Why do many households remain exposed to large exogenous sources of non-systematic income risk? We use a series of randomized field experiments in rural India to test the importance of price and non-price factors in the adoption of an innovative rainfall insurance product. Demand is significantly price sensitive, but widespread take-up would not be achieved even if the product offered a payout ratio comparable to U.S. insurance contracts. We present evidence suggesting that lack of trust, liquidity constraints and limited salience are significant non-price frictions that constrain demand. We suggest contract design improvements to mitigate these frictions.

No abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. A basic research question for the study of micro-insurance markets is estimating the crosssectional determinants of household insurance takeup, and identifying the impediments to trade that prevent remaining households from participating. After describing the insurance product, we present empirical evidence on the determinants of insurance participation, based on a household survey implemented by ICRISAT and the World Bank in late 2004. We first evaluate takeup patterns against a simple neoclassical benchmark, which predicts that insurance participation is increasing in risk aversion and the variance of risk, and decreasing in basis risk between insurance payouts and the risk to be insured. We find some evidence consistent with the basis risk prediction; Terms of use: Documents in EconStor maynamely households who historically plant a high share of castor and groundnut, the two crops for which contracts are designed, are more likely to purchase insurance. Takeup rates are also higher amongst wealthy households, and lower amongst households identified as credit constrained. These findings are consistent with an extension of the 'benchmark' model to include borrowing constraints.Other evidence is more difficult to reconcile with the benchmark model. First, amongst the quantitatively most significant determinants of insurance takeup are variables measuring the household's degree of familiarity with the insurance vendor, such as whether the household is an existing BASIX customer. Participation is also higher amongst households that are members of the town Gran Panchayat (local council), and those that are connected to other village networks, especially when a larger number of other members or the household's primary network also buy insurance. Second, risk-averse households are somewhat less likely to take up rainfall insurance, 3 not more likely as the neoclassical framework would suggest. This result is concentrated amongst households who are unfamiliar with the vendor, BASIX, or do not use other types of insurance.We interpret these finding to suggest that many households are uncertain about the insurance product itself, leading risk-averse households, households with higher costs of evaluating new technologies, and households who are less familiar or place less trust in the insurance provider, to eschew purchasing insurance. This interpretation is also consistent with qualitative evidence: lack of understanding about the product was the most commonly cit...

No abstract

Does completing a household survey change the later behavior of those surveyed? In three field studies of health and two of microlending, we randomly assigned subjects to be surveyed about health and/or household finances and then measured subsequent use of a related product with data that does not rely on subjects' selfreports. In the three health experiments, we find that being surveyed increases use of water treatment products and take-up of medical insurance. Frequent surveys on reported diarrhea also led to biased estimates of the impact of improved source water quality. In two microlending studies, we do not find an effect of being surveyed on borrowing behavior. The results suggest that limited attention could play an important but context-dependent role in consumer choice, with the implication that researchers should reconsider whether, how, and how much to survey their subjects. measurement effects | question-behavior effects | Hawthorne effects | survey methodology | models of attention M any data collection efforts in the social and clinical sciences rely on surveys. Psychologists and marketing and survey experts have long held that surveying a subject can draw attention to risks or choices with ordinarily little salience and thereby induce changes in subsequent behavior (1, 2), but conclusive evidence on this question from which a causal relationship can be clearly established has been limited. We provide evidence from a variety of settings that the act of being surveyed can affect behavior and confound estimates of parameters that initially motivated the data collection."Survey" or "interview" effects may occur even when the survey does not ask specifically about intent to engage in the behavior of interest or provide new information, and even when subjects do not know that their later behavior is being observed by researchers. Hence survey effects are conceptually distinct from, but closely related to, "question-behavior" (i.e., mere measurement or self-prophecy) and Hawthorne effects. Question-behavior effects arise when behavior changes as a result of asking subjects for intentions or predictions regarding future behavior effects (3-6). Hawthorne effects occur when behavior changes as a result of a subject responding to being treated and observed, as part of an experiment (7). These effects are also related to "push polling" and other efforts to manipulate subject behavior by posing hypothetical questions (8).We describe results from five different field experiments, in four developing countries, on whether being surveyed affects subsequent behavior. The first experiment randomizes the frequency of surveys on health behavior and diarrhea incidence, in a context in which other water quality interventions are also randomly provided. More-frequent surveying leads to lower reported child diarrhea and cleaner water (as measured by the presence of detectable chlorine in household drinking water). We posit that frequent surveying serves as a reminder to invest in water purification, although because sub...

The Impact Evaluation Series has been established in recognition of the importance of impact evaluation studies for World Bank operations and for development in general. The series serves as a vehicle for the dissemination of findings of those studies. Papers in this series are part of the Bank's Policy Research Working Paper Series. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

We designed and tested a voluntary commitment product to help smokers quit smoking. The product (CARES) offered smokers a savings account in which they deposit funds for six months, after which they take a urine test for nicotine and cotinine. If they pass, their money is returned; otherwise, their money is forfeited to charity. Of smokers offered CARES, 11 percent took up, and smokers randomly offered CARES were 3 percentage points more likely to pass the 6-month test than the control group. More importantly, this effect persisted in surprise tests at 12 months, indicating that CARES produced lasting smoking cessation. (JEL D12, I12, O15)

Why do many households remain exposed to large exogenous sources of non-systematic income risk? We use a series of randomized field experiments in rural India to test the importance of price and non-price factors in the adoption of an innovative rainfall insurance product. Demand is significantly price sensitive, but widespread take-up would not be achieved even if the product offered a payout ratio comparable to U.S. insurance contracts. We present evidence suggesting that lack of trust, liquidity constraints and limited salience are significant non-price frictions that constrain demand. We suggest contract design improvements to mitigate these frictions.