Should We Extend the Role of Private Social Expenditure?
Should We Extend the Role of Private Social Expenditure?
复制标题
我们应该扩大私人社会支出的作用吗？
DOI：
10.1787/866271756736
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
John P. Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mark Pearson;John P. Martin
有些人大肆宣扬更多地依靠私营部门提供社会保障的好处。许多关于巨大宏观经济优势的主张经不起推敲。然而，有理由希望私营部门提供的服务可能会提高微观经济效率，并比单一垄断性公共部门提供者提供的服务更符合消费者的喜好。根据经合组织国家最近在私人医疗保险、儿童和老年人护理以及私人养老金提供方面的经验，可以得出三个主要结论。首先，向各种供应商开放供应往往会促进更多的选择和创新。然而，第二，效率的提高往往有限。这是由于若干相互关联的原因：（a）个性化成套服务的费用昂贵。(b)为了确保充分覆盖人口，往往要求提供者对特定人群进行交叉补贴，减少成本竞争和选择多样性。(c)信息不对称（我无法亲自监督的儿童保育有多好，或者我在技术上无法评估的医疗保健方案有多好？）如果不进行广泛的管制，就无法克服这一问题，因为管制会限制创新和竞争。(d)刺激私人供应所需的财政激励措施很高，而且本身也有福利成本。第三，与最后一点相关的是，私人供给的分配效应引发了重大的社会问题。私人筹资和提供社会福利不是魔杖;在社会保障领域挥舞它并不意味着经济和选民将摆脱一直拖他们后腿的沉重负担。然而，私营部门有时可以提供稍微便宜、稍微多样化或稍微灵活的社会保障制度。
Some people make great claims about the advantages to be gained from greater reliance on the private sector for the provision of social protection. Many of the claims for great macroeconomic advantages do not stand up to scrutiny. However, there is some reason to hope that private provision might promote microeconomic efficiency and services which are more responsive to consumer preferences than those provided by a single monopoly public sector provider. Drawing on examples from recent OECD country experiences with private health insurance, care for children and the elderly, and private pension provision, three main conclusions can be drawn. First, opening provision to a diversity of providers has often promoted more choice and innovation. Second, however, efficiency gains have often been limited. This is due to a number of inter-related reasons: (a) Individualisation of packages of services is expensive. (b) In order to ensure adequate coverage of the population, cross-subsidisation of particular groups of people is often mandated on providers, reducing cost-competition and diversity of choice. (c) Informational asymmetries (how good is this childcare which I cannot personally monitor, or this health care package which I am not technically able to assess?) cannot be overcome without extensive regulation, which has the effect of limiting innovation and competition. (d) The fiscal incentives necessary to stimulate private provision are high, and have welfare costs of their own. Third, and related to this last point, the distributional effects of private provision raise significant social problems. Private financing and provision of social benefits is not a magic wand; waving it in the social protection field will not mean that the economy and voters will be freed from some great deadweight that has been dragging them down. Nevertheless, the private sector can sometimes deliver either a slightly cheaper, slightly more varied or slightly more flexible system of social protection.
社会保障，2005年修订版
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Maya;Yoshio et al.(eds.)
通讯作者：
Yoshio et al.(eds.)