Working Paper: NBER ID: w31639
Authors: Julian Arteaga; Michael Carter; Andrew Hobbs
Abstract: The novel insurance contracts for crop losses and livestock mortality that have been developed in low income countries typically protect against shocks in the male sphere of economic activity. Often overlooked are women, the particularities of their indirect exposure to this risk, and their socially constructed responsibility to manage family well-being. To fill this lacuna, this paper studies the effect of a low-cost intervention that reformulates a livestock insurance contract so that it directly addresses women’s risk and is sold in units that are commensurate with women’s expenditure responsibilities. We measure the effect of this contractual reformulation using a randomized trial amongst pastoralist communities in Kenya. Twenty-four percent of previously subsidized households that received the novel contractual formulation purchased insurance (without subsidy), compared to only 13% of previously subsidized households offered insurance under the standard male-risk formulation. Households that had not received prior insurance subsidies purchased no insurance, irrespective of the framing. Protecting women, their assets and those who depend on them will require a combination of smart subsidies and gender-intentional insurance contract design.
Keywords: Index Insurance; Women's Economic Empowerment; Livestock Insurance; Pastoralist Communities; Gender-Inclusive Insurance
JEL Codes: G52; O12; O13
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| GI framing (Y90) | insurance uptake (G52) |
| insurance subsidies (G52) | insurance uptake (G52) |
| GI framing + insurance subsidies (H51) | insurance uptake (G52) |
| GI framing (Y90) | share of spending allocated to insurance (women) (G52) |
| GI framing (Y90) | share of spending allocated to insurance (men) (G52) |