發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-10 17:41

【摘要】：災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償是一個(gè)古老的話(huà)題。政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們從“文明和福利”責(zé)任的視角,研究政府對(duì)災(zāi)害損失所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的職責(zé),而市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們從風(fēng)險(xiǎn)損失轉(zhuǎn)移和分散的視角,對(duì)災(zāi)害損失融資機(jī)制進(jìn)行不斷創(chuàng)新。但是,現(xiàn)代化社會(huì)的時(shí)代特征是“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”,與工業(yè)化、全球化、技術(shù)革新等相伴而生的災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)呈現(xiàn)出越來(lái)越頻發(fā)的趨勢(shì),災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)所帶來(lái)的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)和人口損失也在不斷“放大”。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)不僅改變了人類(lèi)所面臨災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的形態(tài),也改變了災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償機(jī)制所依賴(lài)的傳統(tǒng)法則。本文試圖圍繞災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的這些改變,探討災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償在政府和市場(chǎng)的博弈關(guān)系上應(yīng)做出的新選擇,以構(gòu)建一個(gè)災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)男麦w系。 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)改變了人類(lèi)面臨的災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的性質(zhì)和狀態(tài),使得災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)呈現(xiàn)出突變性、彌散性、模糊性和巨損性的新特征,小概率的巨災(zāi)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)越來(lái)越多地發(fā)生,自然災(zāi)害與工業(yè)災(zāi)害、環(huán)境災(zāi)害、恐怖襲擊等社會(huì)性災(zāi)害交織發(fā)生,界限越來(lái)越模糊,災(zāi)害在區(qū)際間、在國(guó)際范圍內(nèi)的擴(kuò)散也呈趨勢(shì)。這些突出的新特征使傳統(tǒng)意義上的政府職責(zé)顯得乏力,也使傳統(tǒng)意義上的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移和分?jǐn)倷C(jī)制失效。我們重新審視災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的性質(zhì),將災(zāi)害定義為不可抗力造成對(duì)相當(dāng)大的一部分人口范圍(公共體)構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重剝奪的過(guò)程和現(xiàn)象。當(dāng)災(zāi)害造成“公共體”共同面臨的巨額損失時(shí),不可能用完全的私人市場(chǎng)機(jī)制來(lái)分擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)損失,因此我們提出建立一個(gè)公共部門(mén)(P)-市場(chǎng)(M)-公眾(P)為一體的災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償模式,這也是一個(gè)將災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的可保性極大延展的災(zāi)害損失融資模式。 提出這種設(shè)想的依據(jù)是災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是一種公共風(fēng)險(xiǎn),這種公共風(fēng)險(xiǎn)不僅有著私人的影響,更有著對(duì)國(guó)家安全和政府公信力的影響。災(zāi)害是對(duì)“公共體”的嚴(yán)重剝奪,這種剝奪不僅是資源的剝奪,還是資源配置關(guān)系(主要表現(xiàn)為交換權(quán)利關(guān)系)的剝奪,因此災(zāi)害的本質(zhì)是對(duì)資源及資源配置機(jī)制的破壞。那么當(dāng)剝奪發(fā)生之后,既要對(duì)災(zāi)害承受公共體的資源進(jìn)行修復(fù),也要對(duì)公共體資源配置關(guān)系進(jìn)行重置,這就是我們所要研究的災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)娜蝿?wù)。它是一個(gè)廣義的概念,不僅是對(duì)被破壞的公共體進(jìn)行損失度量和經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償,對(duì)原有資源被剝奪后形成的洼地進(jìn)行填平,更重要的是實(shí)施一系列的經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治、環(huán)境、人文措施,恢復(fù)政府和社會(huì)組織的市場(chǎng)主體功能,重建經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)行的機(jī)制,重構(gòu)資源配置機(jī)能。災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償不僅要實(shí)現(xiàn)效率和公平的目標(biāo),還要實(shí)現(xiàn)系統(tǒng)補(bǔ)償?shù)哪繕?biāo),即對(duì)資源環(huán)境系統(tǒng)的損失補(bǔ)償。 從國(guó)家安全的角度考慮,針對(duì)災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的變化趨勢(shì),以及災(zāi)害本身所具有的公共風(fēng)險(xiǎn)性質(zhì),建立新的災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理制度,已是國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)發(fā)展必須解決、不宜久拖的重要事情。我們主張重新認(rèn)識(shí)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可保性和大數(shù)法則這些災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)膫鹘y(tǒng)法則,以現(xiàn)代技術(shù)和現(xiàn)代思維的變革延展可保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和大數(shù)法則,實(shí)現(xiàn)災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)募軜?gòu)設(shè)置。在這種設(shè)置里,政府將不僅是充當(dāng)管理者的職能,而且充當(dāng)災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的“最終保險(xiǎn)人”的角色,并以擴(kuò)展的市場(chǎng)法則參與到保險(xiǎn)、再保險(xiǎn)以及整個(gè)資本市場(chǎng),形成一個(gè)宏觀(guān)、開(kāi)放的保險(xiǎn)公共體。 在這個(gè)一體化的公共體里：從公眾的角度來(lái)看,公眾是私人產(chǎn)品的需求者,也是私人風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的承擔(dān)者,政府與公眾的聯(lián)系,以公眾的參與為紐帶,而公眾與市場(chǎng)的聯(lián)系,則是以風(fēng)險(xiǎn)合同為紐帶；從市場(chǎng)的角度來(lái)看,市場(chǎng)是公眾風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的集合機(jī)制,是一個(gè)以保險(xiǎn)合同為紐帶集結(jié)起來(lái)的公共體；從政府的角度來(lái)看,政府是公眾的另一種集合機(jī)制,它是以法律和倫理(社會(huì)契約)為紐帶建立起來(lái)公共體。政府可以而且應(yīng)該在應(yīng)對(duì)災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)這樣非私人風(fēng)險(xiǎn)時(shí),為公眾提供公共產(chǎn)品,這是公共選擇的需要,也是政府系統(tǒng)形成的本源。政府可以以保險(xiǎn)、再保險(xiǎn)、災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)基金、巨災(zāi)債券等方式介入市場(chǎng),成為損失融資的市場(chǎng)主體。 這里面臨的一個(gè)問(wèn)題是,政府的角色是雙重的,即政府不僅是制度的提供者,是市場(chǎng)的監(jiān)管者,是“裁判員”,同時(shí)也是某些保險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品、擔(dān)保產(chǎn)品、債券產(chǎn)品的供給者,是市場(chǎng)的主體,是“運(yùn)動(dòng)員”。政府同時(shí)承擔(dān)著裁判員與運(yùn)動(dòng)員的雙重角色,身份不明確,職責(zé)不清楚,往往會(huì)使其該履行的職責(zé)沒(méi)有履行,而不該干預(yù)的事情又過(guò)多地干預(yù)。但是,這并非政府作為兩種主體而必然產(chǎn)生的矛盾,而恰恰是政府兩類(lèi)主體的角色不明晰所帶來(lái)的矛盾。 論文可能的創(chuàng)新之處和不足 1、對(duì)災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)难芯?通常是從保險(xiǎn)學(xué)的角度研究損失融資機(jī)制在市場(chǎng)上的運(yùn)用,公共管理學(xué)也從政府管理的視角研究災(zāi)害性公共危機(jī)的應(yīng)急,而本文以具有前瞻性的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)理論考察災(zāi)害的時(shí)代特征,并從國(guó)家風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理層面來(lái)考慮構(gòu)建政府與市場(chǎng)一體化的災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償體系； 2、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)意義上的災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償通常以對(duì)自然災(zāi)害的研究為主,本文則著力描述在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)的背景下,自然災(zāi)害與社會(huì)性災(zāi)害的模糊性加強(qiáng),因而主張不對(duì)災(zāi)害的自然性和社會(huì)性進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格區(qū)分,而將災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償定義為對(duì)包括工業(yè)災(zāi)害、環(huán)境災(zāi)害等在內(nèi)的各種現(xiàn)代化災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的損失補(bǔ)償。 3、傳統(tǒng)意義上的災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償主要關(guān)注對(duì)災(zāi)害直接經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的補(bǔ)償,本文將災(zāi)害損失定義為“公共體”資源剝奪以及資源配置關(guān)系的破壞,將災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償?shù)膬?nèi)涵從經(jīng)濟(jì)損失補(bǔ)償拓展到系統(tǒng)“恢復(fù)力”的層面,并試圖建立一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的、兼顧公平和效率的損失補(bǔ)償模型。 但是,由于本人學(xué)術(shù)能力和識(shí)見(jiàn)的局限,上述一體化災(zāi)害損失補(bǔ)償模型僅從框架上進(jìn)行了界定和定性的分析,沒(méi)有用計(jì)量的方法進(jìn)行充分論證和分析；P-M-P模式在實(shí)際操作中如何實(shí)現(xiàn)系統(tǒng)化的補(bǔ)償,特別是應(yīng)用到中國(guó)所面臨的地震、臺(tái)風(fēng)、洪水、干旱等頻發(fā)災(zāi)害風(fēng)險(xiǎn),如何實(shí)現(xiàn)方案的量化設(shè)計(jì),還有待進(jìn)一步明確。這些問(wèn)題尚需進(jìn)一步的研究,在今后的工作和學(xué)習(xí)中,我將繼續(xù)不斷修正、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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：F840.64

