Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Michael Danquah, D. Otoo, A. Baah-Nuakoh (2018)
Cost efficiency of insurance firms in GhanaManagerial and Decision Economics, 39
(2020)
Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm
(2007)
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares
C. Biener, M. Eling, Jan Wirfs (2015)
The Determinants of Efficiency and Productivity in the Swiss Insurance IndustryERN: Efficient Market Hypothesis Models (Topic)
A. Rai (1996)
Cost efficiency of international insurance firmsJournal of Financial Services Research, 10
Hwai-Shuh Shieh, Jin-Li Hu, Yong-Ze Ang (2020)
Efficiency of Life Insurance Companies: An Empirical Study in Mainland China and TaiwanSAGE Open, 10
문하나, 민대기 (2016)
Two-stage Network DEA를 이용한 국내 에너지다소비 기업의 에너지효율성 분석
(McKinsey. (2018b). Digital Insurance in 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insights/digital%20insurance%20in%202018%20driving%20real%20impact%20with%20digital%20and%20analytics/digital-insurance-in-2018.ashx.)
McKinsey. (2018b). Digital Insurance in 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insights/digital%20insurance%20in%202018%20driving%20real%20impact%20with%20digital%20and%20analytics/digital-insurance-in-2018.ashx.McKinsey. (2018b). Digital Insurance in 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insights/digital%20insurance%20in%202018%20driving%20real%20impact%20with%20digital%20and%20analytics/digital-insurance-in-2018.ashx., McKinsey. (2018b). Digital Insurance in 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insights/digital%20insurance%20in%202018%20driving%20real%20impact%20with%20digital%20and%20analytics/digital-insurance-in-2018.ashx.
W. Greene (2008)
The Econometric Approach to Efficiency Analysis
Alexander Bohnert, Albrecht Fritzsche, S. Gregor (2018)
Digital agendas in the insurance industry: the importance of comprehensive approaches†The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 44
(NTT Data, Everis. (2020). Insurtech global outlook 2020. https://insurtechnttdata.everis.com/dist/resources/vlarrosa/insurtech/Insurtech-Global-Outlook_Report.pdf.)
NTT Data, Everis. (2020). Insurtech global outlook 2020. https://insurtechnttdata.everis.com/dist/resources/vlarrosa/insurtech/Insurtech-Global-Outlook_Report.pdf.NTT Data, Everis. (2020). Insurtech global outlook 2020. https://insurtechnttdata.everis.com/dist/resources/vlarrosa/insurtech/Insurtech-Global-Outlook_Report.pdf., NTT Data, Everis. (2020). Insurtech global outlook 2020. https://insurtechnttdata.everis.com/dist/resources/vlarrosa/insurtech/Insurtech-Global-Outlook_Report.pdf.
H. Fried, C. Lovell, Shelton Schmidt (1993)
The measurement of productive efficiency : techniques and applications
(Willis Tower Watson. (2019). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018. https://www.willistowerswatson.com/-/media/WTW/Insights/2019/02/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q4-2018.pdf?modified=20190228155910.)
Willis Tower Watson. (2019). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018. https://www.willistowerswatson.com/-/media/WTW/Insights/2019/02/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q4-2018.pdf?modified=20190228155910.Willis Tower Watson. (2019). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018. https://www.willistowerswatson.com/-/media/WTW/Insights/2019/02/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q4-2018.pdf?modified=20190228155910., Willis Tower Watson. (2019). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018. https://www.willistowerswatson.com/-/media/WTW/Insights/2019/02/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q4-2018.pdf?modified=20190228155910.
M. Copeland, Emilyn Cabanda (2018)
Efficiency Analysis of the U.S. Publicly Held Insurance Industry: A Two-Stage Efficiency ModelInt. J. Inf. Syst. Serv. Sect., 10
(2002)
Eurasian Business Review
(2018)
Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance
(2018)
Insurtech entering second wave
(Marchionni, F. (2006). L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale. Il sole 24 ore.)
Marchionni, F. (2006). L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale. Il sole 24 ore.Marchionni, F. (2006). L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale. Il sole 24 ore., Marchionni, F. (2006). L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale. Il sole 24 ore.
Sevgi Tuzcu, Emrah Ertugay (2020)
Is size an input in the mutual fund performance evaluation with DEA?Eurasian Economic Review
(Deloitte. (2018). Insurtech entering second wave. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-dcfs-insurtech-entering-second-wave.pdf.)
Deloitte. (2018). Insurtech entering second wave. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-dcfs-insurtech-entering-second-wave.pdf.Deloitte. (2018). Insurtech entering second wave. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-dcfs-insurtech-entering-second-wave.pdf., Deloitte. (2018). Insurtech entering second wave. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/financial-services/us-dcfs-insurtech-entering-second-wave.pdf.
G. Battese, T. Coelli (1992)
Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in IndiaJournal of Productivity Analysis, 3
(2019)
2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook
M. Nourani, Qian Kweh, E. Devadason, V. Chandran (2020)
A decomposition analysis of managerial efficiency for the insurance companies: A data envelopment analysis approachManagerial and Decision Economics, 41
(2006)
L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale
A. Alhassan, N. Biekpe (2016)
Competition and efficiency in the non-life insurance market in South AfricaJournal of Economic Studies, 43
A. Ilyas, S. Rajasekaran (2019)
An empirical investigation of efficiency and productivity in the Indian non-life insurance marketBenchmarking: An International Journal
(2018)
Digital Insurance in 2018
Hugo Fuentes, E. Grifell-Tatjé, S. Perelman
Centre De Referència En Economia Analítica Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper Nº 244 Product Specialization, Efficiency and Productivity Change in the Spanish Insurance Industry Product Specialization, Efficiency and Productivity Change in the Spanish Insurance Industry
(Al-witwit, S. S. I., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2020, November). Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial Intelligence. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022014). IOP Publishing.)
Al-witwit, S. S. I., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2020, November). Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial Intelligence. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022014). IOP Publishing.Al-witwit, S. S. I., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2020, November). Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial Intelligence. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022014). IOP Publishing., Al-witwit, S. S. I., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2020, November). Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial Intelligence. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022014). IOP Publishing.
Wei Huang, M. Eling (2012)
An efficiency comparison of the non-life insurance industry in the BRIC countriesEur. J. Oper. Res., 226
(EY. (2019). 2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/insurance/insurance-outlook-pdfs/ey-global-insurance-outlook-us-americas_v2.pdf.)
EY. (2019). 2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/insurance/insurance-outlook-pdfs/ey-global-insurance-outlook-us-americas_v2.pdf.EY. (2019). 2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/insurance/insurance-outlook-pdfs/ey-global-insurance-outlook-us-americas_v2.pdf., EY. (2019). 2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/insurance/insurance-outlook-pdfs/ey-global-insurance-outlook-us-americas_v2.pdf.
A. Charnes, W. Cooper, E. Rhodes (1978)
Measuring the efficiency of decision making unitsEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 2
M. Eling, M. Luhnen (2010)
Efficiency in the international insurance industry: A cross-country comparisonJournal of Banking and Finance, 34
Allen Berger (1993)
“Distribution-free” estimates of efficiency in the U.S. banking industry and tests of the standard distributional assumptionsJournal of Productivity Analysis, 4
K. Schaeck, M. Čihák (2012)
Competition, Efficiency, and Stability in BankingMonetary Economics eJournal
W. Cooper, L. Seiford, Joe Zhu (2011)
Handbook on data envelopment analysis
J. Cummins (1999)
Efficiency in the U.S. Life Insurance Industry: Are Insurers Minimizing Costs and Maximizing Revenues?
(Lin, L., & Chen, C. C. (2020). The Promise and Perils of InsurTech. Forthcoming, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.)
Lin, L., & Chen, C. C. (2020). The Promise and Perils of InsurTech. Forthcoming, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.Lin, L., & Chen, C. C. (2020). The Promise and Perils of InsurTech. Forthcoming, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies., Lin, L., & Chen, C. C. (2020). The Promise and Perils of InsurTech. Forthcoming, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.
Saif Al-witwit, A. Ibrahim (2020)
Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial IntelligenceIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 928
J. Cummins, Xiaoying Xie (2013)
Efficiency and Productivity in the US Property-Liability Insurance Industry: Ownership Structure, Product and Distribution StrategiesIO: Firm Structure
(2018)
InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape
Ramiz Rehman, Junrui Zhang, M. Naseem, Muhammad Ahmed, Rizwan Ali (2020)
Board independence and Chinese banking efficiency: a moderating role of ownership restructuringEurasian Business Review, 11
H. Boubaker, N. Sghaier (2014)
How Do the Interest Rate and the Inflation Rate Affect the Non-Life Insurance Premiums ?
(Boubaker, H., & Sghaier, N. (2014). How do the interest rate and the inflation rate affect the non-life insurance premiums? Working Papers 2014–282, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.)
