Abstract
Declining welfare states and increasing privatization of the insurance sector are leaving an increasing number of people, particularly in Europe, without insurance. In many countries, new initiatives like Friendsurance (Germany), Broodfonds (the Netherlands), and Lemonade (US) have emerged to fill this gap. These initiatives, sometimes called peer-to-peer insurance, aim to make insurance fair, transparent, and social again. Resembling 19th-century mutuals, they pool premiums in (small) risk-sharing pools. We compare eleven new mutuals with respect to their institutional, resource, and member characteristics and find two broad typologies. The first bears the most resemblance to the 19th-century mutuals: Members are (partly) responsible for governance, there is no risk differentiation, premiums are fixed and low, and insurance payouts cover basic expenses only and are not guaranteed. The second group, while also applying risk-sharing and redistribution of unused premiums, is organized more like the present-day commercial insurers it reacted against, e.g., with refined InsurTech methods for risk differentiation and a top-down organization. We thus pose that, while both groups of new insurers reinvent the meaning of solidarity by using direct risk-sharing groups (as is central to the concept of mutuals), they have different projected development paths—especially considering how, in case of further growth, they deal with problems of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology
Reference34 articles.
1. Adams, M., Andersson, L.-F., Jia, J. Y., & Lindmark, M. (2011). Mutuality as a control for information asymmetry: A historical analysis of the claims experience of mutual and stock fire insurance companies in Sweden, 1889 to 1939. Business History, 53(7), 1074–1091.
2. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
3. Arrow, K. J. (1971). Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Chicago, IL: Markham Publications.
4. Baldini, M., Gallo, G., Reverberi, M., & Trapani, A. (2016). Social transfers and poverty in Europe: Comparing social exclusion and targeting across welfare regimes (DEMB Working Paper Series No. 91). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mod/depeco/0091.html
5. Beito, D. T. (2000). From mutual aid to the welfare state: Fraternal societies and social services, 1890–1967. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献