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 魏華林;向飛;洪文婷;;中國(guó)南方雪災(zāi)損失與保險(xiǎn)補(bǔ)償問(wèn)題研究[J];保險(xiǎn)研究;2008年03期

2 魏華林;李文娟;;歷史緯度上的大地震風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分析與保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任辨析[J];保險(xiǎn)研究;2008年09期

3 劉誼,劉星;公共風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)意義及防范[J];財(cái)經(jīng)科學(xué);2003年06期

4 酒井泰弘,劉昌黎;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué):現(xiàn)狀與課題[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問(wèn)題研究;2004年05期

5 黃良文;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)引論[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);1999年06期

6 張海波;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)與公共危機(jī)[J];江海學(xué)刊;2006年02期

7 烏爾里�！へ惪�,郗衛(wèi)東;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)再思考[J];馬克思主義與現(xiàn)實(shí);2002年04期

8 章國(guó)鋒;;反思的現(xiàn)代化與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)——烏爾里希·貝克對(duì)西方現(xiàn)代化理論的研究[J];馬克思主義與現(xiàn)實(shí);2006年01期

9 魏華林;皮曙初;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的功能定位[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

10 程新英;柴淑芹;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)及現(xiàn)代發(fā)展中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)——烏爾利�！へ惪孙L(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)思想述評(píng)[J];學(xué)術(shù)論壇;2006年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2235151