Boubaker, H., & Sghaier, N. (2014). How do the interest rate and the inflation rate affect the non-life insurance premiums? Working Papers 2014–282, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.Boubaker, H., & Sghaier, N. (2014). How do the interest rate and the inflation rate affect the non-life insurance premiums? Working Papers 2014–282, Department of Research, Ipag Business School., Boubaker, H., & Sghaier, N. (2014). How do the interest rate and the inflation rate affect the non-life insurance premiums? Working Papers 2014–282, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
S. Grima, Jonathan Spiteri, I. Romānova (2020)
A STEEP framework analysis of the key factors impacting the use of blockchain technology in the insurance industryThe Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 45
Fernando Comiran, Tatiana Fedyk, Joohyung Ha (2017)
Accounting Quality and Media Attention Around Seasoned Equity OfferingsS&P Global Market Intelligence Research Paper Series
(2019)
2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy
A. U.S. (2003)
Measuring the efficiency of decision making units
Hatra Voghouei, M. Jamali (2018)
Determinants of government efficiency: does information technology play a role?Eurasian Business Review, 8
(2018)
Accounting quality and media attention around seasoned equity offeringsInternational Journal of Accounting & Information Management., 26
Gabriele Pellegrino, M. Piva (2020)
Innovation, industry and firm age: are there new knowledge production functions?Eurasian Business Review, 10
Serban Mogos, Alexander Davis, R. Baptista (2020)
High and sustainable growth: persistence, volatility, and survival of high growth firmsEurasian Business Review, 11
(McKinsey. (2019). The productivity imperative in insurance. By Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, Jasper van Ouwerkerk, and Ulrike Vogelgesang. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-productivity-imperative-in-insurance.)
McKinsey. (2019). The productivity imperative in insurance. By Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, Jasper van Ouwerkerk, and Ulrike Vogelgesang. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-productivity-imperative-in-insurance.McKinsey. (2019). The productivity imperative in insurance. By Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, Jasper van Ouwerkerk, and Ulrike Vogelgesang. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-productivity-imperative-in-insurance., McKinsey. (2019). The productivity imperative in insurance. By Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, Jasper van Ouwerkerk, and Ulrike Vogelgesang. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-productivity-imperative-in-insurance.
Gustavo Ferro, S. León (2018)
A Stochastic Frontier Analysis of Efficiency in Argentina’s Non-Life Insurance MarketThe Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 43
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
(2018)
The First All Blockchain Insurer
E. Grmanová, Herbert Strunz (2017)
Efficiency of Insurance Companies : Application of DEA and Tobit AnalysesThe Journal of international studies, 10
J. Cummins, Mary Weiss (2011)
Analyzing Firm Performance in the Insurance Industry Using Frontier Efficiency and Productivity MethodsStrategy Models for Firm Performance Enhancement eJournal
Marina Balboa, J. Sala, G. López-Espinosa (2008)
Does the Value of Recommendations Depend on the Level of Optimism? A Country-Based AnalysisBehavioral & Experimental Finance eJournal
A. Dubček (2017)
Efficiency of insurance companies : Application of DEA and Tobit analyses
Clayton Christensen (2013)
The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail
(McKinsey. (2018a). Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance. By Ramnath Balasubramanian, Ari Libarikian, and Doug McElhaney. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/insurance-2030-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-future-of-insurance.)
McKinsey. (2018a). Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance. By Ramnath Balasubramanian, Ari Libarikian, and Doug McElhaney. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/insurance-2030-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-future-of-insurance.McKinsey. (2018a). Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance. By Ramnath Balasubramanian, Ari Libarikian, and Doug McElhaney. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/insurance-2030-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-future-of-insurance., McKinsey. (2018a). Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance. By Ramnath Balasubramanian, Ari Libarikian, and Doug McElhaney. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/insurance-2030-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-future-of-insurance.
(Deloitte. (2019). 2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/6304_Insurance-outlook/DI_Insurance-outlook.pdf.)
Deloitte. (2019). 2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/6304_Insurance-outlook/DI_Insurance-outlook.pdf.Deloitte. (2019). 2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/6304_Insurance-outlook/DI_Insurance-outlook.pdf., Deloitte. (2019). 2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/6304_Insurance-outlook/DI_Insurance-outlook.pdf.
R. Banker, A. Charnes, W. Cooper (1984)
Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment AnalysisManagement Science, 30
JD Cummins (2013)
10.1007/978-1-4614-0155-1_28
G. Damioli, Vincent Roy, D. Vértesy (2021)
The impact of artificial intelligence on labor productivityEurasian Business Review, 11
R. Marquez, Robert Hauswald (2002)
Information Technology and Financial Services CompetitionERN: Technology (Topic)
P. Zweifel, R. Eisen, David Eckles (2021)
Insurance EconomicsClassroom Companion: Economics
Mary Weiss, B. Choi (2008)
State regulation and the structure, conduct, efficiency and performance of US auto insurersJournal of Banking and Finance, 32
Segundo Camino‐Mogro, Natalia Bermúdez-Barrezueta (2019)
Determinants of profitability of life and non-life insurance companies: evidence from EcuadorInternational Journal of Emerging Markets, 14
(2020)
Insurtech global outlook 2020
Bilel Jarraya, A. Bouri (2016)
A new assessment approach of technical efficiency and productivity in European non-life insurance companiesInternational Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting
P Zweifel (2012)
10.1007/978-3-642-20548-4
M. Beenstock, G. Dickinson, S. Khajuria (1988)
The Relationship between Property-Liability Insurance Premiums and Income: An International AnalysisJournal of Risk and Insurance, 55
C. Barros, N. Barroso, Maria Borges (2005)
Evaluating the Efficiency and Productivity of Insurance Companies with a Malmquist Index: A Case Study for PortugalThe Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 30
J. Outreville (1990)
The Economic Significance of Insurance Markets in Developing CountriesJournal of Risk and Insurance, 57
G. Battese, D. Rao (2002)
Technology Gap, Efficiency, and a Stochastic Metafrontier FunctionInternational journal of business and economics, 1
Choonjoo Lee, Ji Yong-Bae (2009)
Data Envelopment Analysis in Stata
L. Nguyen, A. Worthington (2020)
Industry regulation, fund characteristics, and the efficiency of Australian private health insurersAccounting & Finance
JD Cummins (2016)
10.1007/978-1-4899-7684-0_6
(Milken Institute. (2018). InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape. By Jackson Mueller. https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/InsurTech-Rising-12.4.18_2.pdf.)
Milken Institute. (2018). InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape. By Jackson Mueller. https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/InsurTech-Rising-12.4.18_2.pdf.Milken Institute. (2018). InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape. By Jackson Mueller. https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/InsurTech-Rising-12.4.18_2.pdf., Milken Institute. (2018). InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape. By Jackson Mueller. https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/InsurTech-Rising-12.4.18_2.pdf.
(2014)
Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative
(The Geneva Association. (2012). The Social and Economic Value of Insurance. https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public//ga2012-the_social_and_economic_value_of_insurance.pdf.)
The Geneva Association. (2012). The Social and Economic Value of Insurance. https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public//ga2012-the_social_and_economic_value_of_insurance.pdf.The Geneva Association. (2012). The Social and Economic Value of Insurance. https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public//ga2012-the_social_and_economic_value_of_insurance.pdf., The Geneva Association. (2012). The Social and Economic Value of Insurance. https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-document-type/pdf_public//ga2012-the_social_and_economic_value_of_insurance.pdf.
Lin Lin, Christopher Chen (2019)
The Promise and Perils of InsurtechArtificial Intelligence - Law
Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, J. Ouwerkerk, U. Vogelgesang (2019)
The productivity imperative in insurance
F. Fecher, D. Kessler, S. Perelman, P. Pestieau (1993)
Productive performance of the French insurance industryJournal of Productivity Analysis, 4
J. Baixauli-Soler, Gabriel Lozano-Reina, G. Sánchez‐Marín (2020)
Managerial discretion, say on pay, and CEO compensationManagement Decision
E. Bartelsman, M. Falk, Eva Hagsten, M. Polder (2018)
Productivity, technological innovations and broadband connectivity: firm-level evidence for ten European countriesEurasian Business Review, 9
Ralph Sonenshine (2018)
Merger waves: are buyers following the herd or responding to structural queues?Eurasian Business Review, 10
A. Boussofiane, R. Dyson, E. Thanassoulis (1991)
Applied data envelopment analysisEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 52
(BCG. (2018). The First All Blockchain Insurer. By Roberto Bosisio, Kaj Burchardi, and Max Hauser. https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2018/first-all-blockchain-insurer.)
BCG. (2018). The First All Blockchain Insurer. By Roberto Bosisio, Kaj Burchardi, and Max Hauser. https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2018/first-all-blockchain-insurer.BCG. (2018). The First All Blockchain Insurer. By Roberto Bosisio, Kaj Burchardi, and Max Hauser. https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2018/first-all-blockchain-insurer., BCG. (2018). The First All Blockchain Insurer. By Roberto Bosisio, Kaj Burchardi, and Max Hauser. https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2018/first-all-blockchain-insurer.
