Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:02:32.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence on individual preferences for longevity risk*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

G. DELPRAT ,
M.-L. LEROUX  and
P.-C. MICHAUD
G. DELPRAT
Affiliation:
Département des sciences économiques, ESG-UQAM
M.-L. LEROUX
Affiliation:
Département des sciences économiques, ESG-UQAM, CESifo, CORE, CIRANO and CIRPÉE, Montréal, QC, Canada (e-mail: [email protected])
P.-C. MICHAUD
Affiliation:
Département des sciences économiques, ESG-UQAM, RAND Corporation, CIRPÉE and CIRANO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard model of intertemporal choice assumes risk neutrality towards the length of life: under additivity of lifetime utility and expected utility assumptions, agents are not sensitive to a mean preserving spread in the length of life. Using a survey fielded in the RAND American Life Panel, this paper provides empirical evidence on possible deviation from risk neutrality with respect to longevity in the US population. The questions we ask allow to find the distribution as well as to quantify the degree of risk aversion with respect to the length of life in the population. We find evidence that roughly 75% of respondents were not neutral with respect to longevity risk. Hence, there is a little empirical support for the joint use of the expected utility and additive lifetime utility assumptions in life-cycle models. Higher income households are more likely to be risk averse towards the length of life. We do not find evidence that the degree of risk aversion varies with age or education.

Keywords

D12D91I10J26Intertemporal choicerisk aversion towards the length of lifestated-preference
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 160 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We acknowledge financial support from the RAND Roybal Center for Financial Decision Making, the Industrielle Alliance Research Chair on the Economics of Demographic Change and thank the RAND ALP survey team for fielding our questions. We also thank A. Bommier, A. Kapteyn, A. Hung, A. van Soest, P. Pestieau, G. Ponthiere as well as two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.

References

Aldy, J. E. and Viscusi, W. K. (2003) Age variations in workers value of statistical life. NBER Working paper No. 10199.Google Scholar
Arrondel, L., Masson, A. and Verger, D. (2004) Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l'égard du risque. Économie et statistique, 374–375: 53–85.Google Scholar
Barsky, R., Juster, T., Miles, K. and Shapiro, M. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the Health and Retirement Study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 537–579, In Memory of Amos Tversky (1937–1996).Google Scholar
Bleichrodt, H. and Quiggin, J. (1999) Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? Journal of Health Economics 18: 681–708.Google Scholar
Bommier, A. (2006) Uncertain lifetime and intertemporal choice: risk aversion as a rationale for time discounting. International Economic Review, 47(4): 1223–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommier, A. and Le Grand, F. (2012) Too Risk Averse to Purchase Insurance? A Theoretical Glance at the Annuity Puzzle. ETH Risk Center WP Series ETH-RC-12-002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommier, A. and Villeneuve, B. (2012) Risk aversion and the value of risk to life. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79(1): 77–103.Google Scholar
Bommier, A., Leroux, M.-L. and Lozachmeur, J.-M. (2011 a) On the public economics of annuities with differential mortality. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8): 612–623.Google Scholar
Bommier, A., Leroux, M.-L. and Lozachmeur, J.-M. (2011 b) Differential mortality and social security. Canadian Journal of Economics, 44(1): 273–289.Google Scholar
Cagetti, M. (2003) Wealth accumulation over the life cycle and precautionary savings. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21(3): 339–353.Google Scholar
Calvo, G. A. and Obstfeld, M. (1988) Optimal time-consistent fiscal policy with finite lifetimes. Econometrica, 56: 411–432.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., Jaffray, J. Y. and Said, T. (1985) Individual behaviour under risk and under uncertainty: an experimental study. Theory and Decision, 18: 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidoff, T., Brown, J. R. and Diamond, P. A. (2005) Annuities and individual welfare. American Economic Review, 95(5): 1573–1590.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. A. (ed.) (2003) Models of optimal retirement incentives with varying life expectancies. In Taxation, Incomplete Markets and Social Security, chapter 7. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p 87–114.Google Scholar
Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C. and Schlesinger, H. (2005) Economic and Financial Decisions Under Risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Leroux, M.-L. and Ponthiere, G. (2014) Compensating the dead? Journal of Mathematical Economics, 51: 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. and Laury, S. (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5): 1644–1655.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A. and Teppa, F. (2011) Subjective measures of risk aversion, fixed costs, and portfolio choice. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32: 564–580.Google Scholar
Kihlstrom, R. E. and Mirman, L. J. (1974) Risk aversion with many commodities. Journal of Economic Theory, 8: 361–388.Google Scholar
Lawrance, E. C. (1991) Poverty and the rate of time preference: evidence from panel data. Journal of Political Economy, 99(1): 54–77.Google Scholar
Leroux, M.-L., Pestieau, P. and Ponthire, G. (2011) Longevity, genes and efforts: an optimal taxation approach to prevention. Journal of Health Economics, 30(1): 62–76.Google Scholar
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maas, A. and Wakker, P. (1994) Additive conjoint measurement for multi attribute utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 38: 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2011) Health at a Glance 2011, OECD indicators. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/49105858.pdf.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32(1/2): 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ried, W. (1998) QALYs versus HYEswhats right and whats wrong. A review of the controversy. Journal of Health Economics, 17: 607–625.Google Scholar
Stiggelbout, A. M., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., Leer, J. W. H., Stoter, G. and De Haes, J. C. J. M. (1994) Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Medical Decision Making, 14: 82–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Verhoef, L., De Haan, A. and Van Daal, W. (1994) Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory. Medical Decision Making, 14: 194–200.Google Scholar
Yaari, M. (1965) Uncertain lifetime, life insurance and the theory of the consumer. The Review of Economic Studies, 32(2): 137–150.Google Scholar