The evolution of UK flood insurance: incremental change over six decades

The evolution of UK flood insurance: incremental change over six decades
复制标题

英国洪水保险的演变:六年来的渐进变化

DOI:
10.1080/07900627.2014.903166
复制
发表时间:
2014
影响因子:
3.1
通讯作者:
C. Johnson
C. Johnson
中科院分区:
环境科学与生态学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
E. Penning‐Rowsell;S. Priest;C. Johnson

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

在本文中,作者的理论从洪水本身的催化作用-或其他危机-转向更深入地理解变化和稳定之间的关系,以英国洪水保险和协议为例-以及隐含的政策方法-参与者之间:私人保险公司和政府。这项研究依赖于对20世纪60年代以来洪水保险政策协议的深入分析,以及对六位现任或前任洪水保险专业人士的半结构化访谈。首先,变革的重要推动力是新进入者对现有家庭保险公司的威胁,这些新进入者不受为所有进入者提供保险的协议的约束。其次,技术变革使风险暴露更加明确,定价风险更容易,成本更低。变化的缓慢步伐以及不同行为者和联盟的相对稳定作用现在更加清楚。大洪水或金融危机创造的许多机会之窗并没有对政策变化的速度或方向产生重大影响。伦敦的地理位置对保险业的重要性以及保险业的盈利能力,无论是对政府还是对保险公司来说,都是至关重要的,这也解释了这里所描述的非凡的政策稳定性。这段历史表明,英国可能不是其他国家效仿的好榜样。
In this paper, the authors' theorizing shifts away from the catalytic role of the flood itself – or other crises – towards a deeper understanding of the relationship between change and stability, taking the example of UK flood insurance and the agreements – and the implicit policy approaches – between the actors involved: private insurers and the government. The study relies upon in-depth analysis of policy agreements governing flood insurance since the 1960s, and semi-structured interviews with six current or former flood insurance professionals. The important agents of change have been, firstly, threats to existing household insurers from new entrants unencumbered by agreements to insure all comers. Secondly, technological changes have made exposure more explicit and pricing risk both easier and less expensive. The slow pace of change and the relatively stable role of the different actors and coalitions is now clearer. Many windows of opportunity created by major flooding or financial crises have not significantly affected the pace or direction of policy change. The overriding importance of the London location for – and the profitability of – the insurance industry, both to government and to the insurers, explains the extraordinary policy stability described here. This history suggests that the UK may not be a good model for imitation elsewhere.