Risk Preferences and the Adoption of Subsidised Crop Insurance: Evidence from Lithuania

IF 0.7 4区 经济学 Q4 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY German Journal of Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.30430/gjae.2022.0125
Birgit Gassler, Regina Rehermann
{"title":"Risk Preferences and the Adoption of Subsidised Crop Insurance: Evidence from Lithuania","authors":"Birgit Gassler, Regina Rehermann","doi":"10.30430/gjae.2022.0125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crop insurance adoption remains low among small and medium farms – despite financial public support in the form of premium subsidies. A better understanding of smaller farmers’ insurance decisions and contract attribute preferences is thus needed to encourage insurance solutions. Moreover, previous research has primarily examined risk preferences and insurance adoption among Western European farmers, while little is known about insurance markets and risk preferences in Central and Eastern European countries. We contribute to the literature by i) contrasting the current status of insurance adoption by Lithuanian farmers by farm size, ii) assessing farmers’ risk preferences and attitudes towards crop insurance, and iii) investigating small and medium farmers’ preferences for the characteristics of a new (hypothetical) subsidised multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI) product. Therefore, we conduct a socio-economic survey in Lithuania that features a risk preference elicitation task and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Findings show that, on average, sampled farmers are risk-neutral to slightly risk-seeking and that insurance adoption is lowest among smaller farms (<50 hectares). Moreover, insurance adoption was associated with higher risk exposure, higher trust in insurance services, and higher willingness to take farming-specific risks on all farms. For small and medium farms, the DCE results suggest preference heterogeneity for contract attributes and higher adoption rates when contract design reduces the risks and efforts associated with subsidised insurance.","PeriodicalId":48919,"journal":{"name":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"134 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Journal of Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30430/gjae.2022.0125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Crop insurance adoption remains low among small and medium farms – despite financial public support in the form of premium subsidies. A better understanding of smaller farmers’ insurance decisions and contract attribute preferences is thus needed to encourage insurance solutions. Moreover, previous research has primarily examined risk preferences and insurance adoption among Western European farmers, while little is known about insurance markets and risk preferences in Central and Eastern European countries. We contribute to the literature by i) contrasting the current status of insurance adoption by Lithuanian farmers by farm size, ii) assessing farmers’ risk preferences and attitudes towards crop insurance, and iii) investigating small and medium farmers’ preferences for the characteristics of a new (hypothetical) subsidised multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI) product. Therefore, we conduct a socio-economic survey in Lithuania that features a risk preference elicitation task and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Findings show that, on average, sampled farmers are risk-neutral to slightly risk-seeking and that insurance adoption is lowest among smaller farms (<50 hectares). Moreover, insurance adoption was associated with higher risk exposure, higher trust in insurance services, and higher willingness to take farming-specific risks on all farms. For small and medium farms, the DCE results suggest preference heterogeneity for contract attributes and higher adoption rates when contract design reduces the risks and efforts associated with subsidised insurance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
风险偏好和补贴作物保险的采用:来自立陶宛的证据
尽管以保费补贴的形式提供财政公共支持,但中小型农场的作物保险采用率仍然很低。因此,需要更好地了解小农的保险决策和合同属性偏好,以鼓励保险解决方案。此外,以往的研究主要考察了西欧农民的风险偏好和保险采用情况,而对中欧和东欧国家的保险市场和风险偏好知之甚少。我们通过以下方式对文献做出贡献:1)对比立陶宛农民按农场规模采用保险的现状,2)评估农民对作物保险的风险偏好和态度,以及3)调查中小农民对一种新的(假设的)补贴多重风险作物保险(MPCI)产品特征的偏好。因此,我们在立陶宛进行了一项社会经济调查,其中包括风险偏好启发任务和离散选择实验(DCE)。调查结果表明,平均而言,抽样的农民是风险中性或略微寻求风险的,较小的农场(<50公顷)的保险采用率最低。此外,保险的采用与更高的风险暴露、对保险服务的更高信任以及在所有农场承担特定农业风险的更高意愿相关。对于中小型农场,DCE结果表明,当合同设计降低了与补贴保险相关的风险和努力时,合同属性的偏好异质性和更高的采用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
German Journal of Agricultural Economics
German Journal of Agricultural Economics AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The GJAE publishes a broad range of theoretical, applied and policy-related articles. It aims for a balanced coverage of economic issues within agricultural and food production, demand and trade, rural development, and sustainable and efficient resource use as well as specific German or European issues. The GJAE also welcomes review articles.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Maximum Residue Limits on Agri-Food Trade: Evidence from Chinese Exports to the EU Use Cases of the Integrated Administration and Control System’s Plot-Level Data: Protocol and Pilot Analysis for a Systematic Mapping Review A Trans-Theoretical Model for Farmers’ perceived Usefulness of Digital Risk Management Tools – A Case Study from Germany Public Agricultural Extension, Pest and Disease Experience, and Adoption of Improved Wheat Varieties The National and Regional Impact of the EU Bioeconomy Strategies on the Agri-Food Sector: Insights from Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1