Res Publica

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 137–154 | Cite as

Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation

Article
  • 222 Downloads

Abstract

Public insurance is commonly assimilated with redistributive tools mobilized by the welfare state in the pursuit of an egalitarian ideal. This view contains some truth, since the result of insurance, at a given moment, is the redistribution of resources from the lucky to unlucky. However, Joseph Heath (among other political theorists) considers that the principle of efficiency provides a better normative explanation and justification of public insurance than the egalitarian account. According to this view, the fact that the state is involved in the provision of specific insurance (primarily health and unemployment insurance and pensions) is explained and justified by the greater efficiency of the state, in comparison with markets, in addressing market failures such as moral hazard or adverse selection. Our argument is that while insurance, intrinsically and idealistically, may diverge from a redistributive scheme, it is nevertheless difficult to deny that insurance has nothing to do with equality. More precisely, we argue that insurance may be understood as an egalitarian tool if our understanding of equality is broadened to include relational equality. Our paper aims to briefly recap the debates surrounding public insurance as a redistributive tool, advancing the idea that public insurance may be a relational egalitarian tool. It then presents a number of relational arguments in favor of the involvement of the state in the provision of specific forms of insurance, arguments that have been overlooked given the domination of luck egalitarian approaches in these debates.

Keywords

Luck egalitarianism Public insurance Redistribution Welfare state Relational egalitarianism 

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. 2009. Toward a non-ideal, relational, methodology for political philosophy: Comments on Schwartzman’s challenging liberalism. Hypatia 24: 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, E. 2010. The imperative of integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Elizabeth. Forthcoming. Thomas Paine’s ‘agrarian justice’ and the origins of social insurance. In Ten neglected classics of philosophy, ed. Eric Schliesser. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, William J. 1952. Welfare economics and the theory of the state. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  6. Baumol, William. 1972. On taxation and the control of externalities. The American Economic Review 62: 307–322.Google Scholar
  7. Beito, David T. 2000. From mutual aid to the welfare state. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cordery, Simon. 2003. British friendly societies, 1750–1914. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin, Ronald. 2002. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ewald, François. 1986. L’État providence. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  11. Ewald, François. 1996. Histoire de l’État providence. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  12. Fourie, Carina. 2012. What is social equality? An analysis of social equality as a strongly egalitarian ideal. Res Publica 18: 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fourie, Carina, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Walliman-Hellmer. 2015. The nature and distinctiveness of social equality: An introduction. In Social equality: On what it means to be equals, ed. Carina Fourie, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Walliman-Hellmer, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrau, Marie, and Cécile Laborde. 2015. Relational equality, non-domination and vulnerability. In Social equality: On what it means to be equals, ed. Carina Fourie, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Walliman-Hellmer, 65–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. The moral-hazard myth: The bad idea behind our failed health-care system. The New Yorker, August 29, pp 44–49.Google Scholar
  16. Glyn, Edward, and David Miliband. 1994. Paying for inequality: The economic cost of social injustice. London: Rivers Oram Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodin, Robert E. 1988. Reasons for welfare: The political theory of the welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodin, Robert E. 1998. Social welfare as a collective social responsibility. In Social welfare and individual responsibility, ed. David Schmidtz, and Robert E. Goodin, 97–195. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Heath, Joseph. 2011. Three normative models of the welfare state. Public Reason 3: 13–43.Google Scholar
  20. Hurley, S. 2003. Justice, luck, and knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kibe, Takashi. 2011. The relational approach to egalitarian justice: A critique of luck egalitarianism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knight, Carl. 2005. In defence of luck egalitarianism. Res Publica 11: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knight, Carl. 2009. Luck egalitarianism: Equality, responsibility, and justice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Landes, Xavier. 2013a. Insurance. In Encyclopedia of corporate social Responsibility, eds. Samuel Idowu, Nicholas Capaldi, Liangrong Zu, Ananda Das Gupta, 1433–1440. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Landes, Xavier. 2013b. Insurance underwriting. In Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility, eds. Samuel Idowu, Nicholas Capaldi, Liangrong Zu, Ananda Das Gupta, 1440–1448. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Landes, Xavier. 2013c. The normative foundations of (social) insurance: Technology, social practices and political philosophy. Comparative politics and public philosophy lab. Torino: Centro Einaudi.Google Scholar
  27. Landes, Xavier. 2014. How fair is actuarial fairness? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0.Google Scholar
  28. Marx, Karl. 1993. Grundrisse. New York, NY: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  29. Moss, David A. 2002. When all else fails: Government as the ultimate risk manager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, David A. 2007–2008. Risk, responsibility, and the role of government. Drake Law Review 56: 541–559.Google Scholar
  31. Néron, Pierre-Yves. 2014. Egalitarianism and executive compensation: A relational argument. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2312-7.Google Scholar
  32. O’Neil, Martin. 2008. What should egalitarians believe? Philosophy & Public Affairs 36: 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Okun, Arthur M. 1975. Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  34. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2013. La société des égaux. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  35. Scheffler, Samuel. 2010. Equality and tradition: Questions of values in moral and political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schemmel, Christian. 2012. Distributive and relational equality. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11: 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Segall, Shlomi. 2007. In solidarity of the imprudent: A defense of luck egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 33: 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Segall, Shlomi. 2010. Health, luck, and justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shapiro, Daniel. 2007. Is the welfare state justified?. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone, Deborah. 1999–2000. Beyond moral hazard: Insurance as moral opportunity. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 6: 11–46.Google Scholar
  41. Sunstein, Cass. 1996. On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144: 2021–2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Voigt, Kristin. 2007. The harshness objection: Is luck egalitarianism too harsh on the victims of option luck? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10: 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. 2010. The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Wolff, Jonathan. 1998. Fairness, respect, and the egalitarian ethos. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27: 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolff, Jonathan. 2010. Fairness, respect and the egalitarian ethos revisited. The Journal of Ethics 14: 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.Département d’éthique et institut de philosophieUniversité Catholique de LilleLille CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations