Kevin Drum must really really dislike price discrimination. He recently complained about supermarkets offering reward card discounts, and now he is against Proposition 17 in California, a ballot initiative that would allow a little bit of price discrimination in auto insurance. Although perhaps I should not say that he really really dislikes price discrimination, because as with the rewards card discounts I think Kevin’s objection is based on an incorrect assesment of the impact of the price discrimination on consumers. I think if he agreed with me on the impacts, he would likely agree that price discrimination is desirable in both cases.
The issue here is that California prevents auto insurance companies from setting rates for an individual based on anything other than three factors: their driving record, how many miles they drive, and their years of driving experience. There are exceptions to this rule though, one of which is loyalty discounts, where an insurance company can offer lower rates to a customer who has been with them for a couple of years. The proposition seeks to change the law so that insurers can offer a discount for length-of-time insured by any company, which effectively lets individuals take their loyalty discounts with them to other insurance companies.
So right now if you’ve had auto insurance with Company A for 5 years and are getting a 10% discount, if you want to switch to Company B you lose that 10% discount. If this law passes, then Company B can also offer you a discount so that you don’t lose the discount by switching. Thus the effect of the law will be to lower switching costs for people who have had auto insurance for a long time. By lowering switching costs, this law will make the market for insurance for people who have been insured for a long time more competitive, and will force auto insurers to offer better deals to long-time customers to prevent them from switching to other auto insurers. In fact the law as structured doesn’t really serve any purpose but to protect entrenched insurers with existing customer bases from competition by market entrants.
Kevin claims this will raise rates for some people, but the rates for people who have not had insurance for long enough to receive a discount, like first time buyers, will be just as competitive as before, and thus will not be affected by this law.
I think Kevin’s problem is that wherever he sees price discrimination he sees prices going up for some people, but that is not always the case, in fact a lot of price discrimination is pro-competitive. This auto insurance example seems likely to be one of those pro-competitive cases.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ June 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Dain
“If this law passes, then Company B can also offer you a discount so that you don’t lose the discount by switching.”
I don’t understand why they can’t do that anyway, now.
Thursday ~ June 3rd, 2010 at 6:29 am
Adam Ozimek
The law prevents it. An insurer can only offer a discount based on how long the driver has been a customer of theirs. When the law passes they will be able to offer a discount based on how long they have been a customer of any insurer.
Tuesday ~ June 8th, 2010 at 2:02 am
Dain
I guess I figured an insurer can compete on price like everyone else. Must they call it a “discount”?
Thursday ~ June 3rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
jsalvati
Is there a general principle about when price discrimination is good for total welfare and when it isn’t ? I’ve never heard a good explanation of this.
Thursday ~ June 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Adam Ozimek
If price discrimination increases output it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for increasing welfare. That is a good place to start. However, keep in mind that includes output in a dynamic sense, not just static. So if it allows a company to exist that otherwise wouldn’t, then that is an increase in output.
There is a Hal Varian paper in the AER from the 80s on the welfare impact of price discrimination that is supposed to be good on this, but I confess I have not read it closely.
Thursday ~ September 23rd, 2010 at 8:15 am
Sex Discrimination vs Efficiency « Modeled Behavior
[...] you’re left consistently rejecting price discrimination like California does, which is an inefficient overreach, or wasting time and money on what most would regard as frivolous cases. On the other hand, those [...]