In a recent issue of the Boston Review, Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, wrote a provocative analysis ("Common Property: How Social Insurance Became Confused with Socialism", 7-25-16) of the origins and evolution of social insurance worldwide and in the United States. Her article includes key points that are critical to an understanding of the positioning of social insurance in our economic and political system, and in our culture. She poses a fundamental question: Why does the U.S. lack a comprehensive, universal social insurance system?
Among her major contentions are the following:
Anderson summarizes, furthermore, the major objections to social insurance that have been an ongoing refrain in our country. Among these are: intergenerational injustice; paternalism; moralism; the absence of means-testing; and fraud. She offers cogent counterarguments to each.
Her conclusion is one that proponents of social insurance need to emphasize:
Robust and universal social insurance is a constitutive feature of a sound economy based on private property and markets, not a threat to it.
Well said, Professor Anderson. In fact, it is right in sync with our Academy’s mission: “To advance solutions to challenges facing the nation by increasing public understanding of how social insurance contributes to economic security.”
What’s your take on the current perception (or misperception) of social insurance systems in the United States? What role can the Academy play in elucidating those perceptions? I look forward to your comments.
All Comments
— Howard Fluhr on August 1, 2016
— Rebecca Armendariz on August 4, 2016