No abstract

The article presents two main arguments. First, we claim that in contemporary societies, insurance enacts peculiar kinds of solidarities as well as inequality and exclusion. Especially important in this respect are life, health, disability and old age pension insurance, both in compulsory and voluntary forms. Second, the article maintains that the ideas of solidarity, inequality and exclusion are transformed by the machinery of insurance. In other words, the concrete ways in which insurance relations are practically arranged have an effect on the ways in which the related moral and political concepts are perceived. We elaborate on three different forms of insurance solidarity, which we call chance, risk and income solidarity. The existence of multiple forms of solidarity relevant to insurance is significant because practices of insurance require decisions concerning what kind of solidarity is emphasised, when it is emphasised, and on what grounds. Moreover, what is solidarity for some can entail exclusion and inequality for others. Showing these internal tensions within insurance practice underlines the inherently political and moral nature of insurance.

This article examines the promotion of private life insurance in Finland between 1945 and 1990. Although a fully-fledged social insurance system was established during this period, private insurance did not become obsolete. How were people encouraged to engage in voluntary forms of insurance in the new situation? We study the ways in which insurance was marketed by justifying its usefulness in relation to the 'goods' that were presumed common to all potential customers. The key theoretical frameworks are given by the literature on 'governmentality' and by Boltanski and Thévenot's model of justifications. The first of these is used in our discussion of the general role of insurance as a multifaceted social technology, whereas we use the model of justifications in analysing the core themes of promotion. The promotional materials reveal that private life insurance is not an attractive economic tool for potential customers without reference to at least some moral justifications. However, these justifications are heterogeneous and open to change. In addition, the question of which particular moral emphasis seems most relevant, and when, is related to socio-economic transformations. Especially important are the changes in the interplay between social and private forms of organizing insurance responsibility.

This article analyzes the argumentation used in European governmental and expert discussion on genetic discrimination in life insurance. The article focuses on competing justifications for fair risk classification in private insurance, and explores the ambiguity of the principle of solidarity in this context. The analysis starts by examining common justifications for the necessity of discrimination in life and health insurance. After that, the article explores the arguments used, in particular, for problematizing genetic discrimination, and shows what kind of implications this may have for the relationship between private and social insurance. In the final section, the discussion on this issue in Finland is contrasted with the diverse debates found elsewhere in Europe and internationally to show how the discussion varies locally, depending much on what is considered to be the social task of life insurance in a given societal context.

For many rejected disability pension applicants return to work is challenging. Special efforts should be targeted to support the remaining work ability and to promote employment opportunities of the rejected applicants. Implications for Rehabilitation Employment, unemployment and receiving disability pension were equally common labor market positions four years after the rejection. Rejected DP applicants with unemployment history need special efforts to increase their employability. As a disability pension application, even if rejected, clearly indicates some degree of work ability problems, rehabilitation should be targeted at this time point to support employment.

The article argues for the importance of systematic networking and stresses the role of public employment services in the multi-actor management of work disabilities. The article contributes to existing work disability case management models by suggesting the employment administration system as an important component in addition to health care, workplace and insurance systems. The study also highlights the need for expansion of expertise in the field. Implications for Rehabilitation Cooperation between RTW professionals in public employment offices and other organizations involved in work disability management was considered inadequate. In order to improve the cooperation of RTW professionals, the stakeholders need to create more systematic ways of communication and networking with professionals in other organizations. There is a need to expand the expertise in work disability management and rehabilitation, partly by increasing the role of other professionals than physicians.

Background We examined whether the risk for disability retirement varies between companies over and above the individual-level characteristics of their employees and which company-level characteristics are associated with the risk for any, full or partial disability retirement. Methods A 30% random sample of Finnish private sector companies with at least 10 employees was used (5567 companies and 301 313 employees). The risk for disability retirement over 6 years was analyzed using multilevel logistic regression. Company size and industry, as well as gender, age, education and social class measured both at the individual- and the company-level were used as explanatory variables. Results 3.8% of the variance in the risk for disability retirement was attributed to the company level after controlling for individual-level characteristics of the employees. Company-level variance was much larger in partial (11.7%) than in full (4.2%) disability retirement. After controlling for all individual- and company-level characteristics, those working in health and social work activities had increased risk for both full and partial disability retirement. The risk for full disability retirement increased by decreasing educational level of the company. The risk for partial disability retirement increased by increasing company size and was elevated in companies with the highest proportion of women. Conclusions After controlling for the individual-level characteristics, variation in the risk for disability retirement between companies was modest. The more substantial variation in partial disability pension suggests that companies have a marked role in advancing working with partial disabilities.

No abstract