Private spanner in public works? The corrosive effects of private insurance on public life.

Sinisa Hadziabdic, Sebastian Kohl
{"title":"Private spanner in public works? The corrosive effects of private insurance on public life.","authors":"Sinisa Hadziabdic, Sebastian Kohl","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.12961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary societies are not only \"risk societies\", but also insurance societies. While the shift of systemic risks from the community to the individual is a distinctive trait of modernity, research on the consequences of this process has focused almost exclusively on welfare state responses aimed at re-collectivizing societal risks. Individual-level reactions associated with the need for a private safety net against the uncertainty brought by risk societies have been largely overlooked. What happens to a society and its individuals when private insurance becomes commonplace? Focusing on Germany, we use the data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (1984-2018) to investigate the attitudinal antecedents and consequences of contracting private insurance. As one of the most important sources of private welfare, life insurance attracts risk-averse individuals who are highly concerned with public economic affairs and see the market-based solutions of conservative parties as the best way to safeguard their economic security. While short-term attitudinal effects are absent, a longitudinal approach reveals that becoming insured gradually increases economic security but also entails withdrawal from public life and aversion to parties that support social redistribution. The loss of dynamism of a society may thus be related not only to public welfare but also to a private institution at the heart of the financial markets, which moreover has privatizing, welfare-eroding effects. The paper argues for a more general sociology of insurance.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"162 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contemporary societies are not only "risk societies", but also insurance societies. While the shift of systemic risks from the community to the individual is a distinctive trait of modernity, research on the consequences of this process has focused almost exclusively on welfare state responses aimed at re-collectivizing societal risks. Individual-level reactions associated with the need for a private safety net against the uncertainty brought by risk societies have been largely overlooked. What happens to a society and its individuals when private insurance becomes commonplace? Focusing on Germany, we use the data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (1984-2018) to investigate the attitudinal antecedents and consequences of contracting private insurance. As one of the most important sources of private welfare, life insurance attracts risk-averse individuals who are highly concerned with public economic affairs and see the market-based solutions of conservative parties as the best way to safeguard their economic security. While short-term attitudinal effects are absent, a longitudinal approach reveals that becoming insured gradually increases economic security but also entails withdrawal from public life and aversion to parties that support social redistribution. The loss of dynamism of a society may thus be related not only to public welfare but also to a private institution at the heart of the financial markets, which moreover has privatizing, welfare-eroding effects. The paper argues for a more general sociology of insurance.
公共工程中的私人扳手?私人保险对公众生活的腐蚀作用。
当代社会既是“风险社会”,也是“保险社会”。虽然系统风险从社区向个人的转移是现代性的一个显著特征,但对这一过程后果的研究几乎完全集中在旨在将社会风险重新集体化的福利国家对策上。个人层面的反应与建立私人安全网以抵御风险社会带来的不确定性的必要性有关,这在很大程度上被忽视了。当私人保险变得司空见惯时,社会和个人会发生什么?以德国为研究对象,我们使用德国社会经济研究小组(1984-2018)的数据来调查签约私人保险的态度前因和后果。作为私人福利最重要的来源之一,人寿保险吸引了厌恶风险的个人,他们高度关注公共经济事务,并将保守政党的市场化解决方案视为维护其经济安全的最佳途径。虽然短期态度效应不存在,但纵向方法显示,投保逐渐增加了经济安全,但也需要退出公共生活,并厌恶支持社会再分配的政党。因此,一个社会活力的丧失可能不仅与公共福利有关,也与处于金融市场核心的私人机构有关,后者还具有私有化和福利侵蚀效应。本文主张建立一个更普遍的保险社会学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信