The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 39–76 | Cite as

Welfare effects of insurance contract non-performance

  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • Jia Min Ng
Original Article


Non-performance lies at the heart of much of the regulation that insurance companies face. Consumers’ concerns about non-performance of the insurance provider have also been cited as a possible explanation for low demand of microinsurance. We provide a behavioral evaluation of the welfare effects of non-performance risk. We test the hypothesis that the presence of non-performance risk negatively impacts not just take-up of insurance but more importantly the welfare of the insured. We also test if violations of the reduction of compound lotteries axiom could drive this decrease in take-up and welfare. The results show that the compound risk characteristic of non-performance risk does not significantly decrease the welfare of insurance choices made by individuals. This counter-intuitive result is sensitive to the structural modeling of risk preferences. If one assumes the reduction of compound lotteries axiom does characterize behavior towards risk, one finds evidence that non-performance risk reduces welfare for the insured. But if one correctly allows for violations in that axiom in the representation of risk preferences, which is appropriate if one is going to test for the effect of compound risk from non-performance, then the counter-intuitive result is obtained. Take-up is not a reliable proxy for welfare, and the behavioral drivers of take-up are again not the same drivers of welfare. These results provide structural behavioral insight to inform normative policy design with respect to insurance regulation.


Insurance non-performance Welfare Behavioral economics Risk preferences Experiments 

JEL Classification

D61 D81 D90 C90 C91 



We are grateful for comments from J. Todd Swarthout, Martínez-Correa, participants at the CEAR/MRIC Behavioral Insurance Workshop, Munich 2016, and two anonymous referees.