(2016)
The determinants of efficiency and productivity in the Swiss insurance industryEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 248
(2013)
Analyzing firm performance in the insurance industry using frontier efficiency and productivity methodsHandbook of Insurance
G. Clemente, Pierpaolo Marano (2020)
The broker model for peer-to-peer insurance: an analysis of its valueThe Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 45
R. Hesarzadeh (2020)
Regulatory oversight and managerial abilityEurasian Business Review
A. Worthington, Emily Hurley (2002)
COST EFFICIENCY IN AUSTRALIAN GENERAL INSURERS: A NON-PARAMETRIC APPROACHBritish Accounting Review, 34
(Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 5(8), 5.)
Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 5(8), 5.Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 5(8), 5., Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 5(8), 5.
HO Fried (1993)
10.1093/oso/9780195072181.001.0001
S. Gomulka (1990)
The theory of technological change and economic growth
S. Nam (2018)
How Much Are Insurance Consumers Willing to Pay for Blockchain and Smart Contracts? A Contingent Valuation StudySustainability
J. Cummins, G. Turchetti (1996)
Productivity and Technical Efficiency in the Italian Insurance Industry
F. Fecher-Bourgeois, S. Perelman, P. Pestieau, B. Delhausse (1992)
Measuring productive performance in the non-life insurance industry: the case of French and Belgian markets
G. Battese, T. Coelli (1988)
Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel dataJournal of Econometrics, 38
R. Vecchiato (2017)
Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition outcomesTechnological Forecasting and Social Change, 116
Haitao Li, Chialin Chen, W. Cook, Jinlong Zhang, Joe Zhu (2018)
Two-stage network DEA: Who is the leader?Omega-international Journal of Management Science, 74
M. Eling, Martin Lehmann (2017)
The Impact of Digitalization on the Insurance Value Chain and the Insurability of RisksThe Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 43
(Lee, C., & Ji, Y. B. (2009, July). Data envelopment analysis in Stata. In Stata Conference DC.)
Lee, C., & Ji, Y. B. (2009, July). Data envelopment analysis in Stata. In Stata Conference DC.Lee, C., & Ji, Y. B. (2009, July). Data envelopment analysis in Stata. In Stata Conference DC., Lee, C., & Ji, Y. B. (2009, July). Data envelopment analysis in Stata. In Stata Conference DC.
Marine Corlosquet‐Habart, J. Janssen (2018)
Big data for insurance companies
(2012)
org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ resea rch- topics- docum ent- type/ pdf_ publi c// ga2012- the
(2011)
Malmquist Productivity Index using DEA frontier in Stata
(2019)
Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018
(Fuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E. & Perelman, S. (2005). Product specialization, efficiency and productivity change in the Spanish insurance industry. CREPP Working Papers 0506, Universite de Liege)
Fuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E. & Perelman, S. (2005). Product specialization, efficiency and productivity change in the Spanish insurance industry. CREPP Working Papers 0506, Universite de LiegeFuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E. & Perelman, S. (2005). Product specialization, efficiency and productivity change in the Spanish insurance industry. CREPP Working Papers 0506, Universite de Liege, Fuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E. & Perelman, S. (2005). Product specialization, efficiency and productivity change in the Spanish insurance industry. CREPP Working Papers 0506, Universite de Liege
Emanuel Stoeckli, Christian Dremel, Falk Uebernickel (2018)
Exploring characteristics and transformational capabilities of InsurTech innovations to understand insurance value creation in a digital worldElectronic Markets, 28
(Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm. https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:d50acbcd-ce5c-4ee9-bc60-a3c1e55f8762/sigma-4-2020-en.pdf.)
Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm. https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:d50acbcd-ce5c-4ee9-bc60-a3c1e55f8762/sigma-4-2020-en.pdf.Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm. https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:d50acbcd-ce5c-4ee9-bc60-a3c1e55f8762/sigma-4-2020-en.pdf., Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm. https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:d50acbcd-ce5c-4ee9-bc60-a3c1e55f8762/sigma-4-2020-en.pdf.
Robert Hauswald, R. Marquez (2003)
Information Technology and Financial Services Competition: Table 1Review of Financial Studies, 16
In recent years, Insurtech innovations, driven by technologies such as artificial intel- ligence and blockchain, emerged in the insurance industry, with the promise of improving efficiency. However, while the positive impact of technology on insur - ance companies’ efficiency is expected, literature assessing it empirically is scarce, when it comes to recent technological change. Focusing on the US public P&C insurance sector in the period 2012–2018 and relying on both nonparametric (two stage DEA) and parametric (SFA) approaches, it emerges that on average insurance companies were not able to leverage on technological innovations to improve their efficiency. On average a relative level of efficiency among companies, according to a two stage DEA model, was quite stable in time, while the SFA approach shows that the distance between efficient and less efficient firms slightly increased. Moreo- ver, we found one very efficient firm, almost a leader of the market in terms of effi- ciency, and a homogeneous group of followers, indicating that there is vast scope for improvement for less efficient companies. Nevertheless, even the most efficient company impaired its efficiency over time, suggesting that neither the leader nor on average the followers properly leveraged technology to improve their efficiency. In a competitive scenario, with new players’ entrance and fierce competition, inertia may seriously affect their positioning. Academicians, managers and policymakers should carefully consider the effects that a non-improvement of efficiency following technological change may have on market structure, competition and regulations, potentially opening to further discussion on how technological innovations adoption should be facilitated. Keywords Efficiency · Insurance · Technology · Insurtech · Competition · Innovation * Davide Lanfranchi davide.lanfranchi@polimi.it School of Management, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 566 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 1 Introduction “In a world of increasing uncertainty and dynamics, the economic and social importance of being insured seems undisputed” (Stoeckli et al., 2018, p. 287). The recent pandemic related to COVID-19 revealed to the public the relevance of the insurance industry for its impact on daily life. From an economic point of view, insurance is fundamental by dealing with the negative consequences of eco- nomic activities that would occur in its absence (Zweifel & Eisen, 2012), while from a social point of view, insurance is crucial by providing social protection mechanisms (The Geneva Association, 2012), in turn positively affecting coun- try’s economy (Grmanová & Strunz, 2017). Due to their conservative attributes, insurance companies traditionally struggled with innovation (Nam, 2018). How- ever, new developments and changes in society and in economy affect the demand for insurance (Bohnert et al., 2019), and considering socio-economic changes to which it is connected in several ways (Bohnert et al., 2019), the insurance indus- try needs to innovate. In recent years, we are observing the increasing relevance and disruptive nature of digitalization (Fitzgerald et al., 2014) and the emergence of Insurtech, “a phenomenon comprising innovations of one or more traditional or non-traditional market players exploiting information technology to deliver solutions specific to the insurance industry” (Stoeckli et al., 2018, p. 289). Inter - est in the possibilities arising from digital innovation (Deloitte, 2018), focusing in particular on the impact that new technologies such as artificial intelligence (McKinsey, 2018a), blockchain (BCG, 2018) and big data (Corlosquet-Habart & Janssen, 2018) may have on the increase of efficiency (McKinsey, 2018b) is noticeable for traditional insurance companies, practitioners and academicians. Academic literature highlights how recent technological innovation in the insurance sector brings with it the promise of increasing efficiency (Lin & Chen, 2020): for instance, artificial intelligence can bring efficiency in the personali- zation of insurance policies (Al-witwit & Ibrahim, 2020); blockchain, by disin- termediating, could bring in a more efficient approach by increasing speed and reducing costs (Grima et al., 2020); online interfaces and virtual claims adjust- ers could make the settling and payment of claims following an accident more efficient, concurrently decreasing the likelihood of frauds (Clemente & Marano, 2020). However, despite the contributions suggesting that a positive effect of new technologies emerged in the last decade on insurance companies’ efficiency, lit- erature trying to further investigate this relation is scarce. Not just academicians, but also managers and policymakers should carefully consider the effects that a (non)improvement in efficiency following technological change may have on the market structure, competition and regulations, potentially opening to further discussion on how technological innovations should be grounded and effectively adopted or facilitated. For this reason, this paper examines with an empirical approach whether insur- ance companies improved their efficiency, by relying on new technologies. To do so, the scope of this work is the public property and casualty (P&C) insurance sector in the United States (US). The US insurance market is the largest 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 567 in the world in terms of total direct premium volume, with a global market share of 39% in 2019 (Swiss Re Institute, 2020). Furthermore, the United States is the most advanced country in terms of technological innovation in the insurance sec- tor, as suggested for instance by the relevance of the Insurtech startups ecosystem in this country; in terms of investments in Insurtech startups, the US leads the ranking, with nearly 45% of world Insurtech startups able to attract nearly 50% of total investments (NTT Data, 2020). Of the two main kinds of insurance, Life insurance, where the insurer invests the insured’s savings undertaking to pay a capital or an income in case of a life event, such as death; and P&C—Property and Casualty insurance, that protects the insured against possible losses deriv- ing from damages to persons or objects (Marchionni, 2006), we concentrate on insurance companies solely in the P&C insurance business. The P&C segment is particularly detrimental for the market as it deals with almost any kind of risk (Ilyas & Rajasekaran, 2019) affecting daily and business continuity. Indeed, pro- cess digitalization (such as for sales and distribution) and achievement of higher efficiency are among the top trends in the P&C market according to practitioners (EY, 2019), with the promise of promoting efficiency in processes that are par - ticularly relevant for this kind of insurance (e.g. claim settlements, Clemente & Marano, 2020). In this context, the US P&C insurance sector in particular had a relevant growth over the past years: in 2018, this sector has seen a net income increase of 66% to US$60 billion, thanks to a 10.8% boost in net premiums (Deloitte, 2019). Therefore, focusing on the US P&C public insurance sector, the rest of the paper reviews extant literature presenting theoretical and empirical findings on the effect of technological improvement on efficiency. Attention to methodological issues and description of the sample anticipate the discussion of results and conclusions. 2 Literature review Examining the relation between technological change and efficiency requires some elements of theory, hereby presented to introduce empirical evidence and approaches to estimate the relation. 2.1 Efficiency and technological change: theoretical background Efficiency is a condition for survival in a competitive scenario (Fried et al., 1993; Mogos et al., 2021), opening the way for a firm’s outperformance in the market (Schaeck & Cihák, 2014), feeding its stability (Schaeck & Cihák, 2014). Technology contributes to productivity (Bartelsman et al., 2019), efficiency (Voghouei & Jamali, 2018) and thus to the ability of the companies to compete (Battese & Rao, 2002; Sonenshine, 2020). However, even well managed companies may lose their dominance in the mar- ket, failing when disruptive changes in technology emerge (Christensen, 2013). Such a failure can be related to the companies’ inability to consider new disruptive 1 3 568 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 technologies in a timely manner, but also to their inability to commercialize them successfully (Vecchiato, 2017). When it comes to insurance companies, the indus- try is experiencing a clear change (McKinsey, 2018b) for the increasing relevance of digitalization (Fitzgerald et al., 2014) and the emergence of Insurtech. Recent technological progress deals not only with the technology itself, but also with the availability of information, affecting the playing field in informationally sensitive markets (Hauswald & Marquez, 2003). Technological innovation in the insurance sector brings several benefits such as better understanding of underlying insurance risks and increasing efficiency and lowering costs for insurers, intermediaries, and customers (Lin & Chen, 2020), contributing, as innovation in general, to economic growth (Pellegrino & Piva, 2020). 2.2 Efficiency and technological change: empirical evidence Efficiency measurement is a fast-growing area in business and economics litera- ture (Biener et al., 2016) and different recent contributions analyzed efficiency of P&C insurance industry, adopting from time to time different geographical perspec- tives, from national (e.g. South Africa, Alhassan & Biekpe, 2016) or India (Ilyas & Rajasekaran, 2019)) to multi-country (e.g. Europe, as in Jarraya and Bouri, 2015). Some studies analyzed the efficiency of the US insurance industry (e.g. Copeland and Cabanda, 2018), focusing on 2011–2013, and Cummins and Xie, 2016, focus- ing on 1993–2011). Eling and Luhnen (2010) and Ferro and Leòn (2018) provided a review on studies analyzing efficiency in the insurance sector. In several cases, results show that there is significant room for improvement in terms of efficiency of insurance companies, as their actual level is moderate to low (Cummins & Xie, 2016; Ilyas & Rajasekaran, 2019; Worthington & Hurley, 2002), even compared to other financial segments (Cummins, 1999). Said otherwise, there is substantial room for improvement in efficiency. A further stimulus for increasing efficiency came from relevant technological innovations emerging in the insurance panorama (Lin & Chen, 2020), in particular starting from 2012 (Willis Tower Watson, 2018), that were capable of making relevant insurance processes more efficient (Clemente & Marano, 2020). Some contributions had the purpose of studying the evolution of efficiency during time due to technological change. Ferro and León’s (2018) results show that the productivity of the industry was not improving over the years, and one of the causes was the non-technological improvement. Companies were not invest- ing in technology or the investments turned in no positive effect on productivity (premiums) (Ferro & León, 2018). Despite the presence of works studying efficiency levels in the insurance indus- try in recent years (Camino-Mogro & Bermúdez-Barrezueta, 2019; Nguyen & Wor- thington, 2020), they do not further investigate the effect of technological change. In the light of previous results, showing a moderate efficiency in the industry and of recent technological innovations with the potential to change the industry (Eling & Lehmann, 2018), in particular in the country mostly affected by innovative tech- nological applications in insurance [i.e. the US (NTT Data, 2020)], we deem very relevant to contribute to the understanding of the effect that recent technological 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 569 innovations have, potentially challenging the validity of former results and affecting the dynamics of market players’ competition. To the best of our knowledge, there are no timely contributions on insurance companies’ efficiency and on the effect of technological change focused on the US in recent years (post-2012). 2.3 Efficiency and technological change: measures, methods and approaches Measurements support us in quantifying such theoretical underpinnings (Fried et al., 1993). To estimate efficiency, the emergence of frontier methodologies has been a relevant development in modern economics, encompassing the limitations of finan- cial ratios (Huang & Eling, 2013). The basic idea is to identify efficient companies, namely companies that maximize their output considering the inputs at their dis- posal, with respect to non-efficient ones. The group of efficient companies forms the efficient frontier. Hence, for all companies, efficiency is measured with reference to a frontier consisting of the dominant companies in the industry. Frontier efficiency measures summarize a company’s efficiency in a single measure (values from 0, non-efficient company, to 1, fully efficient company) that checks for differences among companies according to a sophisticated multidimensional framework that has its roots in economic theory (Cummins & Weiss, 2013) and implies some reason- ing on the production function. However, new or innovative technological processes appear over time, these imply different ways of combining inputs, or different ways of combining processes (technology set). Any enlargement of the corresponding technology set is, by definition, a technological change (Gomulka, 2006). The addi- tion of an efficient technology moves the production frontier further outwards, and thus any such movement indicates the presence of technological progress within the company (Gomulka, 2006). The existing different approaches focus on the estimation of the production func- tion, following either a parametric or non-parametric approach. Danquah et al. (2018) and Delhausse et al. (1995) applied parametric techniques, stochastic fron- tier analysis (SFA) in particular, which provide techniques for modeling the frontier within a regression framework in order to estimate efficiency. Other authors applied non-parametric techniques, which utilize linear programing techniques to estimate the frontier and provide relative assessment (Tuzcu & Ertugay, 2020) such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (Barros et al., 2005; Cummins & Turchetti, 1996; Hesarzadeh, 2020; Nguyen & Worthington, 2020; Nourani et al., 2020; Shieh et al., 2020), and two-stage DEA (Li et al., 2018). The choice of the methodology for esti- mating efficient frontiers has generated debates in the literature, with some schol- ars supporting the parametric approach (Berger, 1993; Greene, 2008) and others the nonparametric one (Cooper et al., 2011), with no clear conclusion. The main advan- tage traditionally offered by the parametric approaches (hence SFA) in comparison with the nonparametric ones (such as DEA) is that SFA allows to distinguish ran- domness from efficiency (Ferro and Leòn, 2018). On the other hand, the primary Even though in literature this is defined as “technical efficiency” (Cummins and Weiss, 2013), for the sake of simplicity we will refer to it as “efficiency” in this paper. 1 3 570 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 advantage traditionally given by nonparametric approaches as DEA is to avoid mis- specification of the functional form or the probability distributions assumed for error terms, which could confound the efficiency estimates with specification errors. Some authors are then opting for using both techniques (e.g. Ur-Rehman et al., 2020), to leverage on advantages of both approaches. 3 Methodology This work studies efficiency in the US P&C public insurance sector by estimating the production function, which connects the level of output, given the inputs, focus- ing on technical efficient companies, namely the ones capable of producing the high- est level of output conditional on input use levels, consistently with previous lit- erature (Ferro and Leòn, 2018). Therefore, observed output (y ) is connected to the production function f x ; and to input x as: i i y = a f x ;𝛽 ,0 < a ≤ 1 i i i i In literature, different approaches for identifying outputs and inputs co-exist. 3.1 Output measure As reported by Cummins and Weiss (2013), there are three main approaches to measure outputs in financial services—the asset intermediation approach, the user–cost approach, and the value-added approach. The intermediation approach considers financial companies as pure financial intermediaries and consider assets as outputs. This approach is inappropriate for P&C insurers as they provide further services in addition to financial intermediation. The user–cost method determines whether a financial product is an input or output depending on its net contribution to the revenues. This approach is problematic for the insurance industry owing to policies comprising many services, which are priced implicitly. Under the third approach—the value-added approach— categories having significant value-added are employed as important outputs: this approach is widely adopted in literature (Delhausse et al., 1995; Fecher et al., 1993; Fuentes et al., 2005; Rai, 1996), and current research relies on this approach as well, with premiums as output. 3.2 Input measure Concerning input variables, consistently with Rai (1996), variables adopted in this work are claims, labor, and capital. The evaluation of the premiums that will be col- lected from insured entities (customers) (y ) starts from estimating the so-called fair premium, hence the amount needed to cover the expected losses that the customer may suffer during the protection period and that the insurance company will have to repay (hence, the claims) (Zweifel & Eisen, 2012). Claims are hence considered as inputs, being a determinant of the amount of premiums that an insurance company will collect at the beginning of the protection period. Along with the claim’s current 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 571 value, we considered the reserves, which refer to the estimated subsequent compen- sations costs, the related direct and settlement costs, the provision for late reporting and, more in general, the charges deriving from the part of the risk not yet concre- tized. On top of it, premiums loadings are charged to count for other expenses, such as operating and administrative expenses, which we will consider under the labor input. As insurance companies sell their policies through agents relying on their own staff for back-office work (Ferro and Léon, 2018), labor is composed mainly by bro- kers’ labor (accounting for the larger part of commissions) and home office labor (hence wages). Finally, to perform insurance activities, regulators require a mini- mum of equity capital from insurance companies (Zweifel & Eisen, 2012), to insure solvency also in case of unexpected losses. Capital, the third input considered, has its roots in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as “In order to give this security, how- ever, it is necessary that the insurers should have a very large capital” (Smith, 2007, p. 586). 3.3 P roduction function estimation To estimate the production function and to cross-check our results, we adopted both a nonparametric (two stage—DEA) and a parametric approach (SFA), in the light of the above-mentioned benefits and drawbacks of each technique. 3.3.1 Two stage—DEA DEA is a method that allows measuring efficiency of companies relying on linear programing techniques, to envelop observed input–output vectors as tightly as pos- sible to build the efficiency frontier (Boussofiane et al., 1991). By adding weight constraints, DEA models can be subdivided in terms of returns to scale. Charnes et al. (1978) originally proposed the efficiency measurement of companies for con- stant returns to scale (CRS) assuming all companies were operating at their optimal scale. Banker et al. (1984) introduced the variable returns to scale (VRS) efficiency measurement model, allowing hence the breakdown of efficiency in DEA into tech- nical and scale efficiencies. The concept of frontier is important for the analysis of efficiency, as we measure efficiency as the relative distance from the frontier. DEA models can be divided into input-oriented models, which minimize inputs while respecting the given output levels, and output-oriented models, which maximize outputs without requiring higher input quantities. In both cases, efficiency is meas- ured in terms of a proportional change in inputs or outputs. Companies that are technically not efficient operate at points in the interior of the frontier and will have a DEA score lower than 1. In the input-oriented model, the score indicates the percentage of input that the company should use to become efficient, given a certain output level. In the output-oriented model, the score is the output produced by the non-efficient company in percentage of the output produced by an efficient one. A company is called “radial” or “weak” efficient when the DEA score is equal to 1. If, along with this, all slacks [a slack issue arises as the frontier runs parallel to the input or output axes resulting in input/output excesses (Lee & Ji, 2009)] are zero, the company 1 3 572 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 is called efficient in terms of “Pareto–Koopmans” or “strong” efficiency. When the slack issue is neglected and calculated residually, the DEA model becomes the single- stage DEA model; to the contrary, two-stage DEA directly faces slacks issues. To evaluate technological change under the DEA nonparametric approach, it is useful to rely on Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) that measures the productivity changes in time and can be decomposed to isolate the technology-driven change (Lee et al., 2011). In particular, a technological change factor higher than 1 means that the company was able to improve its technology to gain efficiency, while a factor lower than 1 means that the technological set deteriorated in terms of effects on efficiency. 3.3.2 SFA The basic empirical framework for SFA is a regression specification involving a logarithmic transformation of the production function that adds a random error term (v ), where output is bounded from above by the stochastic frontier f x ; e , and i i u =− ln a ≥ 0 represents unit specific technical inefficiency. Hence, technical effi- i i ciency is recovered as e lny = lnf x ; + v − u . i i i i The application of a SFA technique requires the discussion and choice of a func- tional form of production function, f x ; , and of a model for unit specific ineffi- ciency, u . For the functional form of production function, this work will test two well-known forms in literature, the Cobb–Douglas function in the logarithmic form, because of its simplicity and its easy interpretation (Ferro and Leòn, 2018), and the trans-logarith- mic function, a more flexible functional form than Cobb–Douglas (Cummins & Weiss, 2013). As mentioned, an efficient technology moves the production frontier further out- wards (Gomulka, 2006): this change is captured by a linear indication of time in the Cobb–Douglas function and by a quadratic polynomial of time in the trans-logarithmic function. The rate of technological change is given by T* = δy/δt, considering time affecting efficiency due to technological change. If T* > 0, technological change is pos- itive, indicating a growth in efficiency, and vice versa. For unit specific inefficiency functional forms, we will test a version of stochas- tic frontiers with time-invariant inefficiency and one with time-varying inefficiency. Regarding time-invariant inefficiency, Battese and Coelli (1988) (BC88) proposed a maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of the following Normal-Truncated Normal model: y = + x + , i = 1,… , N, t = 2,… , T it it i it = v − u it it i v ∼ N 0, it 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 573 Fig. 1 Summary of adopted approaches and models tr 2 u ∼ N 0, Regarding time-varying inefficiency, Battese and Coelli (1992) (BC92) pro- posed a “time decay” ML estimated model for the unit specific inefficiencies: − t−T [ ( )] u = g(t)u , g(t) = e it i where T is the last period in the panel for the unit I and the u are assumed to be i i independent and identically distributed Truncated Normal. For η going to zero, this model converges to BC88. A negative η suggests that the relative levels of effi- ciency among companies is decreasing, hence the gap with the most efficient one is widening. To give strength to the results with respect to the specific choice of mod- els, this work will hence rely on two different approaches, a parametric (SFA) and a nonparametric approach (two-stage DEA). As a result, for two-stage DEA four models will be involved (input and output oriented, both assuming CRS and VRS), while for SFA, four models will be tested (two functional forms for each production function combined with two models for unit specific inefficiencies, to address the mentioned criticality of parametric approaches of choosing func- tional forms for frontier and error distribution), as summarized in Fig. 1. 1 3 574 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 Table 1 Summary of input and Variable Type Proxy (FactSet items) output variables Claims Input Losses, claims and reserves Labour Input Selling, general and admin. Expenses and other Capital Input Shareholders’ equity Premiums Output Sales Table 2 Descriptive statistics of input and output variables Premiums (M$) Claims (M$) Labor (M$) Capital (M$) Mean 4602 2848 1323 3728 Standard deviation 8181 5186 2274 6418 Max 39,124 25,466 11,196 25,405 Min 7 0 4 21 Observations 243 236 241 242 4 Data collection and analysis The measurement of input and output variables (see Table 1) reflects the structure of the sector and the way it is organized. Claim input includes both claims that are already paid as well as new reserves. Labor input includes both selling and gen- eral and administrative expenses, reflecting how insurance companies sell policies through agents, earning commissions, and relying on their own staff for back-office work (Ferro and Leòn, 2018). Finally, capital consists in total shareholders’ equity. Concerning premiums as a measure of output, we considered sales as a proxy. Data have been obtained from the FactSet Fundamentals database over the period 2012–2018. Indeed, starting from 2012, technological innovations emerging in the insurance panorama, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence and others (see Eling and Lehmann (2018) for a detailed list of such innovations) started receiving increasing attention (Willis Tower Watson, 2018). At the same time, investments in Insurtech startups raised from less than 500 USD million in 2012 to more than 2.5 USD billion in 2017 (Milken Institute, 2018), and more than 4 USD billion in 2018 (Willis Tower Watson, 2019). The population of public US P&C insurance consists of 40 companies, as in FactSet Fundamentals. Given the non-availability of data in the analyzed period for 5 units, the final sample is a panel of 35 companies, with a representativeness of 99.84% in terms of collected premiums in 2018 of the overall population of public FactSet Fundamentals is the financial database of FactSet, a market operator with more than 40 years of activity and nearly 10.000 employees globally. Several contributions in literature relied on the FactSet database (Balboa et al., 2008; Baixauli-Soler et al., 2020; Comiran et al., 2018). 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 575 Table 3 Control variables a a c GDP US (M$) 1Y Inter- Inflation (%)Gini index values over time est rate (%) 2012 16,197,007 0.2 2.1 0.722 2013 16,784,849 0.1 1.5 0.730 2014 17,521,746 0.1 1.6 0.717 2015 18,219,297 0.3 0.1 0.720 2016 18,707,188 0.6 1.3 0.713 2017 19,485,393 1.2 2.1 0.719 2018 20,529,049 2.3 2.4 0.721 W orld Bank US Dept. of the Treasury 1Y Treasury Bill US—avg Closing Price Authors’ calculations based on 2018 premiums Table 4 Correlations among input, output and control variables Premiums Claims Labor Capital GDP Interest rates Inflation Gini index Premiums 1.00 Claims 0.99*** 1.00 Labor 0.96*** 0.91*** 1.00 Capital 0.87*** 0.80*** 0.93*** 1.00 GDP 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.00 1.00 Interest rate 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.89*** 1.00 Inflation 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.21*** 0.53*** 1.00 Gini Index − 0.01 − 0.02 0.00 − 0.00 − 0.39*** − 0.13** 0.10 1.00 ***p value < 1%; **p value < 5%; *p value < 10% insurance companies active solely in the P&C business. The insurance companies in the sample are diversified in terms of dimensions (see Table 2): indeed, looking at premiums, average amounts of collected premiums are around 4.6 billion USD per year, ranging from a maximum of about 39 billion USD to a minimum of about 7 million USD. Moreover, considering the parametric technique (SFA), we controlled for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Outreville, 1990), interest rates (Beenstock et al., 1988), inflation (Boubaker & Sghaier, 2014), and concentration (Weiss & Choi, 2008), relying on the Gini index, in terms of 2018 collected premiums. In particular, as shown in Table 3, concentration in the market remained quite stable over time at around 70%. Table 4 shows correlations among the variables involved. As we can see, posi- tive correlations are present between the output variable (premiums) and all the input variables (0.99 with claims, 0.96 with labor and 0.87 with capital). Control variables, on the other hand, are not particularly correlated with output and input variables. 1 3 576 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 Table 5 Technological change factor over the analyzed period 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 Mean 1.23 0.96 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 SD 0.28 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.06 Maximum 2.50 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.28 Minimum 0.97 0.53 0.96 0.77 0.94 0.89 5 Results and discussion This section presents and discusses main evidence resulting from nonparametric and parametric approaches, relying on the above presented data. 5.1 Results with a nonparametric approach (two stage‑DEA) By applying a nonparametric technique, namely two stage-DEA, to analyze the effect of technological change on companies’ efficiency, it emerges how, during the considered period, on average the companies in the industry were not gaining efficiency by leveraging technology. Considering the technological change factor resulting from the Malmquist index (Table 5), it emerges how, despite an aver- age improvement in technology from 2012 to 2013 (with a factor of 1.23), during the rest of the period the average technological quality in the industry remained the same in terms of effects on efficiency, and even slightly worsened during 2013–2014 and 2015–2016 (with factors respectively of 0.96 and 0.89). Hence, from 2013, on average the industry was not able to rely on technological innova- tions to improve its efficiency. Furthermore, it emerges that no company was able to improve its efficiency over the whole period (even if one company always improved except for once) nevertheless no company suffered a decrease of efficiency in each period (even if six of them were able to improve only once). Hence it is relevant to investigate how the relative level of efficiency among companies (that is, the efficiency of a company with respect to the most efficient ones) changed over time, to understand whether some companies performed better than the others in improving their efficiency, therefore widening the gap with the less efficient ones. From the four two stage-DEA models (input vs output oriented, combined with CRS vs VRS assumption) it emerges how on average the relative level of efficiency among companies did not change, remaining for all models well above 83% for the whole period, with less efficient companies never lowering their relative efficiency score under 58%, regardless the model (Table 6). We can therefore conclude that, according to two stage-DEA models, the sector was on average homogeneous in terms of efficiency and maintained this uniformity all along 2012–2018. 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 577 Table 6 Descriptive statistics of efficiency scores estimated with the two-stage DEA approach 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014 (%) 2015 (%) 2016 (%) 2017 (%) 2018 (%) CRS input oriented Mean 91 83 84 84 90 88 89 SD 7 12 11 11 8 9 8 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Minimum 79 58 62 58 72 62 66 VRS input oriented Mean 97 94 94 94 95 93 94 SD 5 9 8 8 6 7 7 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Minimum 84 70 75 71 84 80 76 CRS output oriented Mean 91 83 84 84 90 88 89 SD 7 12 11 11 8 9 8 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Minimum 79 58 62 58 72 62 66 VRS output oriented Mean 97 94 94 94 95 93 94 SD 4 8 8 8 6 7 7 Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Minimum 85 70 75 73 84 78 76 5.2 Results with a parametric approach (SFA) When it comes to the parametric approach, to identify the most suitable model, we started comparing the two functional forms for the production function, namely the Cobb–Douglas and trans-logarithmic functions. The trans-logarithmic version was rejected (i) being most of the quadratic and interaction variables not significant, and (ii) considering Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and Akai- ke’s information criterion (AIC) results. Hence, focusing on the Cobb–Douglas functional form for the production function (time invariant and time varying models), Table 7 shows the relation between input and output variables. From both models the relation between claims and premiums collected by the insur- ance companies is positive and significant (p value < 1%): as mentioned, the esti- mation of the premium starts from estimating the so-called fair premium, hence the amount needed to cover only expected losses (Zweifel & Eisen, 2012). In the same way, the relation between labor and premiums is positive and significant for all models (p value < 1% for both models): as highlighted, labor force plays a major role in collecting premiums. Concerning capital, once more the relation with premiums is positive and significant for all models (p value < 1% for both models): capital, as mentioned, is fundamental to enabling insurance activity. It emerges from both models that the technological change had a slightly negative effect on the average industry efficiency: indeed, T parameter is equal to -0.0557 1 3 578 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 Table 7 Results of the estimations of SFA models (time invariant and time varying) Time invariant model (BC88) Time varying model (BC92) Frontier Ln (claims) 0.5340*** [0.0268] 0.5212*** [0.0317] Ln (labor) 0.1679*** [0.0304] 0.1744*** [0.0300] Ln (capital) 0.2379*** [0.0412] 0.2487*** [0.0429] T − 0.0557** [0.0280] − 0.0174 [0.0368] Ln (GDP) 1.6210** [0.7515] 1.5614** [0.7825] Interest Rate − 1.9399 [1.8231] − 1.4837 [2.0633] Inflation − 1.1457** [0.5235] − 1.1194** [0.5141] Gini Index 1.7813* [0.9799] 1.7937* [0.9991] Constant 86.0787* [44.4822] 9.8722 [62.2649] η − 0.0343* [0.0207] ***p value < 1%; **p value < 5%; *p value < 10%. Standard errors in [] Table 8 Efficiency scores Average efficiency scores Descriptive statistics estimated considering a time (%) varying model (BC92): average scores over time and descriptive Mean: 35.2% 2012 37.8 statistics SD: 10.3% 2013 36.3 Maximum: 93.3% 2014 36.8 Minimum: 16.8% 2015 35.5 2016 34.3 2017 33.3 2018 32.1 in BC88 (p value < 5%) and − 0.0174 in BC92. Hence, on average, the companies in the industry were not gaining efficiency by leveraging technology. The slightly negative (and significant, p value < 10%) value of η under BC92 (Table 7) suggests the time varying model to be the most appropriate and will hereby be considered for the discussion. As in nonparametric approaches, we investigated further the efficiency scores, to understand how the relative level of efficiency among companies has changed over time. It emerges that average efficiency levels are quite low (mean 35.2%, standard deviation 10.3%, Table 8), constantly decreasing in time, going from 37.8% to 32.1%, showing a slightly increasing efficiency gap between efficient and less efficient companies over time. The range of efficiency scores among companies is very wide, going from very efficient companies (score higher than 93%, Table 8) to not very efficient ones (score of about 16%). Considering the level of heterogeneity, a further investigation of the perfor- mance of each single firm shows a very efficient company, better than all the oth- ers: indeed, it emerges that, while the efficiency score of the most efficient unit is always well above 90%, considering the second most efficient unit, its score 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 579 is never higher than 49%, about half of the efficiency compared to the most effi- cient one. These results suggest that we are dealing with an industry composed by one very efficient company, a kind of leader of the market in terms of effi- ciency, and a homogeneous group of followers. Therefore, less efficient com- panies have considerable scope for increasing efficiency, by improving the level of the output, given the amount of inputs, to close the gap with the most effi- cient company in the group. However, this highly efficient company decreased its efficiency over time (indeed, as suggested by the negative value of parameter T, technological change had the effect of decreasing the efficiency level of the frontier, of which this company is the leader). This, combined with the evidence of a slightly increasing gap, suggest that on average followers decreased their effi- ciency even further over time. In a competitive scenario, where new players are entering (namely Insurtech players) and competitors have to leverage technology to improve their efficiency, a situation of inertia may seriously affect the position- ing of companies, both for the leader and for the followers. 