Book Review: Non-Public Actors in Social Security Administration, a Comparative Study
Author | Grega Strban |
DOI | 10.1177/138826271501700110 |
Published date | 01 March 2015 |
Date | 01 March 2015 |
Subject Matter | Book Review |
Book Reviews
142 Intersentia
Dr. Varvara Lalioti received a D.Phil . in Comparative Social Policy/Politica l Economy
from the University of Oxford. She holds rst degrees in Histor y and Sociology and
higher degrees in public pol icy and political ec onomy, and is currently involved
in research projects in comparative pol itical economy and social pol icy. Her main
interests include the evolution of Guara nteed Minimum Income (GMI) schemes
in southern Europe and t he role of political agency in shaping GMI proposals and
implementations.
Frans Pennings, omas Erhag and Sara Stenda hl, Non-public Actors in Social
Security Admini stration, A Comparative Study, 2013, Kluwer Law International,
xxvii i + 300 pp., ISBN 978-90-411-4917-6
is book reports on some extensive comparative studies and on the conclusions of
an interesting and topica l topic, namely how the administ ration of social secu rity is
distributed across private a nd public actors.
In the past – from the end of the 19th Centur y ‒ we have seen not only a trend
towards juridi cation, but also towards t he de-privatisation or socialisation of socia l
security in relation to old-age, sickness and disability, health care, reliance on long-
term care and unemployment. Ar rangements governed by public law have been given
priority over private law remedies. In the past t wo decades we have seen a trend
towards more private solutions and responsibilities . Such shi s have not only been
advocated in response to economic crises, but a lso for other reasons, such as greater
e ciency, better supervision or enhance d choice.
It is true that in order to re ect changes in socia l relations and achieve its goal,
social secur ity has to evolve constantly. However, the question remains of whether
reducing public provision and the shi (back) to private provision are the best
solutions.
Discussions of the interplay bet ween principles of solidarity and sel f-responsibility,
and between public and private ac tors in social security are ongoing.1 As emphasised
in this book, Bisma rck deeply distrusted private insurance companies and therefore
established a public in surance system with self-governi ng boards. Bismarck’s famous
dictum asser ts that ‘anyt hing but a private institut ion with dividends and ba nkruptcy ’.2
Conversely, Beveridge wanted to protect and nurture t he ethic of private cit izenship
1 Many books have been written on thi s topic e.g. on public private partnerships in social protection
or in health ca re, on public-private policy par tnerships, on the marke tisation of social sec urity, on
private part ners in social insurance a nd on cost sharing for bene ts in kind. Among ot hers, the
2009 Annua l Conference of the European Ins titute of Social Securit y was devoted to the topic of
public-private par tnerships in statutory soc ial security, and some of the paper s were published in
the EJSS 12(1) (2010).
2 Marg inal n ote by Bi smarck in a pro memor ia of the Bavarian G overnment of 31.12.1881. See Becker,
Ulrich (2005) ‘Ger man Health a nd Long-Term Care Insurance: Le gal Aspects’, in e Role of Private
Actors, München: Ma x Planck Institute for Foreig n and International Soc ial Law.
To continue reading
Request your trial