授权、放松管制和企业权力:比利时和法国医疗保险的比较分析

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Business and Politics Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1017/bap.2024.14
Cyril Benoît
{"title":"授权、放松管制和企业权力:比利时和法国医疗保险的比较分析","authors":"Cyril Benoît","doi":"10.1017/bap.2024.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Business power is thought to increase over time when private actors are involved in the provision of public goods and services. This paper argues that this is partially true—and that in certain circumstances, state actors can even swiftly regain control of sectors previously ceded to private interests. When the latter fulfill some public functions on behalf or as delegates of the state, policymakers face ever greater pressures to sustain a relationship flawed by principal-agent problems—allowing business actors to derive appreciable political benefits. However, these conditions do not hold true after deregulation—when state actors retreat from a sector and attempt to direct the newly created market through licensing, norms, and standard setting. We demonstrate that deregulation sets the stage for a more competitive environment, making it harder for private interests to cooperate. This, in turn, can allow policymakers to enhance regulatory capacities and seize opportunities to highlight the shortcomings of private provision. After establishing this argument theoretically, we illustrate its implications through the comparative historical analysis of the health insurance sector in two European countries—Belgium and France. Despite their initial similarities, they experience contrasting developments regarding the welfare state’s dependency on private insurers for the provision of crucial collective goods.","PeriodicalId":39749,"journal":{"name":"Business and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delegation, deregulation, and business power: a comparative analysis of health insurance in Belgium and France\",\"authors\":\"Cyril Benoît\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bap.2024.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Business power is thought to increase over time when private actors are involved in the provision of public goods and services. This paper argues that this is partially true—and that in certain circumstances, state actors can even swiftly regain control of sectors previously ceded to private interests. When the latter fulfill some public functions on behalf or as delegates of the state, policymakers face ever greater pressures to sustain a relationship flawed by principal-agent problems—allowing business actors to derive appreciable political benefits. However, these conditions do not hold true after deregulation—when state actors retreat from a sector and attempt to direct the newly created market through licensing, norms, and standard setting. We demonstrate that deregulation sets the stage for a more competitive environment, making it harder for private interests to cooperate. This, in turn, can allow policymakers to enhance regulatory capacities and seize opportunities to highlight the shortcomings of private provision. After establishing this argument theoretically, we illustrate its implications through the comparative historical analysis of the health insurance sector in two European countries—Belgium and France. Despite their initial similarities, they experience contrasting developments regarding the welfare state’s dependency on private insurers for the provision of crucial collective goods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business and Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2024.14\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2024.14","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们认为,当私人行为者参与提供公共产品和服务时,商业力量会随着时间的推移而增强。本文认为,这种观点部分是正确的--在某些情况下,国家行为者甚至可以迅速夺回之前让渡给私人利益的部门的控制权。当后者代表国家或作为国家的委托人履行某些公共职能时,政策制定者就会面临更大的压力,以维持一种存在委托代理问题的关系--让企业行为者获得可观的政治利益。然而,在放松管制之后,这些条件就不成立了--当国家行为者从某一行业撤退,并试图通过许可、规范和标准制定来引导新创建的市场时,这些条件就不成立了。我们的研究表明,放松管制为竞争更激烈的环境创造了条件,使私人利益集团更难合作。这反过来又能让政策制定者提高监管能力,并抓住机会强调私人提供服务的不足之处。在理论上确立这一论点后,我们通过对两个欧洲国家--比利时和法国--医疗保险部门的历史比较分析来说明其含义。尽管这两个国家最初具有相似性,但在福利国家依赖私营保险公司提供重要的集体产品方面,它们却经历了截然不同的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Delegation, deregulation, and business power: a comparative analysis of health insurance in Belgium and France
Business power is thought to increase over time when private actors are involved in the provision of public goods and services. This paper argues that this is partially true—and that in certain circumstances, state actors can even swiftly regain control of sectors previously ceded to private interests. When the latter fulfill some public functions on behalf or as delegates of the state, policymakers face ever greater pressures to sustain a relationship flawed by principal-agent problems—allowing business actors to derive appreciable political benefits. However, these conditions do not hold true after deregulation—when state actors retreat from a sector and attempt to direct the newly created market through licensing, norms, and standard setting. We demonstrate that deregulation sets the stage for a more competitive environment, making it harder for private interests to cooperate. This, in turn, can allow policymakers to enhance regulatory capacities and seize opportunities to highlight the shortcomings of private provision. After establishing this argument theoretically, we illustrate its implications through the comparative historical analysis of the health insurance sector in two European countries—Belgium and France. Despite their initial similarities, they experience contrasting developments regarding the welfare state’s dependency on private insurers for the provision of crucial collective goods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Business and Politics
Business and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Business and Politics solicits articles within the broad area of the interaction between firms and political actors. Two specific areas are of particular interest to the journal. The first concerns the use of non-market corporate strategy. These efforts include internal organizational design decisions as well as external strategies. Internal organizational design refers to management structure, sourcing decisions, and transnational organization with respect to the firm"s non-market environment. External strategies include legal tactics, testimony, lobbying and other means to influence policy makers at all levels of government and international institutions as an adjunct to market strategies of the firm.
期刊最新文献
Housebuilding, land, and structural power: the case of mortgage market support schemes in England Blue versus red: partisan firm leaders and corporate culture Happy Holidays? Evidence from Chinese Stock Exchanges Delegation, deregulation, and business power: a comparative analysis of health insurance in Belgium and France Business politics is usually about attempts to exert influence rather than power evidence from Australia – ERRATUM
×
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