Understanding Catastrophe Insurance as a Commons?

This paper suggests that catastrophe insurance schemes should be considered within the framework of public goods and commons, and as a form of polycentric organization whose success depends on collective action. The first section situates catastrophe insurance within the "state withdrawal hypothesis:" while neoliberalism is usually understood as promoting a shift from social and solidary insurance programs to private, market-oriented ones, this does not apply to catastrophe insurance. The second section shows that one of the reasons for the persistence of public intervention in catastrophe insurance is its public good dimension: market best practice would indeed promote risk-based premiums leading to unaffordability issues and the disappearance of the good. Such insurance gaps are perceived as a "public bad." Catastrophe insurance is thus a hybrid public good: it benefits from a large number of users and is threatened by their exclusion. The final section highlights the polycentricity of insurance systems and the challenge this poses to collective action for the sake of prevention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal of Sociology
Published
2025-05-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13229
Primary Topic
Disaster Management and Resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding Catastrophe Insurance as a Commons?

Laurence Barry
1 links
British Journal of Sociology
Disaster Management and Resilience
article

Understanding Catastrophe Insurance as a Commons?

Laurence Barry
article en

Abstract

This paper suggests that catastrophe insurance schemes should be considered within the framework of public goods and commons, and as a form of polycentric organization whose success depends on collective action. The first section situates catastrophe insurance within the "state withdrawal hypothesis:" while neoliberalism is usually understood as promoting a shift from social and solidary insurance programs to private, market-oriented ones, this does not apply to catastrophe insurance. The second section shows that one of the reasons for the persistence of public intervention in catastrophe insurance is its public good dimension: market best practice would indeed promote risk-based premiums leading to unaffordability issues and the disappearance of the good. Such insurance gaps are perceived as a "public bad." Catastrophe insurance is thus a hybrid public good: it benefits from a large number of users and is threatened by their exclusion. The final section highlights the polycentricity of insurance systems and the challenge this poses to collective action for the sake of prevention.

British Journal of Sociology
Centre de Recherche en Économie et Statistique (FR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Disaster Management and Resilience
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Understanding Catastrophe Insurance as a Commons? — Laurence Barry · British Journal of Sociology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS