Search Results

Introduces the complexity of insurance and questions the dominance of an actuarial model. The actuarial model is associated with distributive, collectivising techniques, and these have also been connected with the growth of an ‘insurance state’. Insurance is identified in this model with ‘loss-spreading’ of a particular form. An alternative, relational model is identified, associating insurance with risk-transfer. The relational or risk transfer model is associated with private arrangements and does not perceive insurance to be a factor extrinsic to party relationships. Further exploring the relational model, the chapter identifies the persistence both of responsibility, and of uncertainty, as important components of insurance relationships, and raises the question of how the boundary between insurance, and other means of transferring risks, might be identified.

The P3 model creates different incentives for highways, including risk transfer and design innovation. Financial differences include revenue bonding, better project selection, guaranteed maintenance, and a direct customer-provider relationship. Some of these benefits are also seen in public toll agencies.

Focuses on the means by which loss-spreading is effected by insurance and on the issues of private law which arise in the process. Illustrates that losses are not merely spread within defined risk pools, and that the spreading of losses through insurance is the effect of a complex series of party transactions and relations. Explains that the insurance market spreads losses not only beyond defined risk pools but also beyond national borders and into different markets. Sets out some misconceptions about loss-spreading; explores the process of contribution between insurers; and explains the nature and functioning of the main forms of reinsurance. Touches on alternatives to traditional reinsurance and emphasises the significance of diversification. Explores the relationship between the state and the insurance market in relation to loss-spreading.

In chapter six, The “dialectics of war” in criminology the issue of “terror bombing” is foregrounded as an extensive weapon of “new” wars used against civilians throughout the 20^th and 21^st centuries. However, with the intention of transgressing this as merely a matter of “state crime” this is redefined as a form of “risk transfer” war wherein military lives are strategically prioritised over those of civilians. In making this observation, juxtapositions are proposed between civilian victims of war, the “deviant” soldier, and what we term the politics of remembering and “forgetting” war violence. These two “dialectics of war” are outlined to illustrate how war is relational with society, and how certain matters relating to deviant military bodies have been prioritised ahead of the murder of civilians within the discipline of criminology past and present.