风险社会视角下的灾害损失补偿体系研究

发布时间：2018-09-10 17:41

【摘要】：灾害损失补偿是一个古老的话题。政治经济学家们从“文明和福利”责任的视角,研究政府对灾害损失所应承担的职责,而市场经济学家们从风险损失转移和分散的视角,对灾害损失融资机制进行不断创新。但是,现代化社会的时代特征是“风险社会”,与工业化、全球化、技术革新等相伴而生的灾害风险呈现出越来越频发的趋势,灾害风险所带来的经济、社会和人口损失也在不断“放大”。风险社会不仅改变了人类所面临灾害风险的形态,也改变了灾害损失补偿机制所依赖的传统法则。本文试图围绕灾害风险的这些改变,探讨灾害损失补偿在政府和市场的博弈关系上应做出的新选择,以构建一个灾害损失补偿的新体系。风险社会改变了人类面临的灾害风险的性质和状态,使得灾害风险呈现出突变性、弥散性、模糊性和巨损性的新特征,小概率的巨灾风险越来越多地发生,自然灾害与工业灾害、环境灾害、恐怖袭击等社会性灾害交织发生,界限越来越模糊,灾害在区际间、在国际范围内的扩散也呈趋势。这些突出的新特征使传统意义上的政府职责显得乏力,也使传统意义上的风险转移和分摊机制失效。我们重新审视灾害风险的性质,将灾害定义为不可抗力造成对相当大的一部分人口范围(公共体)构成严重剥夺的过程和现象。当灾害造成“公共体”共同面临的巨额损失时,不可能用完全的私人市场机制来分担风险损失,因此我们提出建立一个公共部门(P)-市场(M)-公众(P)为一体的灾害损失补偿模式,这也是一个将灾害风险的可保性极大延展的灾害损失融资模式。提出这种设想的依据是灾害风险是一种公共风险,这种公共风险不仅有着私人的影响,更有着对国家安全和政府公信力的影响。灾害是对“公共体”的严重剥夺,这种剥夺不仅是资源的剥夺,还是资源配置关系(主要表现为交换权利关系)的剥夺,因此灾害的本质是对资源及资源配置机制的破坏。那么当剥夺发生之后,既要对灾害承受公共体的资源进行修复,也要对公共体资源配置关系进行重置,这就是我们所要研究的灾害损失补偿的任务。它是一个广义的概念,不仅是对被破坏的公共体进行损失度量和经济补偿,对原有资源被剥夺后形成的洼地进行填平,更重要的是实施一系列的经济、政治、环境、人文措施,恢复政府和社会组织的市场主体功能,重建经济运行的机制,重构资源配置机能。灾害损失补偿不仅要实现效率和公平的目标,还要实现系统补偿的目标,即对资源环境系统的损失补偿。从国家安全的角度考虑,针对灾害风险的变化趋势,以及灾害本身所具有的公共风险性质,建立新的灾害风险管理制度,已是国家经济社会发展必须解决、不宜久拖的重要事情。我们主张重新认识风险可保性和大数法则这些灾害损失补偿的传统法则,以现代技术和现代思维的变革延展可保风险和大数法则,实现灾害损失补偿的架构设置。在这种设置里,政府将不仅是充当管理者的职能,而且充当灾害风险的“最终保险人”的角色,并以扩展的市场法则参与到保险、再保险以及整个资本市场,形成一个宏观、开放的保险公共体。在这个一体化的公共体里：从公众的角度来看,公众是私人产品的需求者,也是私人风险的承担者,政府与公众的联系,以公众的参与为纽带,而公众与市场的联系,则是以风险合同为纽带；从市场的角度来看,市场是公众风险的集合机制,是一个以保险合同为纽带集结起来的公共体；从政府的角度来看,政府是公众的另一种集合机制,它是以法律和伦理(社会契约)为纽带建立起来公共体。政府可以而且应该在应对灾害风险这样非私人风险时,为公众提供公共产品,这是公共选择的需要,也是政府系统形成的本源。政府可以以保险、再保险、灾害风险基金、巨灾债券等方式介入市场,成为损失融资的市场主体。这里面临的一个问题是,政府的角色是双重的,即政府不仅是制度的提供者,是市场的监管者,是“裁判员”,同时也是某些保险产品、担保产品、债券产品的供给者,是市场的主体,是“运动员”。政府同时承担着裁判员与运动员的双重角色,身份不明确,职责不清楚,往往会使其该履行的职责没有履行,而不该干预的事情又过多地干预。但是,这并非政府作为两种主体而必然产生的矛盾,而恰恰是政府两类主体的角色不明晰所带来的矛盾。论文可能的创新之处和不足 1、对灾害损失补偿的研究,通常是从保险学的角度研究损失融资机制在市场上的运用,公共管理学也从政府管理的视角研究灾害性公共危机的应急,而本文以具有前瞻性的风险社会理论考察灾害的时代特征,并从国家风险管理层面来考虑构建政府与市场一体化的灾害损失补偿体系； 2、经济学意义上的灾害损失补偿通常以对自然灾害的研究为主,本文则着力描述在风险社会的背景下,自然灾害与社会性灾害的模糊性加强,因而主张不对灾害的自然性和社会性进行严格区分,而将灾害损失补偿定义为对包括工业灾害、环境灾害等在内的各种现代化灾害风险的损失补偿。 3、传统意义上的灾害损失补偿主要关注对灾害直接经济损失的补偿,本文将灾害损失定义为“公共体”资源剥夺以及资源配置关系的破坏,将灾害损失补偿的内涵从经济损失补偿拓展到系统“恢复力”的层面,并试图建立一个系统的、兼顾公平和效率的损失补偿模型。但是,由于本人学术能力和识见的局限,上述一体化灾害损失补偿模型仅从框架上进行了界定和定性的分析,没有用计量的方法进行充分论证和分析；P-M-P模式在实际操作中如何实现系统化的补偿,特别是应用到中国所面临的地震、台风、洪水、干旱等频发灾害风险,如何实现方案的量化设计,还有待进一步明确。这些问题尚需进一步的研究,在今后的工作和学习中,我将继续不断修正、完善本文的一些想法。
[Abstract]:Compensation for disaster losses is an old topic. Political economists study the government's responsibility for disaster losses from the perspective of "civilization and welfare" responsibility, while market economists innovate the financing mechanism for disaster losses from the perspective of risk loss transfer and decentralization. As a "risk society", the disaster risks accompanied by industrialization, globalization and technological innovation are becoming more and more frequent. The economic, social and demographic losses caused by the disaster risks are constantly "magnified". The risk society not only changes the form of disaster risks faced by human beings, but also changes the disaster loss compensation machine. This paper tries to discuss the new choice of disaster loss compensation in the game relationship between government and market around these changes of disaster risk, so as to construct a new system of disaster loss compensation.
Risk society has changed the nature and state of disaster risk that human beings are facing, and made the disaster risk present new characteristics of catastrophe, dispersion, fuzziness and huge damage. Small probability of catastrophe risk occurs more and more. Natural disasters interweave with industrial disasters, environmental disasters, terrorist attacks and other social disasters, and the boundaries become increasingly blurred. These prominent new features make the traditional sense of government responsibility weak, and also make the traditional sense of risk transfer and allocation mechanism invalid. We re-examine the nature of disaster risk, and define disaster as force majeure caused a considerable part of the population model. Surrounding (public) constitutes a process and phenomenon of severe deprivation. When disasters cause huge losses faced by the "public" together, it is impossible to share the risk losses with a complete private market mechanism. Therefore, we propose to establish a disaster loss compensation model integrating the public sector (P) - market (M) - public (P), which is also a disaster. The insurable nature of risk is a highly extended mode of disaster loss financing.
