Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:39:19.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Economic Theory and their Application to Insurance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

Karl Borch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The very title of this paper may cause some surprise, since economic theory so far has found virtually no application in insurance. Insurance is obviously an economic activity, and it is indeed strange that general economic theory should seem inapplicable to insurance.

This apparent paradox may to some extent be explained by the historic development. Actuarial mathematics and the essential scientific basis of insurance were developed into a self-contained and fairly complete theory long before economists could claim the name of science for their subject. Actuaries and other insurance people may from time to time have turned to economic theory for help on their problems. In most cases they must have turned away in disappointment, being convinced that actuarial mathematics was well ahead of general economic theory.

The last point is brought out clearly in a paper on the safety loading of insurance premiums which Tauber (19) presented at the Sixth International Congress of Actuaries in Vienna in 1909. In the introduction to this paper Tauber seems to consider risk bearing as a service and appears to assume that it like all other goods and services must have a price, determined by supply and demand in the market. Tauber did not develop this idea, apparently because the economic theory of his time was utterly unable to analyse the problem. That his approach was sound, and that the problem can be formulated and solved by modern economic theory, has been indicated in a previous paper (6).

During the last thirty years there has been an extremely rapid development in economic theory. The “General Theory” of Keynes (12) which appeared in 1936, is usually considered to have caused a revolution in economic theory. However, this “revolution” has not lead to any developments which seem to have an immediate application in insurance. Post- and pre-Keynesian economics are equally powerless when confronted with the problem which Tauber tried to formulate. It is therefore premature to conclude from the title of this paper that economic theory has caught up with actuarial science, and that the theory of insurance has now become a part of a general theory comprising all economic activities.

Type
Invited Lecture
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , April 1963 , pp. 322 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © International Actuarial Association 1963

References

(1)Barrois, T.: „Essai sur l'application du calcul des probabilités aux assurances contre l'incendie”. Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences de l'Agriculture et des Arts de Lille, 1834, pp. 85–282.Google Scholar
(2)Baumgartner, U.: „Abschätzung von Reserven mit spieltheoretischen Methoden”. Bulletin de l'Association des Actuaires suisses 1961, pp. 223–274.Google Scholar
(3)Bernoulli, D.: “Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk”. Econometrica 1954, PP. 23–46. (Translation of a paper in Latin published in St. Petersburg 1738).Google Scholar
(4)Bierlein, D.: „Spieltheoretische Modelle für Entscheidungssituationen des Versicherers”. Blätter der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Versicherungsmathematik 1958, pp. 461–469.Google Scholar
(5)Borch, K.: “The Utility Concept applied to the Theory of Insurance”. The ASTIN Bulletin Vol. I, pp. 245–255.Google Scholar
(6)Borch, K.: “The Safety Loading of Reinsurance Premiums”. Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift 1960, pp. 163–184.Google Scholar
(7)Borch, K.: “Equilibrium in a Reinsurance Market”. Econometrica 1962, pp. 424–444.Google Scholar
(8)Borch, K.: “Application of Game Theory to some Problems in Automobile Insurance”. The ASTIN Bulletin, Vol. II, pp. 208–221.Google Scholar
(9)Frechet, M.: “Emile Borel, initiator of the theory of psychological games and its application”. Econometrica 1953, pp. 95–96.Google Scholar
(10)Frechet, M.: “Commentary on the three notes of Emile Borel”. Econometrica 1953, pp. 118–124.Google Scholar
(11)Haavelmo, T.: “The role of the econometrician in the advancement of economic theory”. Econometrica 1958, pp. 351–357.Google Scholar
(12)Keynes, J. M.: “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”, London 1936.Google Scholar
(13)Marshall, A.: “Principles of Economics” 8th Edition, London 1920.Google Scholar
(14)Neumann, J. von: “Communication on the Borel Notes”. Econometrica 1953. pp. 124–127.Google Scholar
(15)Neumann, J. von: “Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele”. Mathematische Annalen 1928, pp. 295–320. English translation Annals of Mathematical Studies No 40, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
(16)Neumann, J. von and Morgenstern, O.: “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”, Princeton 1944.Google Scholar
(17)Nolfi, P.: “Zur mathematischen Darstellung des Nutzens in der Versicherung”. Bulletin de l'Association des Actuaires suisses 1957, pp. 395–407.Google Scholar
(18)Nolfi, P.: “Die Berücksichtigung der Sterblichkeitsverbesserung in der Rentenversicherung nach der Optimalmethode der Spieltheorie”. Bulletin de l'Association des Actuaires suisses 1959, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
(19)Tauber, A.: „Über Risiko und Sicherheitszuschlag”. Report of the Sixth International Congress of Actuaries, pp. 781–842, Vienna 1909.Google Scholar
(20)Thompson, D. M. and Thompson, G. L.: “A Bibliography of Game Theory”. Annals of Mathematical Studies No. 40, pp. 407–453.Google Scholar
(21)Wald, A.: “Statistical Decision Functions”, New York 1950.Google Scholar
(22)Walras, L.: “Elements d'Economie Politique Pure”, Edition definitive. Tirage Pichon & Durand-Auzias, Paris 1952.Google Scholar
(23)Williams, C. A.: “Game theory and insurance consumption”. The Journal of Insurance, December 1960, pp. 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar