MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604420503 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v8n2p163

Financial Development and Life Insurance Demand in Sub-Sahara Africa

2017· article· en· W2604420503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama Ose Iyawe, Ifuero Osad Osamwonyi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCape verdeLife insuranceDeveloping countryEconomicsEstimationDevelopment economicsEconomic growthBusinessGeographyFinanceActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the relationship between financial development and life insurance demand in Sub-Saharan Africa with a sample of fifteen countries. These countries are Nigeria, South Africa, Namibia, Cameroon, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique, Togo, Benin, Senegal, Cape Verde and Zambia. The specific objectives are to determine the relative effect of financial depth, as well as major macroeconomic factors, preferences and life insurance demand in the sampled countries. It is argued in this study that the traditional textbook and theoretical factors driving demand for life insurance may not be extensively dominant in the case of Sub-Sahara Africa where low formal financial patronage are rife. Using annual data covering the period 1990 – 2011 (22 years), the study applies the panel data estimation, which allows for endogenization of individual country characteristics in the analysis. The model adopted in this study categorises all the necessary macroeconomic factors in the study that seek to explain both insurance penetration and insurance density for the sampled countries. The results of the study show that financial development in African countries drives life insurance demand than major macroeconomic factors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207