POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR EMPLOYERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY “PRIVATIZATION:” POLICY RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Risk Management and Insurance Review Pub Date : 2009-04-27 DOI:10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00062.X
K. A. Olsen, Jack L. VanDerhei
{"title":"POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR EMPLOYERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY “PRIVATIZATION:” POLICY RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS","authors":"K. A. Olsen, Jack L. VanDerhei","doi":"10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00062.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": While traditional fixes to restore Social Security to actuarial balance have known consequences for employers, opinion polls show strong public support for nontraditional approaches, e.g., the stock market investment of Social Security funds (privatization). The authors examine some of the complex assumptions which have been raised as the basis for determining if privitization would benefit employers and discuss the lack of research available to support or dispute the validity of some of these assumptions.","PeriodicalId":35338,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Insurance Review","volume":"35 1","pages":"32-50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Insurance Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-6296.1997.TB00062.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: While traditional fixes to restore Social Security to actuarial balance have known consequences for employers, opinion polls show strong public support for nontraditional approaches, e.g., the stock market investment of Social Security funds (privatization). The authors examine some of the complex assumptions which have been raised as the basis for determining if privitization would benefit employers and discuss the lack of research available to support or dispute the validity of some of these assumptions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会保障“私有化”对雇主的潜在影响:政策研究启示
虽然将社会保障恢复到精算平衡的传统方法对雇主有已知的后果,但民意调查显示,公众强烈支持非传统方法,例如,社会保障基金的股票市场投资(私有化)。作者研究了一些复杂的假设,这些假设是确定私有化是否会使雇主受益的基础,并讨论了缺乏可用的研究来支持或质疑其中一些假设的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Management and Insurance Review
Risk Management and Insurance Review Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Insurance Review publishes respected, accessible, and high-quality applied research, and well-reasoned opinion and discussion in the field of risk and insurance. The Review"s "Feature Articles" section includes original research involving applications and applied techniques. The "Perspectives" section contains articles providing new insights on the research literature, business practice, and public policy. The "Educational Insights" section provides a repository of high-caliber model lectures in risk and insurance, along with articles discussing and evaluating instructional techniques.
期刊最新文献
Risk‐based thinking for extreme events: What do terrorism and climate change have in common? Insurance and the public–private management of risk at US commercial nuclear power plants InsurTech in the United States and Germany—What are the drivers behind the different business models? The importance of risk and insurance teaching within the ARIA mission On the correlation of self‐reported and behavioral risk attitude measures: The case of the General Risk Question and the Investment Game following Gneezy and Potters (1997)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1