Geographies of trust: Socio-spatial variegations of trust in insurance

Tranter, Bruce; Booth, Kate

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.07.006

Cited by 17 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fungáčová and Weill (2018) show that trust in Chinese banks is relatively low for members of the Communist Party. Tranter and Booth (2019) find that trust in insurance companies and banks and financial institutions in Australia is higher for people who identify with the Liberal Party and the National Party than for those who identify with other political parties. According to Knell and Stix (2015), individuals with a clear political conviction (attached to left-wing or right-wing parties)…”

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The freedom to choose the healthcare insurer matters for trust too (Zheng et al, 2002;Dugan et al, 2005) as well as not having had prior disputes (Zheng et al, 2002). Tranter and Booth (2019) find that broad-scope trust in insurance companies is relatively low for people without a house or contents insurance. In case of health insurers trust is negatively related to mental health (Dugan et al, 2005).…”

Section: Other Factorsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…(2019), Järvinen (2014), Tranter and Booth (2019) find that trust is higher for women than for men, whereas Naumann (2018) finds the opposite result. Nuñez Letamendia and Poher (2020) show that the gender effect depends on the type of trust.…”

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, Fungáčová and Weill (2018) find that trust is low for more highly educated people. But Tranter and Booth (2019) report that trust in insurance companies is relatively high for individuals holding a post-secondary certificate or diploma and for those who last attended a government school. Likewise, the results of Shim et al (2013) and Afandi and Habibov (2017) suggest that trust in banks is relatively high for people with a university education.…”

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Trust in Financial Institutions: A Survey

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in financial institutions is widely considered important. However, a clear overview of studies on the drivers of trust is missing. We intend to fill this gap in the literature. After discussing why trust in financial institutions is important, we turn to its measurement, where we distinguish between trust in one's own institution and trust in institutions in general (narrow-scope and broad-scope trust), and discuss how these measures differ from generalized trust (i.e. trust in other people with whom there is no direct relationship). Finally, we survey the determinants of trust in financial institutions and discuss a wide range of drivers. First, trust in financial institutions depends on the economic situation: it behaves procyclically and is negatively affected by financial crises. Second, the behavior of the financial institutions matters: prudent conduct, the provision of good services and financial health have a positive effect on trust. Third, although consumer characteristics also relate to trust, many of these relationships are context-dependent. Fourth, there is a positive association between narrow-scope trust on the one hand and broadscope trust and generalized trust on the other. Last, policy measures and supervisory actions can help prevent loss of trust.

show abstract

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Other Factorsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consumer Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trust in Financial Institutions: A Survey

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing insurance markets and available information for adaptation are both far from perfect (Stern, 2006). Underinsurance and insurance unavailability or unaffordability are widespread, and trust in insurers is low (Tranter & Booth, 2019). Localized effects of climate change are complex, and adaptation action is often the subject of political disagreement, so reliance on private interests may not lead to fair or legitimate outcomes (Adger, Barnett, Brown, Marshall, & O'Brien, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery

Lucas

Booth

2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As losses from extreme weather events grow, many governments are looking to privatize the financing and incentivization of climate adaptation through insurance markets. In a pure market approach to insurance for extreme weather events, individuals become responsible for ensuring they are adequately covered for risks to their own properties, and governments no longer contribute funds to post-disaster recovery. Theoretically, insurance premiums signal the level of risk faced by each household, and incentivize homeowners to invest in adaptive action, such as retrofitting, or drainage work, to reduce premiums. Where risk is considered too high by insurance markets, housing is devalued, in theory leading to retreat from risky areas. In this review article, we evaluate the suitability of private insurance as a mechanism for climate adaptation at a household and community level. We find a mismatch between social understandings of responsibility for climate risks, and the technocratic, market-based home insurance products offered by private insurance markets. We suggest that by constructing increasingly individualized, technical, and calculative evaluations of risk, market-based models of insurance for extreme weather events erode the solidaristic and collective discourses and practices that support adaptive behavior.

show abstract