  1. Andersen, Steffen, James C. Cox, Glenn W. Harrison, Morten I. Lau, E. Elisabet Rutström, and Vjollca Sadiraj. 2016. Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence. CEAR Working Paper 201117, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 2016; forthcoming, Review of Economics & Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. Barseghyan, Levon, Francesca Molinari, Ted O'Donoghue, and Joshua C. Teitelbaum. 2013. The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices. American Economic Review 103 (6): 2499–2529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak. 1964. Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science 9: 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim, B. Douglas. 2009. Behavioral Welfare Economics. Journal of the European Economic Association 7: 267–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernheim, B. Douglas, and Antonio Rangel. 2009. Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124: 51–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biener, Christian, Andreas Landmann, and Maria I. Santana. 2017. Contract Nonperformance Risk and Ambiguity in Insurance Markets. Working Papers on Finance No. 2017/1, University of St. Gallen. Available at SSRN:, January 2017.
  7. Bohnet, Iris, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2004. Trust, Risk and Betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55: 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, Daniel J. 2016. A Theory of Rational Demand for Index Insurance. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 8 (1): 283–306.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, Alma, and Liran Einav. 2007. Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice. American Economic Review 97 (3): 745–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, James C., and Vjollca Sadiraj. 2006. Small- and Large-Stakes Risk Aversion: Implications of Concavity Calibration for Decision Theory. Games and Economic Behavior 56: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins, J. David, Neil Doherty, and Anita Lo. 2002. Can Insurers Pay for the “Big One”? Measuring the Capacity of the Insurance Market to Respond to Catastrophic Losses. Journal of Banking & Finance 26: 557–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins, J. David, Martin F. Grace, and Richard D. Phillips. 1999. Regulatory Solvency Prediction in Property-Liability Insurance: Risk-based Capital, Audit Ratios, And Cash Flow Simulation. Journal of Risk and Insurance 66: 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, J. David, and Olivier Mahul. 2003. Optimal Insurance with Divergent Beliefs about Insurer Total Default Risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27 (2): 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty, Neil A., and Harris Schlesinger. 1990. Rational Insurance Purchasing: Consideration of Contract Nonperformance. Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (1): 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbacher, Urs. 2007. z-Tree: Zurich Tool Box for Ready-made Economic Experiments. Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gollier, Christian, and Harris Schlesinger. 1996. Arrow’s Theorem on the Optimality of Deductibles: A Stochastic Dominance Approach. Economic Theory 7: 359–363.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, Jan V., Rasmus H. Jacobsen, and Morten I. Lau. 2016. Willingness to Pay for Insurance in Denmark. Journal of Risk and Insurance 83 (1): 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, Glenn W. 1992. Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions: Reply. American Economic Review 82: 1426–1443.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, Glenn W. 1994. Expected Utility Theory and The Experimentalists. Empirical Economics 19 (2): 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, Glenn W. 2011. Experimental Methods and the Welfare Evaluation of Policy Lotteries. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38 (3): 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, Glenn W., Eric Johnson, Melayne M. McInnes, and E. Elisabet Rutström. 2007. Measurement with Experimental Controls. In Measurement in Economics: A Handbook, ed. M. Boumans. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Harrison, Glenn W., Morten I. Lau, Don Ross, and J.Todd Swarthout. 2017. Small Stakes Risk Aversion in Experiments: A Reconsideration. Economics Letters 160: 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, Glenn W., Jimmy Martínez-Correa, Jia Min Ng, and J. Todd Swarthout. 2016. Evaluating the Welfare of Index Insurance. CEAR Working Paper 2016-07, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Harrison, Glenn W., Jimmy Martínez-Correa, and J.Todd Swarthout. 2015. Reduction of Compound Lotteries with Objective Probabilities: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 119: 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison, Glenn W., and Jia Min Ng. 2016. Evaluating the Expected Welfare Gain from Insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance 83 (1): 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison, Glenn W., and Jia Min Ng. 2017. Welfare Effects of Insurance Non-Performance. CEAR Working Paper 2017-03, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 2017.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, Glenn W., and E. Elisabet Rutström. 2008. Risk Aversion in the Laboratory. In Risk Aversion in Experiments (Research in Experimental Economics), vol. 12, ed. J.C. Cox, and G.W. Harrison. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  28. Harrison, Glenn W., and E. Elisabet Rutström. 2009. Expected Utility Theory and Prospect Theory: One Wedding and a Decent Funeral. Experimental Economics 12 (2): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, Glenn W., and J. Todd Swarthout. 2016. Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration. CEAR Working Paper 2016-05, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 2016.Google Scholar
  30. Herrero, Carmen, Josefa Tomás, and Antonio Villar. 2006. Decision Theories and Probabilistic Insurance: An Experimental Test. Spanish Economic Review 8 (1): 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klibanoff, Peter, Massimo Marinacci, and Sujoy Mukerji. 2005. A Smooth Model of Decision Making Under Ambiguity. Econometrica 73 (6): 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu, Yanyan, and Robert J. Myers. 2016. The Dynamics of Microinsurance Demand in Developing Countries Under Liquidity Constraints and Insurer Default Risk. Journal of Risk and Insurance 83 (1): 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loomes, Graham, and Robert Sugden. 1982. Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty. Economic Journal 92: 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loomes, Graham, and Robert Sugden. 1987. Some Implications of a More General Form of Regret Theory. Journal of Economic Theory 41: 270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loomes, Graham, and Robert Sugden. 1998. Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice. Economica 65: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mahul, Olivier, and Brian D. Wright. 2004. Implications of Incomplete Performance for Optimal Insurance. Economica 71 (2004): 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahul, Olivier, and Brian D. Wright. 2007. Optimal Coverage for Incompletely Reliable Insurance. Economics Letters 95 (3): 456–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manzini, Paola, and Marco Mariotti. 2012. Categorize Then Choose: Boundedly Rational Choice and Welfare. Journal of the European Economic Association 10: 1141–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manzini, Paola, and Marco Mariotti. 2014. Welfare Economics and Bounded Rationality: the Case for Model-Based Approaches. Journal of Economic Methodology 21 (4): 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peter, Richard, and Jie Ying. 2016. Optimal Insurance Demand when Contract Nonperformance Risk is Perceived as Ambiguous. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Finance, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, October 2016.Google Scholar
  42. Plott, Charles R., and Vernon L. Smith. 1978. An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institution. Review of Economic Studies 45 (1): 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plott, Charles R., and Kathryn Zeiler. 2005. The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect’, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations. American Economic Review 95 (3): 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prelec, Drazen. 1998. The Probability Weighting Function. Econometrica 66: 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quiggin, John. 1982. A Theory of Anticipated Utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3 (4): 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rubinstein, Ariel, and Yuval Salant. 2012. Eliciting Welfare Preferences from Behavioral Datasets. Review of Economic Studies 79: 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salant, Yuval, and Ariel Rubinstein. 2008. (A, f): Choice with Frames. Review of Economic Studies 75: 1287–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlesinger, Harris, and J.M.Graf vd Schulenburg. 1987. Risk Aversion and the Purchase of Risky Insurance. Journal of Economics (Zeitschrift für Nationalönomie) 47 (3): 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Segal, Uzi. 1988. Probabilistic Insurance and Anticipated Utility. Journal of Risk and Insurance 55 (2): 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Segal, Uzi. 1990. Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom. Econometrica 58 (2): 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sugden, Robert. 2004. The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty Without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences. American Economic Review 94: 1014–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sydnor, Justin. 2010. (Over)insuring Modest Risks. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (4): 177–199.Google Scholar
  53. Tapeiro, Charles S., Yehuda Kahane, and Laurent Jacque. 1986. Insurance Premiums and Default Risk in Mutual Insurance. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 1986 (2): 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wakker, Peter P., Richard H. Thaler, and Amos Tversky. 1997. Probabilistic Insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15 (1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmer, Anja, Helmut Gründl, Christian D. Schade, and Franca Glenzer. 2018. An Incentive-Compatible Experiment on Probabilistic Insurance and Implications for an Insurer’s Solvency Level. Journal of Risk and Insurance 85 (1): 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmer, Anja, Christian D. Schade, and Helmut Gründl. 2009. Is Default Risk Acceptable when Purchasing Insurance? Experimental Evidence for Different Probability Representations, Reasons for Default, and Framings. Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (1): 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Risk Management & Insurance, Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of EconomicsUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations