California’, in H. Kunreuther and R. Roth Sr, (eds) Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance against Natural Disasters in the United States, Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, pp. 67–95.Google Scholar
  51. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1978) ‘Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective’, Accident Analysis & Prevention 10 (4): 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slovic, P., Monahan, J. and MacGregor, D.G. (2000) ‘Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats’, Law and Human Behavior 24 (3): 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thaler, R.H. and Benartzi, S. (2004) ‘Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving’, Journal of Political Economy 112 (S1): S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973) ‘Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability’, Cognitive Psychology 5 (2): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2008) Flood Insurance. FEMA’s Rate-Setting Process Warrants Attention, GAO-09-12, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  57. Useem, M., Kunreuther, H. and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015) Leadership Dispatches: Chile’s Extraordinary Comeback from Disaster, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weinstein, N.D., Kolb, K. and Goldstein, B.D. (1996) ‘Using time intervals between expected events to communicate risk magnitudes’, Risk Analysis 16 (3): 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wharton Risk Management Center (2005) TRIA and Beyond, Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Risk Management Center, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Kunreuther
    • 1
  1. 1.Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations