The term "moral hazard" when interpreted literally has a strong rhetorical tone, which has been used by stakeholders to influence public attitudes to insurance. In contrast, economists have treated moral hazard as an idiom that has little, if anything, to do with morality. This article traces the genesis of moral hazard, by identifying salient changes in economic thought, which are identified within the medieval theological and probability literatures. The focus then shifts to compare and contrast the predominantly, normative conception of moral hazard found within the insurance-industry literature with the largely positive interpretations found within the economic literature. © The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2012.

A History of the Term "Moral Hazard"

Connelly, Luke B.
2012

Abstract

The term "moral hazard" when interpreted literally has a strong rhetorical tone, which has been used by stakeholders to influence public attitudes to insurance. In contrast, economists have treated moral hazard as an idiom that has little, if anything, to do with morality. This article traces the genesis of moral hazard, by identifying salient changes in economic thought, which are identified within the medieval theological and probability literatures. The focus then shifts to compare and contrast the predominantly, normative conception of moral hazard found within the insurance-industry literature with the largely positive interpretations found within the economic literature. © The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2012.
2012
Rowell, David; Connelly, LUKE BRIAN
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/610900
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 91
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 76
social impact