Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Luisetti, I. Bateman, R. Turner (2011)
Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?Land Economics, 87
M. Kragt (2013)
The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale HeterogeneityEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 54
Keith Coble, B. Barnett (2013)
Why Do We Subsidize Crop InsuranceAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95
B. McNair, J. Bennett, D. Hensher (2011)
A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questionsResource and Energy Economics, 33
Keith Coble, T. Knight, R. Pope, Jeffery Williams (1997)
An Expected‐Indemnity Approach to the Measurement of Moral Hazard in Crop InsuranceWiley-Blackwell: American Journal of Agricultural Economics
M. Meuwissen, T. Assefa, M. Asseldonk (2013)
Supporting Insurance in European Agriculture: Experience of Mutuals in the NetherlandsEuroChoices, 12
K. Train (2003)
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation by Kenneth E. Train
A. Mishra, B. Goodwin (2003)
Adoption of crop versus revenue insurance: a farm‐level analysisAgricultural Finance Review, 63
I. Krinsky, A. Robb (1986)
On Approximating the Statistical Properties of ElasticitiesThe Review of Economics and Statistics, 68
B. Barnett, J. Black, Yingyao Hu, J. Skees (2005)
Is Area Yield Insurance Competitive with Farm Yield InsuranceJournal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30
J. Ladenburg, S. Olsen (2008)
Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical studyJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56
I. Bateman, D. Burgess, W. Hutchinson, D. Matthews (2008)
Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrarinessJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55
V. Smith, A. Baquet (1996)
The Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance: Evidence from Montana Wheat FarmsERN: Other Microeconomics: Decision-Making under Risk & Uncertainty (Topic)
B. Goodwin, M. Vandeveer, John Deal (2004)
An Empirical Analysis of Acreage Effects of Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance ProgramPolitical Economy: Taxation
B. Day, J. Prades (2010)
Ordering anomalies in choice experimentsJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59
Keith Coble, R. Pope, Jeffery Williams (1996)
Modeling Farm‐Level Crop Insurance Demand with Panel DataMicroeconomics: Decision-Making under Risk & Uncertainty eJournal
M. Mørkbak, T. Christensen, D. Gyrd-Hansen (2010)
Choke Price Bias in Choice ExperimentsEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 45
Saleem Shaik, Keith Coble, T. Knight, A. Baquet, G. Patrick (2008)
Crop Revenue and Yield Insurance Demand: A Subjective Probability ApproachJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 40
N. Hanley, W. Adamowicz, R. Wright (2005)
Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical testResource and Energy Economics, 27
K. Lancaster (1966)
A New Approach to Consumer TheoryJournal of Political Economy, 74
D. McFadden (1972)
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
B. Goodwin (1993)
An Empirical Analysis of the Demand for Multiple Peril Crop InsuranceAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75
J. Deshazo (2002)
Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question FormatsJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the demand for crop insurance. Moreover, farmer willingness to pay (WTP) for crop insurance was derived. Factors affecting the demand were also examined in a country where crop insurance products are not currently available. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by studying the price-anchoring effect. Design/methodology/approach – Data from a choice experiment (CE) were analyzed with mixed logit models and the distribution of farmer WTP for crop insurance was derived. A split sample approach with varying premium vectors was used to analyze the price-anchoring effect. Findings – Demand was revealed for crop insurance products in Finland. The demand was higher among younger farmers and farms with more arable land. WTP for crop insurance products was very sensitive to the premium interval presented in the CE design. Research limitations/implications – The price-anchoring effect may disrupt the market development of crop insurance products, because insurance companies may take advantage of the lack of awareness among farmers of crop insurance pricing. Practical implications – The insurance product expected indemnity was a more important factor than the deductible in determining farmer WTP for crop insurance. Therefore, the 30 percent deductible level set for subsidized crop insurance products is not an obstacle for the development of such products in the EU. Originality/value – The study applied a well-known method (CE) to crop insurance in a country where these products are non-existent. The split sample approach was used to examine the price-anchoring effect on crop insurance.
Agricultural Finance Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 28, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.