Abstract
The article presents two main arguments. First, we claim that in contemporary societies, insurance enacts peculiar kinds of solidarities as well as inequality and exclusion. Especially important in this respect are life, health, disability and old age pension insurance, both in compulsory and voluntary forms. Second, the article maintains that the ideas of solidarity, inequality and exclusion are transformed by the machinery of insurance. In other words, the concrete ways in which insurance relations are practically arranged have an effect on the ways in which the related moral and political concepts are perceived. We elaborate on three different forms of insurance solidarity, which we call chance, risk and income solidarity. The existence of multiple forms of solidarity relevant to insurance is significant because practices of insurance require decisions concerning what kind of solidarity is emphasised, when it is emphasised, and on what grounds. Moreover, what is solidarity for some can entail exclusion and inequality for others. Showing these internal tensions within insurance practice underlines the inherently political and moral nature of insurance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This was the case in some of the first forms of commercial (marine) insurance. An affluent banker or ‘insurer' lent money for traders with high interest rates and promised to compensate the losses from his own assets, in case of misfortune.
The term risk pool can have several meanings. Sometimes it is used narrowly to emphasise the pooling of similar risks so that a wider insurance collective can include several risk pools with distinct risk profiles. Other times, the term is used in joint arrangements where several insurance companies have decided to share the costs of especially rare and costly risks, such as natural catastrophes. In this article, we use the concepts of insurance pool and risk pool broadly, referring just to the basic idea of risk sharing inherent in all insurance.
Of course, this general statement can be somewhat qualified by noting that in many cases, policy holders are not completely free of financial responsibility, as insurance policies may include different kinds of deductibles or co-payments for preventing overuse and moral hazard.
This is not to say that sentimental bonds or shared values cannot play a role in insurance; historically, especially in the establishment of mutual insurance companies, they have been crucial.
For a recent overview and discussion of the concept, from a philosophical point of view, see Landes (2014).
It is noteworthy, however, that the concept of actuarial fairness does not imply positions taken on the question of whether risk levels are self-inflicted. The question of responsibility is completely transformed when it is related to individual, voluntary action.
However, as Beveridge (1942, p. 13) noted, ‘[t]hough the State, in conducting compulsory insurance, is not under the necessity of varying the premium according to the risk, it may decide as a matter of policy to do so'.
References
Barr, Nicholas. 2001. The welfare state as piggy bank. Information, risk, uncertainty, and the role of the state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Tom. 1994. Constructing the insurance relationship: Sales stories, claims stories, and insurance contract damages. Texas Law Review 72: 1395–1433.
Baker, Tom. 1996. On the genealogy of moral hazard. Texas Law Review 75: 237–292.
Baker, Tom. 2002. Risk, insurance, and the social construction of responsibility. In Embracing risk. The changing culture of insurance and responsibility, ed. Tom Baker, and Jonathan Simon, 33–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bayertz, Kurt. 1998. Solidarität. Begriff und Problem. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Beveridge, William. 1942. Social insurance and allied services. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Ericson, Richard V., and Aaron Doyle. 2004. Uncertain business. Risk, insurance, and the limits of knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ericson, Richard V., Aaron Doyle, and Dean Barry. 2003. Insurance as governance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ewald, François. 1986. L’Etat providence. Paris: Bernard Grasset.
French, Shaun, and James Kneale. 2009. Excessive financialisation: Insuring lifestyles, enlivening subjects, and everyday spaces of biosocial excess. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 1030–1053.
Hacking, Ian. 1990. The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Béatrice Godard, and Yann Joly. 2004. A comparative international overview. In Genetics and life insurance: Medical underwriting and social policy, ed. Mark A. Rothstein, 173–194. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Landes, Xavier. 2014. How fair is actuarial fairness? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0.
Lehtonen, Turo-Kimmo. 2014. Picturing how life insurance matters. Journal of Cultural Economy 7: 308–333.
Lehtonen, Turo-Kimmo, and Jyri Liukko. 2010. Justifications for commodified security: The promotion of private life insurance in Finland 1945–1990. Acta Sociologica 53: 371–386.
Lehtonen, Turo-Kimmo, and Jyri Liukko. 2011. The forms and limits of insurance solidarity. Journal of Business Ethics 103: 33–44.
Lesch, William C., and Brent R. Baker. 2013. Balancing the insurance equation: Understanding the climate for managing consumer insurance fraud and abuse. Journal of Insurance Issues 36: 82–120.
Liukko, Jyri. 2010. Genetic discrimination, insurance, and solidarity: An analysis of the argumentation for fair risk classification. New Genetics and Society 29: 457–475.
Lobo-Guerrero, Luis. 2011. Insuring security: Biopolitics, security and risk. Oxon: Routledge.
Lobo-Guerrero, Luis. 2014. Life securitisation, the event object of insurance and the strategisation of time. Journal of Cultural Economy. doi:10.1080/17530350.2013.858057.
May, Larry. 1996. The socially responsive self. Social theory and professional ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O’Malley, Pat. 2004. Risk, uncertainty and government. London: GlassHouse Press.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 1995. La nouvelle question sociale. Paris: Seuil.
Spicker, Paul. 1991. Solidarity. In Towards a European welfare state, ed. Graham Room, 17–37. Bristol: SAUS Publications.
Stjernø, Steinar. 2004. Solidarity in Europe. The history of an idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, Deborah. 2002. Beyond moral hazard: Insurance as moral opportunity. In Embracing risk. The changing culture of insurance and responsibility, ed. Tom Baker, and Jonathan Simon, 52–79. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thiery, Yves, and Caroline Van Schoubroeck. 2006. Fairness and equality in insurance classification. The Geneva Papers 31: 190–211.
Van Hoyweghen, Ine. 2007. Risks in the making. Travels in life insurance and genetics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van Hoyweghen, Ine, Klasien Horstman, and Rita Schepers. 2007. Genetic ‘risk carriers’ and lifestyle ‘risk takers’. Which risks deserve our legal protection in insurance? Health Care Analysis 15: 179–193.
Zelizer, Viviana A.Rotman. 1983. Morals and markets. The development of life insurance in the United States. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Xavier Landes for his comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the paper. The study was funded by the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, and the Academy of Finland (Decision No. 28344).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lehtonen, TK., Liukko, J. Producing Solidarity, Inequality and Exclusion Through Insurance. Res Publica 21, 155–169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9270-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9270-5