Abstract

Purpose In this paper, we aim to assess insurance demand across selected Asian and OECD countries during the period of the global financial crisis. Design/methodology/approach We collected data from 55 emerging Asian and OECD countries during the period of the global financial crisis. Our methodology relies on panel regressions. Separate models are run for the Asia/OECD economies and a follow-up distinction between high/low-income regions is also made. Findings We find that global financial crisis affects negatively the general insurance demand particularly in high-income region. Higher dependency ratio in Asia tends to decrease insurance demand, whereas education in case of Asia positively influences insurance demand indicating that higher literacy rate can be helpful to capture the potential customers. Our results further reveal that life insurance is an important driver for insurance demand in OECD countries, whereas general insurance demand is higher in the Asian economies.Originality/value This is one of the pioneering studies that have assessed insurance demand among emerging Asian and OECD countries during the period of the global financial crisis.


Authors

Akhter, Waheed;  Pappas, Vasileios;  Khan, Saad Ullah

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 1 author
  • 2 reviewers
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2019/12/27

    27-Dec-2019

    Dear akhter, waheed; Pappas, Vasileios; Khan, Saad

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript IJSE-08-2019-0523.R1, entitled "Insurance Demand in Emerging Asian and OECD countries: A Comparative Perspective" in its current form for publication in International Journal of Social Economics. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of International Journal of Social Economics, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Woodward
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    ac0956@coventry.ac.uk

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/24

    Interesting paper.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2019/12/11

    Response to Reviewers’ comments
    International Journal of Social Economics - Decision on Manuscript ID IJSE-08-2019-0523
    14-Nov.-2019

    Reviewer: 1
    Recommendation: Minor Revision
    Comments:
    1. Interesting paper.
    Response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.

    1. However, there is a need to explain why the two groups are subject to comparison. Is it because they are too different? Or is it because they have peculiar issues that need to be compared against?
      Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments. It has been explained and highlighted on pp.2-3.

    2. English needs to be enhanced for readability. Generally, there is no serious problem, but improving English would enhance the paper’s quality. Some characters need not to be capitalized (e.g., Low-income region vs. low-income region).
      Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments. It has been revised and highlighted.

    3. Please label the Appendix (e.g., Appendix 1, etc.).
      Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments. Appendix label has been revised.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, good comparison between the Emerging Asian and OECD countries using econometrics approach.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Fairly presented.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Fairly presented.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.
    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Fairly presented and related to and/or addressed the main objectives of the study.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, fairly justified.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Moderate. Need to pay a little bit more attention to the presentation, language and punctuations.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments. It has been revised and highlighted.

    Reviewer: 2
    Recommendation: Major Revision
    Comments: Major:
    The study aims to identify the determinants of insurance demand during the 2007 global financial crisis (10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4). In addition, it seems to be focusing on the impact of the 2007 global financial crisis (measured by a dummy: 1 for the years between 2007-2010) on insurance; arguing that little focus has been given to this in the emerging Asian economies.
    My concern: If the duration of the 2007 global financial crisis (as defined by the paper) is 2007-2010, then, it is somewhat not clear how the explored factors capture the determinants of insurance during the 2007 financial crisis (implicitly redefined as the 10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4).
    Our response: Thank you for your comment. The explanatory variables used in the model are in line with the literature on insurance demand and appropriately referenced in section 2 and table 1. The crisis dummy variable allows for a level-shift in demand during the global financial crisis period (2007-10). The duration of the global financial crisis is generally regarded as 2007-10, however we also ran a robustness check for 2008-2010 with the results not changing qualitatively.

    We have also re-estimated our model entirely for the crisis period (e.g. only 2007-2010), and post-crisis period (2011-2014) and these results are qualitatively similar to our main results in the paper, hence are not included for brevity. They show however that the explanatory variables have predictive power irrespective of crisis/non-crisis period as inferred from the consistency in statistical significance and magnitude of the coefficients.

