Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Public Insurance and Equality : From Redistribution to Relation. / Landes, Xavier; Néron, Pierre-Yves.

In: Res Publica, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2015, p. 137-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Landes, X & Néron, P-Y 2015, 'Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation', Res Publica, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y

APA

Landes, X., & Néron, P-Y. (2015). Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation. Res Publica, 21(2), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y

Vancouver

Landes X, Néron P-Y. Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation. Res Publica. 2015;21(2):137-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y

Author

Landes, Xavier ; Néron, Pierre-Yves. / Public Insurance and Equality : From Redistribution to Relation. In: Res Publica. 2015 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 137-154.

Bibtex

@article{491cba1936fb452ab561dba1bd9545f5,
title = "Public Insurance and Equality: From Redistribution to Relation",
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 = "Faculty of Humanities, Luck Egalitarianism, Public Insurance, Redistribution, Welfare State, Relational Egalitarianism",
author = "Xavier Landes and Pierre-Yves N{\'e}ron",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "137--154",
journal = "Res Publica",
issn = "1356-4765",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public Insurance and Equality

T2 - From Redistribution to Relation

AU - Landes, Xavier

AU - Néron, Pierre-Yves

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Luck Egalitarianism

KW - Public Insurance

KW - Redistribution

KW - Welfare State

KW - Relational Egalitarianism

U2 - 10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y

DO - 10.1007/s11158-015-9269-y

M3 - Journal article

VL - 21

SP - 137

EP - 154

JO - Res Publica

JF - Res Publica

SN - 1356-4765

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 138615010