Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFields, Gary S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-17T17:14:14Z
dc.date.available2020-11-17T17:14:14Z
dc.date.issued1994-01-01
dc.identifier.other10321281
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/74885
dc.description.abstract[Excerpt] This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking paper, informative and interesting. I learned a lot from reading this and have already passed it on to others. In my comments, I would like to do four things: highlight the major points and the rationale for them, raise a few quibbles, put forth some additional issues, and propose a possible resolution of a dilemma raised in the paper. But let us first try to be clear about what we are talking about. Professor Pestieau characterizes social insurance as being mandatory, universal, and redistributive. I would define it slightly differently: “Social insurance is a state-run or state-mandated system that is mandatory and universal.” Must it be redistributive? I would say that it may or may not be ex ante in an expected value sense. But of course, social insurance will surely be redistributive ex post once losses are incurred.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: © Palgrave Macmillan. Final version published as: Fields, G. S. (1994). A discussion of social protection and private insurance. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 19(2), 97-99. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
dc.subjectsocial protection
dc.subjectprivate insurance
dc.subjecteconomic policy
dc.titleA Discussion of Social Protection and Private Insurance
dc.typearticle
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371686
dc.description.legacydownloadsFields170_A_discussion_of_social_protection.pdf: 48 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationFields, Gary S.: gsf2@cornell.edu Cornell University


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics