ABSTRACT
In order to assess fully whether insurance constitutes a basic good to which each citizen should be entitled, and to distinguish the types of insurances that should be considered basic goods from those that should be considered financial commodities, one needs to clarify the social role of private insurance: the role of private insurance institutions in our ‘actuarial society’ extends, it will be argued, beyond the sale of individual and familial ‘safety nets’. The ‘production of risks’ by insurers has become a crucial mechanism of the new mode of governance typical of the post-Keynesian era. Given the increasing interdependence of insurance and other socio-economic institutions, risk assessment by insurers directly impacts on a policyholder’s opportunities in his relations with other private and public institutions. Actuarial rationality, just as new genetics, constitutes a specific representational regime equipped with a quasi-organic power over life. Carol Heimer rightfully observed that:
[A]lthough compensation of losses may be a core function of insurance, insurers have other functions as well. Insurers are gatekeepers who can provide or withhold the calling card that gives people access to other goods and services. Like certification societies, standard-setting bodies, and credit inspectors, insurers make evaluations of who is worthy and who is not and other bodies rely both on these assessments and on the indemnity offered by insurers. Insurance assessments carry considerable weight because insurers are willing to put their money behind them.