This assumption is based on the fact that disaster risk is a public risk, which not only has a private impact, but also has an impact on national security and the credibility of the government. So the essence of disaster is to destroy the mechanism of resources and resources allocation. When the deprivation happens, we should not only restore the resources of the public bodies that bear disasters, but also reset the relationship of resources allocation of the public bodies. This is the task of disaster loss compensation that we want to study. It is a measure of loss and economic compensation for the damaged public bodies, a reclamation of the depressions formed after the deprivation of the original resources, and more importantly, a series of economic, political, environmental and human measures should be implemented to restore the main market functions of the government and social organizations, rebuild the mechanism of economic operation, and reconstruct the function of resource allocation. Compensation is not only to achieve the goal of efficiency and fairness, but also to achieve the goal of system compensation, that is, compensation for the loss of the resources and environment system.
Considering the changing trend of disaster risk and the public risk nature of disaster itself, it is an important matter for the national economic and social development to establish a new disaster risk management system. The traditional law of compensation extends the insurable risk and the law of large numbers with the change of modern technology and modern thinking, and realizes the framework of disaster loss compensation. Insurance and the entire capital market form a macro open insurance public body.
In this integrated public body: from the public point of view, the public is the demander of private products, but also the bearer of private risks, the relationship between the government and the public, the public participation as a link, and the public and the market contact, is a risk contract as a link; from the market point of view, the market is a gathering machine of public risks The system is a public body linked by insurance contracts; from the government's point of view, the government is another collective mechanism of the public, it is a public body linked by law and ethics (social contract). Government can intervene in the market by means of insurance, reinsurance, disaster risk fund, catastrophe bond and become the main body of the loss financing market.
The problem is that the role of the government is twofold, that is, the government is not only the provider of the system, the regulator of the market, the "referee", but also the supplier of some insurance products, guaranteed products and bond products, the main body of the market and the "athlete". However, this is not an inevitable contradiction between the government as two main bodies, but a contradiction caused by the unclear roles of the two main bodies.
Possible innovations and shortcomings of the paper
1. The study of compensation for disaster loss usually studies the application of loss financing mechanism in the market from the perspective of insurance. Public management studies the emergency of disaster public crisis from the perspective of government management. This paper examines the characteristics of disaster era from the perspective of national risk management with a forward-looking risk society theory. Considering the integration of the government and the market, the compensation system for disaster losses will be built.
2. In the sense of economics, the compensation for disaster losses is usually based on the study of natural disasters. In this paper, the fuzziness of natural disasters and social disasters is strengthened under the background of risk society. Therefore, it is advocated that the natural and social nature of disasters should not be strictly distinguished, and the compensation for disaster losses should be defined as including industrial disasters. Loss compensation for various modern disaster risks, including environmental hazards.
3. Traditionally, the compensation for disaster losses mainly focuses on the compensation for direct economic losses caused by disasters. In this paper, disaster losses are defined as the deprivation of resources by "public bodies" and the destruction of the relationship between resources allocation. The connotation of disaster losses compensation is extended from the compensation for economic losses to the level of "resilience" of the system and a systematic attempt is made to establish a system. A loss compensation model considering fairness and efficiency.
However, due to the limitation of my academic ability and insight, the above-mentioned integrated disaster loss compensation model has only been defined and analyzed qualitatively from the framework, and has not been fully demonstrated and analyzed by the method of measurement. Wind, flood, drought and other frequent disaster risks, how to achieve the quantitative design of the program, still need to be further clarified. These problems need further study, in the future work and learning, I will continue to revise, improve some of the ideas in this paper.
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：F840.64

【参考文献】