Risk Sharing Agreement Finance

Empirical funding research focuses on explaining the cross-section of safety returns, in which the concept of section refers to specially designed portfolio sets and not to individual expenditures.28 Curiously, there are so far few studies that contain explanatory variables of the labour market of any kind in the early stages of Fama and MacBeth (1972) style regressions, which constitute the basic technique used in these exercises. There are two exceptions to this general rule: Jagannathan and Wang (1996) and Santos and Veronesi (2004). Jagannathan and Wang (1996) count the growth rate of per capita labour income as an explanatory variable, a fact that allows their model to exceed the standard CAPM. Such a variable is entirely consistent with the model presented in this paper: a value above the average of μ over a period of time is consistent with a high growth rate per worker and per employee. Nevertheless, the degree of exchange risk sharing will depend on the relative negotiating position of both parties and their willingness to conclude such a risk-sharing agreement. If the buyer (or seller) can dictate terms and perceive a low risk that his margin will be affected by currency fluctuations, he may be less willing to share the risk. Budgetary control was highlighted as the main reason for signing these contracts, followed by better drug management and easier patient access to new drugs. With regard to the disadvantages of these contracts, certain elements such as the maintenance of medical records, the adaptation of information systems, the bureaucracy in the development of the agreement and the administrative monitoring of the application of contractual conditions would require, among other things, additional administrative efforts. Based on anthropological knowledge and previous work on the true nature of household transfers (Platteau 1991), Platteau (1996) challenges the idea that transfers between households that appear to be dependent on shocks should be interpreted as evidence of the intention to share risks. Rather, Platteau argues that they could be the manifestation of broader and contingent redistribution standards. What looks like insurance can indeed be a redistribution to the unfortunate members of society.

The intensive allocation of resources for data collection and analysis/follow-up of the Together agreement, the available evidence therefore indicates that both altruism and self-interest are at work to report risk-sharing among households. However, the systematic evidence of altruism seems to be limited to relationships between close relatives. To explain this latter finding, Cox and Fafchamps (2007) tackle the emerging literature on the psychology of evolution, in particular the Hamilton hypothesis, which says that altruism is proportional to the proportion of genes common to individuals. The Hamilton hypothesis provides experimental predictions about the strength of altruism between households. B for example, that altruism should be stronger between close relatives. Much of Cox`s early work and others can be taken up with this assumption at the back of the head – and overall, she is in tune with it. Other predictions of evolutionary psychology can be tested or compared to previous empirical results. For example, Duflo (2003), in his work on public payments to the elderly, found that South African grandchildren received more help from their mothers than from their paternal grandmothers.