5.3 C omparing results from nonparametric and parametric approaches To summarize, both the nonparametric approach (two-stage DEA) and the para- metric approach (SFA) suggest that US public P&C insurance companies on aver- age, in the period 2012–2018, were not able to leverage technological innovations to improve their efficiency. With a DEA approach, the average technology change index obtained from the Malmquist index was always lower than or equal to one (ranging from 0.89 to 1.00), except for the 2012–2013 transition (with the technol- ogy change index equal to 1.23), while with the SFA approach, parameter T was negative (− 0.0174), suggesting negative technological change. Considering the relative level of efficiency among companies (that is, the effi- ciency of a company compared to the most efficient ones), the two approaches sug- gest a slightly different message: according to DEA, on average, no companies out- performed the others in improving their efficiency, hence the gap between efficient and less efficient companies did not widen, increasingly confirming the suggestion that the sector is quite homogeneous in terms of companies’ efficiency. On the other hand, with the SFA approach, the time varying efficiency model suggested that the efficiency gap slightly opened up during time, hence the distance between efficient and less efficient companies increased. Additional analyses omitting the very efficient company confirm positive and significant input coef- ficients. Additionally, companies in this subsample slightly worsen their technology in terms of effects on efficiency during the analyzed period (i.e. coefficient of T − 0.0675, p value < 0.05). The companies’ average relative efficiency is more than twice higher than before in most of the cases (due to the absence of the very efficient company and to the consequent recalibration of scores), and BC92 suggests a fairly stable gap. Results are similar even when re-running the two-stage DEA. 1 3 580 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 6 Conclusions Technological innovations such as artificial intelligence (McKinsey, 2018a), blockchain (BCG, 2018) and big data (Corlosquet-Habart & Janssen, 2018) are creating new opportunities in the insurance sector, with the promise of increasing efficiency (Lin & Chen, 2020). Despite these suggestions, literature empirically assessing whether insurance companies over the past few years were able to lev- erage new technologies to improve efficiency is scarce. Focusing on the US public P&C insurance sector and relying on both a non- parametric (two stage-DEA) and a parametric (SFA) approach to find evidence of higher efficiency supported by technological improvements, it emerges that on average insurance companies were not able to leverage technological inno- vations to improve their efficiency. These results suggest that, despite relevant opportunities and promises claimed by new technologies in the insurance sector, it is relevant to understand how to practically rely on these innovations in order to improve processes and consequently gain efficiency. Often, to reduce costs insurance companies have instead put in place cost-cutting strategies (McKinsey, 2019). Large and complex firms indeed usually take longer to fully exploit new technologies in their value chain and upskill workforce to properly benefit from them, as suggested by Damioli et al. (2021) for the case of Artificial Intelligence. Further investigating the efficiency scores, in order to understand how the relative level of efficiency among companies has changed, the two approaches suggest a slightly different message. While DEA results support that on average, no com- panies outperformed the others in improving their efficiency by leveraging tech- nology, indicating that the level of relative efficiency in the industry was quite stable over time, the SFA approach shows a slightly widening gap between effi- cient and less efficient companies. Moreover, we found a very efficient company, a kind of leader, and a homogeneous group of followers, indicating that there is vast space for improvement for less efficient firms. Nevertheless, the lacking gap closure was not due to significant improvements of the most efficient company, that if anything worsened its efficiency during time, but to an average reduction in efficiency of its followers, suggesting that neither the leader nor on average the followers properly leveraged technology in the analyzed period in order to improve their efficiency. In a competitive scenario, where new players are enter - ing (namely Insurtech players) and competitors need to leverage technology to improve their efficiency, a situation of inertia may seriously affect the positioning of companies, both for the leader and for the followers. Considering the results and the mentioned promises to increase efficiency by recent technological innovations (Lin & Chen, 2020), these findings suggest the need to further investigate best practices in adopting technologies to create effi- ciency and, in general, to bring the promised benefits in the industry. Not just academicians, but also managers and policy makers should carefully consider the effects that a non-improvement of efficiency following technological change may have on the market structure, its competition and regulations, potentially opening to further discussion on how technological innovations should be grounded and 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 581 effectively adopted or facilitated. For policy makers, this work aims at provid- ing the basis for understanding on one hand how regulations could maximize the effect of technology on efficiency improvements, and on the other hand which measures should be put in place, depending on the view of the regulator, to either reduce the efficiency gap between companies or to consolidate the industry fos- tering only a few efficient players. Non-efficient insurance companies are more likely to default (Ilyas & Rajasekaran, 2019), as well as companies not leveraging technological innovations (Christensen, 2013). With a similar approach, future research should investigate on how new regulatory frameworks, business models and the changing environment are affecting efficiency for insurance companies. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous Reviewers and the Editor for their valuable comments and suggestions that greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality of this paper. We would also like to express our gratitude to Davide Scotti who kindly reviewed an earlier ver- sion of this manuscript and to Dorin Agache for providing access to FactSet financial database. Funding Open access funding provided by Politecnico di Milano within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. No funding was received. Availability of data and material Not applicable. Code availability Not applicable. Declaration Conflicts of interest No conflicts of interest/competing interests were present. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Alhassan, A. L., & Biekpe, N. (2016). Competition and efficiency in the non-life insurance market in South Africa. Journal of Economic Studies, 43(6), 882–909. Al-witwit, S. S. I., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2020, November). Improving Operational Efficiency of Government using Artificial Intelligence. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 928, No. 2, p. 022014). IOP Publishing. Baixauli-Soler, J. S., Lozano-Reina, G., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2020). Managerial discretion, say on pay, and CEO compensation. Management Decision, 59(6), 1333–1362. Balboa, M., Gomez-Sala, J. C., & Lopez-Espinosa, G. (2008). Does the value of recommendations depend on the level of optimism? A country-based analysis. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 18(4), 405–426. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092. 1 3 582 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 Barros, C., Barroso, N., & Borges, M. (2005). Evaluating the efficiency and productivity of insurance companies with a Malmquist index: A case study for Portugal. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice, 30(2), 244–267. Bartelsman, E. J., Falk, M., Hagsten, E., & Polder, M. (2019). Productivity, technological innovations and broadband connectivity: Firm-level evidence for ten European countries. Eurasian Business Review, 9(1), 25–48. Battese, G., & Coelli, T. (1988). Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 38(1988), 387–399. Battese, G., & Coelli, T. (1992). Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in India. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1/2), 153–169. Battese, G. E., & Rao, D. P. (2002). Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 87. BCG. (2018). The First All Blockchain Insurer. By Roberto Bosisio, Kaj Burchardi, and Max Hauser. https:// www. bcg. com/ it- it/ publi catio ns/ 2018/ first- all- block chain- insur er. Beenstock, M., Dickinson, G., & Khajuria, S. (1988). The relationship between property-liability insur- ance premiums and income: an international analysis. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55(2), 259–272. Berger, A. N. (1993). “Distribution-free” estimates of efficiency in the US banking industry and tests of the standard distributional assumptions. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4(3), 261–292. Biener, C., Eling, M., & Wirfs, J. H. (2016). The determinants of efficiency and productivity in the Swiss insurance industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(2), 703–714. Bohnert, A., Fritzsche, A., & Gregor, S. (2019). Digital agendas in the insurance industry: The impor- tance of comprehensive approaches. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 44(1), 1–19. Boubaker, H., & Sghaier, N. (2014). How do the interest rate and the inflation rate affect the non-life insurance premiums? Working Papers 2014–282, Department of Research, Ipag Business School. Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1991). Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 52(1), 1–15. Camino-Mogro, S., & Bermúdez-Barrezueta, N. (2019). Determinants of profitability of life and non-life insurance companies: Evidence from Ecuador. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 14(5), 831–872. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Clemente, G. P., & Marano, P. (2020). The broker model for peer-to-peer insurance: An analysis of its value. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 45(3), 457–481. Comiran, F., Fedyk, T., & Ha, J. (2018). Accounting quality and media attention around seasoned equity offerings. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management., 26(3), 443–462. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (Vol. 164). Springer Science & Business Media. Copeland, M. K., & Cabanda, E. (2018). Efficiency analysis of the US publicly held insurance industry: a two-stage efficiency model. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), 10(1), 1–15. Corlosquet-Habart, M., & Janssen, J. (2018). Big Data for Insurance Companies. Wiley. Cummins, J. D. (1999). Efficiency in the US life insurance industry: Are insurers minimizing costs and maximizing revenues? Changes in the Life Insurance Industry: Efficiency, Technology and Risk Management (pp. 75–115). Springer. Cummins, J. D., & Turchetti, G. (1996). Productivity and technical efficiency in the Italian insurance industry (No 96-10). Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania. Cummins, J. D., & Weiss, M. A. (2013). Analyzing firm performance in the insurance industry using frontier efficiency and productivity methods. Handbook of Insurance (pp. 795–861). Springer. Cummins, J. D., & Xie, X. (2016). Efficiency and productivity in the US property-liability insurance industry: ownership structure, product and distribution strategies. Data Envelopment Analysis (pp. 113–163). Springer. Damioli, G., Van Roy, V., & Vertesy, D. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence on labor productiv - ity. Eurasian Business Review, 11(1), 1–25. 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 583 Danquah, M., Otoo, D. M., & Baah-Nuakoh, A. (2018). Cost efficiency of insurance firms in Ghana. Managerial and Decision Economics, 39(2), 213–225. Delhausse, B., Fecher, F., & Pestieau, P. (1995). Measuring productive performance in the non-life insur- ance industry: The case of French and Belgian markets. Tijdschrift Voor Economie En Management, 40(1), 47–69. Deloitte. (2018). Insurtech entering second wave. https:// www2. deloi tte. com/ conte nt/ dam/ Deloi tte/ us/ Docum ents/ finan cial- servi ces/ us- dcfs- insur tech- enter ing- second- wave. pdf. Deloitte. (2019). 2020 Insurance Outlook. Insurers adapt to grow in a volatile economy. https:// www2. deloi tte. com/ conte nt/ dam/ insig hts/ us/ artic les/ 6304_ Insur ance- outlo ok/ DI_ Insur ance- outlo ok. pdf. Eling, M., & Lehmann, M. (2018). The impact of digitalization on the insurance value chain and the insurability of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 43(3), 359–396. Eling, M., & Luhnen, M. (2010). Efficiency in the international insurance industry: A cross-country com- parison. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(7), 1497–1509. EY. (2019). 2020 US and Americas Insurance Outlook. https:// assets. ey. com/ conte nt/ dam/ ey- sites/ ey- com/ en_ gl/ topics/ insur ance/ insur ance- outlo ok- pdfs/ ey- global- insur ance- outlo ok- us- ameri cas_ v2. pdf. Fecher, F., Kessler, D., Perelman, S., & Pestieau, P. (1993). Productive performance of the French insur- ance industry. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4(1–2), 77–93. Ferro, G., & León, S. (2018). A stochastic frontier analysis of efficiency in Argentina’s non-life insurance market. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 43(1), 158–174. Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1–12. Fried, H. O., Schmidt, S. S., & Lovell, C. K. (1993). The measurement of productive efficiency: Tech- niques and applications. Oxford University Press. Fuentes, H., Grifell-Tatje, E. & Perelman, S. (2005). Product specialization, efficiency and productivity change in the Spanish insurance industry. CREPP Working Papers 0506, Universite de Liege Gomulka, S. (2006). The theory of technological change and economic growth. Routledge. Greene, W. H. (2008). The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth, 1(1), 92–250. Grima, S., Spiteri, J., & Romānova, I. (2020). A STEEP framework analysis of the key factors impact- ing the use of blockchain technology in the insurance industry. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 45(3), 398–425. Grmanová, E., & Strunz, H. (2017). Efficiency of insurance companies: Application of DEA and Tobit analyses. Journal of International Studies, 10(3), 250–263. Hauswald, R., & Marquez, R. (2003). Information technology and financial services competition. The Review of Financial Studies, 16(3), 921–948. Hesarzadeh, R. (2020). Regulatory oversight and managerial ability. Eurasian Business Review, 10(4), 559–585. Huang, W., & Eling, M. (2013). An efficiency comparison of the non-life insurance industry in the BRIC countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 226(3), 577–591. Ilyas, A. M., & Rajasekaran, S. (2019). An empirical investigation of efficiency and productivity in the Indian non-life insurance market. Benchmarking: an International Journal, 26(7), 2343–2371. Jarraya, B., & Bouri, A. (2015). A new assessment approach of technical efficiency and productivity in European non-life insurance companies. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 7(3–4), 217–234. Lee, C., & Ji, Y. B. (2009, July). Data envelopment analysis in Stata. In Stata Conference DC. Lee, K. R., Leem, B., Lee, C. W., & Lee, C. (2011). Malmquist Productivity Index using DEA frontier in Stata. Stata Journal, 2(2), 1–9. Li, H., Chen, C., Cook, W. D., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Two-stage network DEA: Who is the leader? Omega, 74(2018), 15–19. Lin, L., & Chen, C. C. (2020). The Promise and Perils of InsurTech. Forthcoming, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. Marchionni, F. (2006). L’impresa assicurativa: fabbrica, finanza e ruolo sociale. Il sole 24 ore. McKinsey. (2018a). Insurance 2030-The impact of AI on the future of insurance. By Ramnath Balasubra- manian, Ari Libarikian, and Doug McElhaney. https:// www. mckin sey. com/ indus tries/ finan cial- servi ces/ our- insig hts/ insur ance- 2030- the- impact- of- ai- on- the- future- of- insur ance. 1 3 584 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 McKinsey. (2018b). Digital Insurance in 2018. https:// www. mckin sey. com/ ~/ media/ mckin sey/ indus tries/ finan cial% 20ser vices/ our% 20ins ights/ digit al% 20ins ur ance% 20in% 202018% 20dr i ving% 20r eal% 20imp act% 20with% 20dig ital% 20and% 20ana lytics/ digit al- insur ance- in- 2018. ashx. McKinsey. (2019). The productivity imperative in insurance. By Bernhard Kotanko, Björn Münstermann, Pradip Patiath, Jasper van Ouwerkerk, and Ulrike Vogelgesang. https:// www. mckin sey. com/ indus tries/ finan cial- servi ces/ our- insig hts/ the- produ ctivi ty- imper ative- in- insur ance. Milken Institute. (2018). InsurTech Rising: A Profile of the InsurTech Landscape. By Jackson Mueller. https:// milke ninst itute. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ repor ts- pdf/ Insur Tech- Rising- 12.4. 18_2. pdf. Mogos, S., Davis, A., & Baptista, R. (2021). High and sustainable growth: Persistence, volatility, and survival of high growth firms. Eurasian Business Review, 11(1), 135–161. Nam, S. (2018). How much are insurance consumers willing to pay for Blockchain and smart contracts? A contingent valuation study. Sustainability, 10(11), 4332. Nguyen, L., & Worthington, A. C. (2020). Industry regulation, fund characteristics, and the efficiency of Australian private health insurers. Accounting & Finance, 61(2021), 781–801. Nourani, M., Kweh, Q. L., Devadason, E. S., & Chandran, V. G. R. (2020). A decomposition analysis of managerial efficiency for the insurance companies: A data envelopment analysis approach. Manage- rial and Decision Economics., 41(6), 885–901. NTT Data, Everis. (2020). Insurtech global outlook 2020. https:// insur techn ttdata. everis. com/ dist/ resou rces/ vlarr osa/ insur tech/ Insur tech- Global- Outlo ok_ Report. pdf. Outreville, J. F. (1990). The economic significance of insurance markets in developing countries. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 57(3), 487–498. Pellegrino, G., & Piva, M. (2020). Innovation, industry and firm age: Are there new knowledge produc- tion functions? Eurasian Business Review, 10(1), 65–95. Rai, A. (1996). Cost efficiency of international insurance firms. Journal of Financial Services Research, 10(3), 213–233. Schaeck, K., & Cihák, M. (2014). Competition, efficiency, and stability in banking. Financial Manage- ment, 43(1), 215–241. Shieh, H. S., Hu, J. L., & Ang, Y. Z. (2020). Efficiency of life insurance companies: an empirical study in Mainland China and Taiwan. SAGE Open, 10(1), 2158244020902060. Smith, A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations edited by SM Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 5(8), 5. Sonenshine, R. (2020). Merger waves: Are buyers following the herd or responding to structural queues? Eurasian Business Review, 10(2), 287–308. Stoeckli, E., Dremel, C., & Uebernickel, F. (2018). Exploring characteristics and transformational capa- bilities of InsurTech innovations to understand insurance value creation in a digital world. Elec- tronic Markets, 28(3), 287–305. Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma | World insurance: riding out the 2020 pandemic storm. https:// www. swiss re. com/ dam/ jcr: d50ac bcd- ce5c- 4ee9- bc60- a3c1e 55f87 62/ sigma-4- 2020- en. pdf. The Geneva Association. (2012). The Social and Economic Value of Insurance. https:// www. genev aasso ciati on. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ resea rch- topics- docum ent- type/ pdf_ publi c// ga2012- the_ social_ and_ econo mic_ value_ of_ insur ance. pdf. Tuzcu, S. E., & Ertugay, E. (2020). Is size an input in the mutual fund performance evaluation with DEA? Eurasian Economic Review, 10(4), 635–659. Ur-Rehman, R., Zhang, J., Naseem, M. A., Ahmed, M. I., & Ali, R. (2020). Board independence and Chi- nese banking efficiency: a moderating role of ownership restructuring. Eurasian Business Review, 11, 1–20. Vecchiato, R. (2017). Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition out- comes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116(2017), 116–128. Voghouei, H., & Jamali, M. A. (2018). Determinants of government efficiency: Does information tech- nology play a role? Eurasian Business Review, 8(3), 285–298. Weiss, M. A., & Choi, B. P. (2008). State regulation and the structure, conduct, efficiency and perfor - mance of US auto insurers. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(1), 134–156. Willis Tower Watson. (2018). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q1 2018. https:// www. willi stowe rswat son. com/-/ media/ W T W/ Insig hts/ 2018/ 05/ quar t er ly- insur tech- br ie fi ng- q1- 2018. pdf? modi fi ed= 20180 52117 3321. Willis Tower Watson. (2019). Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2018. https:// www. willi stowe rswat son. com/-/ media/ W T W/ Insig hts/ 2019/ 02/ quar t er ly- insur tech- br ie fi ng- q4- 2018. pdf? modi fi ed= 20190 22815 5910. 1 3 Eurasian Business Review (2021) 11:565–585 585 Worthington, A. C., & Hurley, E. V. (2002). Cost efficiency in Australian general insurers: A non-para- metric approach. The British Accounting Review, 34(2), 89–108. Zweifel, P., & Eisen, R. (2012). Insurance economics. Springer Science & Business Media. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3
Eurasian Business Review – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 1, 2021
Keywords: Efficiency; Insurance; Technology; Insurtech; Competition; Innovation
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.