Béka LOMIDZE

Chapter 1 : Gone With the Wind? Climate Shocks, Insurance Demand and Well-Being

Authors: Alpaslan Akay, Olivier Bargain, Béka Lomidze, and Peter Martinsson

Abstract : We study the medium-run effects of a major climate shock on insurance demand and subjective well-being. Exploiting quasi-random exposure to storm Gudrun (Sweden, 2005) and conditioning on satellite-based forest and terrain characteristics, we treat realized damages as conditionally exogenous. Three years after the event, affected forest owners exhibit a persistent increase in insurance take-up alongside significant welfare losses. These losses are economically meaningful and consistent with important non-pecuniary and psychological costs, including landscape damage and heightened insecurity. Insurance provides only limited welfare buffering, operating partly as reassurance rather than full compensation. Overall, the results highlight the limits of climate insurance as a stand-alone adaptation tool.

Chapter 2: Social preferences in health care financing: Evidence from the SOPHEA survey

Authors: Béka Lomidze, Florence Jusot, Jérôme Wittwer and Clémence Thébaut

Abstract: Horizontal and vertical equity are common benchmarks in healthcare financing, yet their public support remains unclear. Using an experimental survey of 4,508 respondents representative of France, this study elicits preferences for horizontal equity (financing independent of use) and vertical equity (contributions based on ability to pay). Participants allocated a limited budget among four individuals with differing incomes and care needs in healthcare and long-term care contexts. When cost differences reflected health severity, about two-thirds supported horizontal equity, while deviations favored equal sharing. Support declined when costs stemmed from provider choice, especially in healthcare. About half endorsed vertical equity, and few favored compensating the most health-disadvantaged. Political orientation and income explained little variation.

Chapter 3: Responsibility and Fairness in Health: How Causal Attributions Shape Inequality Aversion [Job Market Paper]

Author: Béka Lomidze

Abstract: This study examines how responsibility framing affects public aversion to socioeconomic health inequalities. Using a nationally representative experimental survey of 4,508 respondents, preferences are elicited across eight scenarios covering preventive care, provider access, waiting times, avoidable hospitalizations, and mortality. Participants receive either neutral descriptions or frames emphasizing individual responsibility for health outcomes. Responsibility framing significantly reduces inequality aversion in all domains, increasing acceptance of disparities when viewed as self-inflicted. Men are consistently less inequality-averse than women, and framing widens this gender gap. Higher income is associated with lower aversion. Pre-existing responsibility beliefs do not interact with framing, suggesting it acts as a general heuristic. Overall, framing strongly shifts distributive preferences, potentially undermining support for equity-oriented health policies.