Advanced Search

Related News

Home » Opinion » Foreign Views

When the GDP drops, the insurance kicks in

By Robert J. Shiller | January 20, 2009, Tuesday | Print Edition

THE chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, and several IMF economists have proposed in a recent paper that governments should offer what they call "recession insurance."

Companies and/or individuals would buy insurance policies, pay a regular premium for them, and receive a benefit if some measure of the economy, such as GDP growth, dropped below a specified level.

Such insurance, they argue, would help firms and people deal with the "extreme uncertainty" of the current economic environment.

Recession insurance might, indeed, help alleviate the economic crisis by reducing uncertainty.

After all, the real problem that we are currently facing is one of paralysis: Uncertainty has placed many spending decisions ?? by businesses (on higher output) and by consumers (on the items that businesses produce) ?? on hold.

Reducing uncertainty might augment fiscal stimulus programs, for it would address the root cause of the unwillingness to spend.

Moreover, recession insurance might, in contrast to fiscal policy, impose no costs on the government, for if it stimulates confidence, then the risk being insured against is prevented.

The government's ability to offer such insurance on a scale sufficient to make it costless is one reason to favor a public scheme over private insurers.

Blanchard and his colleagues point out that banks might condition loans to firms on their purchase of recession insurance, which might help credit markets function better, addressing a problem underlying the current crisis.

Tantalizingly, they say that doing this would create "a market-based view of future output and the likelihood of severe shocks," although they do not explain how this market would be structured.

Indeed, there is no market for other kinds of recession-related insurance provided by the government, such as unemployment insurance or disability insurance. Instead, the government merely sets an insurance premium and forces everyone to pay it.

The IMF authors are not saying that governments should do this with recession insurance, so perhaps they mean that governments would auction off the policies, which would create a market price. But the market price would depend especially on how much insurance a government decided to auction off.

Governments are in a good position to create new risk-management policies, and they can then set an example for private insurers to follow.

But, as an alternative to the IMF proposal, there could be purely private recession insurance.

Such insurance already exists on a small scale in the form of credit insurance against unemployment.

A New York-based firm, the Assura Group, has been working for four years on a plan to launch privately issued supplemental unemployment insurance to anyone. Their policies would piggyback on US state unemployment insurance programs, allowing Assura to avoid getting into the monitoring business.

One problem with market-based policies is strategic adoption and cancellation. GDP risk is a long-term risk. The price of the insurance would have to be adjusted regularly to adjust for varying public knowledge of the likelihood of a recession, and people could not be allowed to cancel their policies, and stop making payments, whenever the economic outlook became rosier.

In a recent paper, Mark Kamstra and I proposed that governments issue shares in their GDP, with each share amounting to a trillionth of GDP.

These "trills" would help individual countries manage their GDP risks.

We thought that the issuers of such securities would have, in effect, a form of recession insurance.

There are uncertainties with any really new proposal. But the proposal from the IMF is an important step, because it deals with the essential problem that we are confronting right now: fears about the future of the economy become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We should not look askance at such a policy because of its potential shortfalls.



(The author is professor of economics at Yale University. The views are his own. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)

Foreign Views


 

Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend