Editorial
| Author | Frans Pennings |
| DOI | 10.1177/138826270300500401 |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
EDITORIAL
In September 2003 the Annual Conference of the European Institute of
Social Security took place in Graz (Austria), this time dedicated to the theme
of ‘Freedom of Choice in Social Security’. EJSS publishes a selection of
English language articles from the EISS conferences in a special issue (this
was done for the first time in Vol 5, issue 1).
‘Choice in social security’ is a well-chosen topic, which fits well with recent
trends in society towards individualisation and privatisation, and with
increasing differences in lifestyles. A standard approach to these different
situations is often not satisfactory. A person may be unhappy if s/he appears
to be insured for birth control provisions, when s/he is determined to
remain single, while s/he is not insured for particular experimental
treatments, or dental care or homeopathic treatments. Some people may
wish to be broadly insured, others prefer cheaper insurance with only basic
provisions.
It is not difficult to see that choice in social security raises the question of
solidarity. Traditional social security does not allow for much choice, on the
grounds that the system is based on (compulsory) solidarity. This means that
single persons must contribute to survivors’ insurance, that young and
healthy persons must be insured under a general health care system,
although those with serious health care problems benefit more than healthy
people. In other words, these schemes do not allow for risk selection, since
otherwise they would soon have very serious financial problems. Since the
first statutory social security schemes were set up, good reasons have been
given for this compulsory insurance, including that a person cannot know
when his or her life will change. A single person may find a partner and then
be in need of survivor’s insurance. A person’s health may deteriorate or s/he
may simply need more medical treatment because of his/or age. If these
persons have been given too much choice not to be insured in the past,
society may have to pay later for these uninsured costs.
However, this standard answer is not satisfactory in all cases any longer. One
reason is that there are serious doubts whether statutory social security
schemes will be able to provide the same level of protection in the future,
when the present healthy young people become dependent on medical care
and pension schemes. Secondly, now that people have become more
affluent, they are indeed able to bear the risk themselves in some cases. Now
that the labour market participation of women has grown, for instance,
survivors’ pensions have become unnecessary in some cases. Even if her
husband dies and a woman loses her job or becomes unable to work, she
may be entitled to work related social security and will not need survivors’
European Journal of Social Security, Volume 5 (2003), No. 4 283
To continue reading
Request your trial