    Minor:
    Is the study period from 2004 to 2013 (see, p. 3 line 3) or from 2005 to 2014 (see, p. 7 line 19)?
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. The study period is from 2004 to 2013 and has been rectified in the paper.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify
    publication?: To answer the above question fairly, I may require some clarification from the
    author(s).
    The study aims to identify the determinants of insurance demand during the 2007 global financial crisis (10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4). In addition, it seems to be focusing on the impact of the 2007 global financial crisis (measured by a dummy: 1 for the years between 2007-2010) on insurance; arguing that little focus has been given to this in the emerging Asian economies.
    My concern: If the duration of the 2007 global financial crisis (as defined by the paper) is 2007-2010, then, it is somewhat not clear how the explored factors capture the determinants of insurance during the 2007 financial crisis (implicitly redefined as the 10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4).
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. We hope that it has been clarified as explained above.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. We hope that it has been clarified as explained above.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. We hope that it has been clarified as explained above.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. We hope that it has been clarified as explained above.
    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice?
    How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.
    Our response: We appreciate reviewer for his concern. We hope that it has been clarified as explained above.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The motivation of the paper could be improved to clarify all ambiguity.
    Our response: we are grateful to the reviewer for the comments. The required changes have been made and highlighted in the paper.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2019/11/14

    14-Nov-2019

    Dear Dr. akhter:

    Manuscript ID IJSE-08-2019-0523 entitled "Insurance Demand in Emerging Asian and OECD countries: A Comparative Perspective" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 14-Jan-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Richard Woodward
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    ac0956@coventry.ac.uk

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    1. Interesting paper.
    2. However, there is a need to explain why the two groups are subject to comparison. Is it because they are too different? Or is it because they have peculiar issues that need to be compared against.
    3. English needs to be enhanced for readability. Generally, there is no serious problem, but improving English would enhance the paper’s quality. Some characters need not to be capitalized (e.g., Low-income region vs. low-income region).
    4. Please label the Appendix (e.g., Appendix 1, etc.).

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, good comparison between the Emerging Asian and OECD countries using econometrics approach.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Fairly presented.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Fairly presented.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Fairly presented and related to and/or addressed the main objectives of the study.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, fairly justified.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Moderate. Need to pay a little bit more attention to the presentation, language and punctuations.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Major:
    The study aims to identify the determinants of insurance demand during the 2007 global financial crisis (10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4). In addition, it seems to be focusing on the impact of the 2007 global financial crisis (measured by a dummy: 1 for the years between 2007-2010) on insurance; arguing that little focus has been given to this in the emerging Asian economies.

    My concern: If the duration of the 2007 global financial crisis (as defined by the paper) is 2007-2010, then, it is somewhat not clear how the explored factors capture the determinants of insurance during the 2007 financial crisis (implicitly redefined as the 10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4).

    Minor:
    Is the study period from 2004 to 2013 (see, p. 3 line 3) or from 2005 to 2014 (see, p. 7 line 19)?

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: To answer the above question fairly, I may require some clarification from the author(s).

    The study aims to identify the determinants of insurance demand during the 2007 global financial crisis (10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4). In addition, it seems to be focusing on the impact of the 2007 global financial crisis (measured by a dummy: 1 for the years between 2007-2010) on insurance; arguing that little focus has been given to this in the emerging Asian economies.

    My concern: If the duration of the 2007 global financial crisis (as defined by the paper) is 2007-2010, then, it is somewhat not clear how the explored factors capture the determinants of insurance during the 2007 financial crisis (implicitly redefined as the 10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4).

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: My response is dependent on the inquiry in the "originality" section.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The motivation of the paper could be improved to clarify all ambiguity.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/09/17

    Major:
    The study aims to identify the determinants of insurance demand during the 2007 global financial crisis (10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4). In addition, it seems to be focusing on the impact of the 2007 global financial crisis (measured by a dummy: 1 for the years between 2007-2010) on insurance; arguing that little focus has been given to this in the emerging Asian economies.

    My concern: If the duration of the 2007 global financial crisis (as defined by the paper) is 2007-2010, then, it is somewhat not clear how the explored factors capture the determinants of insurance during the 2007 financial crisis (implicitly redefined as the 10-year period from 2004/5 to 2013/4).

    Minor:
    Is the study period from 2004 to 2013 (see, p. 3 line 3) or from 2005 to 2014 (see, p. 7 line 19)?

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2019/09/15

    1. Interesting paper.
    2. However, there is a need to explain why the two groups are subject to comparison. Is it because they are too different? Or is it because they have peculiar issues that need to be compared against.
    3. English needs to be enhanced for readability. Generally, there is no serious problem, but improving English would enhance the paper’s quality. Some characters need not to be capitalized (e.g., Low-income region vs. low-income region).
    4. Please label the Appendix (e.g., Appendix 1, etc.).

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.