Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework

  • Ying (Jessica) Cao, Alfons Weersink and Emma Ferner

Abstract

Risk management tools are at the core of farm policy in many developed countries, and their effectiveness relies on the appropriate mechanism design. This study developed a gain-loss framework based on prospect theory to examine the reasons for the declining use of the main risk management tool offered to farmers despite growing volatility in returns. Using the administrative Ontario Farm Income Database (OFID) 2003 to 2013 and taking the beef sector as the example, this study found that the gain-loss framework predicts and explains the dynamic program participation pattern better than the conventional expected utility framework. Farms were found to be more likely to stay enrolled in the program when they experienced either larger gains or losses in revenue compared to previous years, suggesting that they were using the insurance programs both as an investment strategy (to seek government subsidies) and as a risk management tool (to protect against business risks), though the effects of revenue losses and hence risk management needs were stronger than gains. In addition, the program payment history and farm characteristics also shape the dynamic participation patterns. The findings increased the understanding of the drivers of withdrawal behavior associated with government-sponsored business risk management programs.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence: Ying (Jessica) Cao, Division of Health Services Policy and Practice ■ State University of New York at Buffalo ■ NY ■ USA ■ Phone: + 1(716)829-5369 ■ Emailycao25@buffalo.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

The authors would like to thank the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and University of Guelph Partnership Program for funding support (#030047).

Footnotes

References

Hide All
AAFC. 2013. AgriStability Program Handbook. Ottawa, Canada. AAFC No: 19960E.
Antón, J., Kimura, S., and Martini, R.. 2011. Risk Management in Agriculture in Canada. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 40, OECD Publishing. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgj0d6189wg-en.
Babcock, B.A. 2015. “Using Cumulative Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97(5): 13711384.
Barberis, N.C. 2013. “Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(1): 173–96.
Brown, J.R., and Finkelstein, A.. 2008. “The Interaction of Public and Private Insurance: Medicaid and the Long-Term Care Insurance Market.” American Economic Review 98(3): 10831102.
Cabas, J.H., Leiva, A.J., and Weersink, A.. 2008. “Modeling Exit and Entry of Farmers in A Crop Insurance Program.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 37(1): 92105.
Chen, K.Z., and Meilke, K.D.. 1996. “A Reevaluation of Canada's Safety Net Programs for Agriculture.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d'agroeconomie 44(4): 361–68.
Coble, K.H., Knight, T.O., Pope, R.D., and Williams, J.R.. 1996. “Modeling Farm-Level Crop Insurance Demand with Panel Data.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(2): 439–47.
DellaVigna, S. 2007. Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers, No. 12420, © 2007 by Stefano DellaVigna.
Du, X., Feng, H., and Hennessy, D.A.. 2016. “Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99(3): 732756.
Eckles, D.L., and Wise, J.V.. 2011. Prospect Theory and the Demand for Insurance. The Risk Theory Society, American Risk and Insurance Association (ARIA), Philadelphia, PA USA. Available at http://www.aria.org/rts/proceedings/2012/default.html (accessed September 2013).
Enjolras, G., and Sentis, P.. 2011. “Crop Insurance Policies and Purchases in France.” Agricultural Economics 42(4): 475–86.
Finger, R., and Lehmann, N.. 2012. “The Influence of Direct Payments on Farmers’ Hail Insurance Decisions.” Agricultural Economics 43(3): 343–54.
Freund, C., and Özden, Ç.. 2008. “Trade Policy and Loss Aversion.” The American Economic Review 98(4): 1675–91.
Garrido Colmenero, A., and Zilberman, D.. 2007. “Revisiting the Demand of Agricultural Insurance: The Case of Spain.” Agricultural Finance Review 68(1): 4366.
Goodwin, B.K. 1993. “An Empirical Analysis of the Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(2): 425–34.
Hwang, I.D. 2015. Prospect Theory and Insurance Demand. Available at SSRN 2586360.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47(2): 263–91.
Lefebvre, M., Nikolov, D., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., and Chopeva, M.. 2014. “Determinants of Insurance Adoption among Bulgarian Farmers.” Agricultural Finance Review 74(3): 326–47.
Mishra, A.K., and Goodwin, B.K.. 2003. “Adoption of Crop Versus Revenue Insurance: A Farm-Level Analysis.” Agricultural Finance Review 63(2): 143–55.
Niewuwoudt, W., and Bullock, J.B.. 1985. The demand for crop insurance. Paper presented at 1985 Conference, August 26–September 4, 1985, Málaga, Spain.
Pennings, J.M., Isengildina-Massa, O., Irwin, S.H., Garcia, P., and Good, D.L.. 2008. “Producers' complex Risk Management Choices.” Agribusiness 24(1): 3154.
Poon, K. 2013. “Risky Business: Factors Affecting Participation Rate of AgriStability.” Presented at the AAEA & CAES Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Available at https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150978. DOI 10.22004/ag.econ.150978.
Rabin, M. 1998. “Psychology and Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 36(1): 1146.
Santeramo, F.G., Goodwin, B.K., Adinolfi, F., and Capitanio, F.. 2016. “Farmer Participation, Entry and Exit Decisions in the Italian Crop Insurance Programme.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(3): 639657.
Sherrick, B.J., Barry, P.J., Ellinger, P.N., and Schnitkey, G.D.. 2004. “Factors Influencing Farmers' Crop Insurance Decisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(1): 103–14.
Smith, V.H., and Baquet, A.E.., 1996. “The Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance: Evidence From Montana Wheat Farms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1): 189201.
Stiglitz, J.E. 1987. “Some Theoretical Aspects of Agricultural Policies.” The World Bank Research Observer 2(1): 4360.
Taylor, M.R., Tonsor, G.T., Paulson, N.D., Ellison, B., Coppess, J., and Schnitkey, G.D.. 2017. “Is it Good to Have Options? The 2014 Farm Bill Program Decisions.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 39(4): 533546.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D.. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297323.
Uzea, F., Poon, K., Sparling, D., and Weersink, A.. 2014 a. Substitutes versus Complements among Canadian Business Risk Management Programs. Paper presented at 2014 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting, July 27–29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Uzea, F., Poon, K., Sparling, D., and Weersink, A.. 2014b. “Farm Support Payments and Risk Balancing: Implications for Financial Riskiness of Canadian Farms.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D'agroeconomie 62(4): 595618.
Velandia, M., Rejesus, R.M., Knight, T.O., and Sherrick, B.J.. 2009. “Factors Affecting Farmers' Utilization of Agricltural Risk Management Tools: The Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(01): 107–23.

Keywords

A Risk Management Tool or an Investment Strategy? Understanding the Unstable Farm Insurance Demand via a Gain-Loss Framework

  • Ying (Jessica) Cao, Alfons Weersink and Emma Ferner

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed