Search results

Food price volatility has drawn much attention from the international community in the beginning of the 21st century, in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2010 food riots. One strand of the literature aimed at identifying the economic origins of the increased variability of prices (supply shocks, underinvestment in the agricultural sector, financial speculation and increased demand from the emerging markets), while several articles were trying to assess whether there had actually been a change in the volatility regime in the first place. Yet another strand of the literature focused on the consequences of food price shocks and volatility. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this extensive literature on the impacts of food price shocks and food commodity volatility. The consequences are assessed both in micro- and macroeconomic terms, from the consumer's and producer's sides, as well as from the theoretical and empirical points of view. If the vast majority of studies points to a detrimental impact of food price shocks on the livelihood of many in the developing world, and on potentially dire consequences on production, growth and political stability, this literature review reveals, above all, the lack of proper investigation about the consequences of food price volatility in itself. The hype around the excessive volatility of the food markets did not translate into an academic focus on the consequences of this price instability.

Food price volatility has drawn much attention from the international community in the beginning of the 21st century, in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2010 food riots. One strand of the literature aimed at identifying the economic origins of the increased variability of prices (supply shocks, underinvestment in the agricultural sector, financial speculation and increased demand from the emerging markets), while several articles were trying to assess whether there had actually been a change in the volatility regime in the first place. Yet another strand of the literature focused on the consequences of food price shocks and volatility. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this extensive literature on the impacts of food price shocks and food commodity volatility. The consequences are assessed both in micro- and macroeconomic terms, from the consumer's and producer's sides, as well as from the theoretical and empirical points of view. If the vast majority of studies points to a detrimental impact of food price shocks on the livelihood of many in the developing world, and on potentially dire consequences on production, growth and political stability, this literature review reveals, above all, the lack of proper investigation about the consequences of food price volatility in itself. The hype around the excessive volatility of the food markets did not translate into an academic focus on the consequences of this price instability.

Food price volatility has drawn much attention from the international community in the beginning of the 21st century, in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2010 food riots. One strand of the literature aimed at identifying the economic origins of the increased variability of prices (supply shocks, underinvestment in the agricultural sector, financial speculation and increased demand from the emerging markets), while several articles were trying to assess whether there had actually been a change in the volatility regime in the first place. Yet another strand of the literature focused on the consequences of food price shocks and volatility. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this extensive literature on the impacts of food price shocks and food commodity volatility. The consequences are assessed both in micro- and macroeconomic terms, from the consumer's and producer's sides, as well as from the theoretical and empirical points of view. If the vast majority of studies points to a detrimental impact of food price shocks on the livelihood of many in the developing world, and on potentially dire consequences on production, growth and political stability, this literature review reveals, above all, the lack of proper investigation about the consequences of food price volatility in itself. The hype around the excessive volatility of the food markets did not translate into an academic focus on the consequences of this price instability.

Food price volatility has drawn much attention from the international community in the beginning of the 21st century, in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2010 food riots. One strand of the literature aimed at identifying the economic origins of the increased variability of prices (supply shocks, underinvestment in the agricultural sector, financial speculation and increased demand from the emerging markets), while several articles were trying to assess whether there had actually been a change in the volatility regime in the first place. Yet another strand of the literature focused on the consequences of food price shocks and volatility. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this extensive literature on the impacts of food price shocks and food commodity volatility. The consequences are assessed both in micro- and macroeconomic terms, from the consumer's and producer's sides, as well as from the theoretical and empirical points of view. If the vast majority of studies points to a detrimental impact of food price shocks on the livelihood of many in the developing world, and on potentially dire consequences on production, growth and political stability, this literature review reveals, above all, the lack of proper investigation about the consequences of food price volatility in itself. The hype around the excessive volatility of the food markets did not translate into an academic focus on the consequences of this price instability.

Food price volatility has drawn much attention from the international community in the beginning of the 21st century, in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2010 food riots. One strand of the literature aimed at identifying the economic origins of the increased variability of prices (supply shocks, underinvestment in the agricultural sector, financial speculation and increased demand from the emerging markets), while several articles were trying to assess whether there had actually been a change in the volatility regime in the first place. Yet another strand of the literature focused on the consequences of food price shocks and volatility. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this extensive literature on the impacts of food price shocks and food commodity volatility. The consequences are assessed both in micro- and macroeconomic terms, from the consumer's and producer's sides, as well as from the theoretical and empirical points of view. If the vast majority of studies points to a detrimental impact of food price shocks on the livelihood of many in the developing world, and on potentially dire consequences on production, growth and political stability, this literature review reveals, above all, the lack of proper investigation about the consequences of food price volatility in itself. The hype around the excessive volatility of the food markets did not translate into an academic focus on the consequences of this price instability.

The literature generally agrees that the traditional insurance sector is not a source of systemic risk, and insurers are often considered to be shock absorbers rather than shock amplifiers. Yet, the evolution of the industry both in terms of structure (concentration of the reinsurers, increased linkages with banks, especially through bancassurance conglomerates) and in terms of techniques (securitization, monolines, derivatives) increased the systemic relevance of the insurers.

The literature generally agrees that the traditional insurance sector is not a source of systemic risk, and insurers are often considered to be shock absorbers rather than shock amplifiers. Yet, the evolution of the industry both in terms of structure (concentration of the reinsurers, increased linkages with banks, especially through bancassurance conglomerates) and in terms of techniques (securitization, monolines, derivatives) increased the systemic relevance of the insurers.

The literature generally agrees that the traditional insurance sector is not a source of systemic risk, and insurers are often considered to be shock absorbers rather than shock amplifiers. Yet, the evolution of the industry both in terms of structure (concentration of the reinsurers, increased linkages with banks, especially through bancassurance conglomerates) and in terms of techniques (securitization, monolines, derivatives) increased the systemic relevance of the insurers.

The literature generally agrees that the traditional insurance sector is not a source of systemic risk, and insurers are often considered to be shock absorbers rather than shock amplifiers. Yet, the evolution of the industry both in terms of structure (concentration of the reinsurers, increased linkages with banks, especially through bancassurance conglomerates) and in terms of techniques (securitization, monolines, derivatives) increased the systemic relevance of the insurers.

The literature generally agrees that the traditional insurance sector is not a source of systemic risk, and insurers are often considered to be shock absorbers rather than shock amplifiers. Yet, the evolution of the industry both in terms of structure (concentration of the reinsurers, increased linkages with banks, especially through bancassurance conglomerates) and in terms of techniques (securitization, monolines, derivatives) increased the systemic relevance of the insurers.

We use a brand new data-set built from French supervisory reports to investigate the drivers of the participation rates served on euro-denominated life-insurance contracts over the period 1999-2013. Our analysis confirms practitioners' insight on the alignment with the 10-years French government bond, yet we show that on aggregate, insurers serve less than this target. Our data indicate that financial margins are more strictly targeted than participation. We find evidence that lapses are fairly uncorrelated with participation, suggesting other levers to pilot surrenders. If higher asset returns can imply better yield for policyholders, riskier portfolios do not translate into better participation