Social Security: A Conceptual Alternative
挑战了社会保障中社会充足性与个人公平性对立的传统观点，提出将社会保障重新概念化为针对残疾、退休或死亡导致收入不足的保险，旨在为政策分析者提供新的思考框架。
A persistent public policy issue under social security has been deternining the proper combination of social adequacy and individual equity within the program. The literature for the past 40 years has posited social adequacy and individual equity as polar objectives. To the extent one goal is achieved, attention to the other must be decreased. The thesis of this paper, though, is that such a dichotomy between adequacy and equity need not exist. Correspondingly, it develops an alteimative conceptualization of social security as insurance for all eligible consumption units against an inadequate income resulting from disability, retirement, or death. The United States Government allocates more funds to income security programs than to any other budget item. Of all income transfer programs, the cash benefits portion (OASDI) of social security is the largest. OASDI receives tax payments of more than $125 billion annually and pays benefits to 35 million recipients. Therefore public policy analysts are prone to scrutinize this leviathan both because of its size and the economic effect it has on individuals. Many of these analysts believe that the design of social security precludes it from accomplishing its objectives efficiently or effectively [ e.g. 5,6,8]. Other observers, though, reject the social security system on philosophical grounds that emanate from libertarian values [ 14]. These critics see social security as paternalism enforced through compulsion. As such, the program to them is an anathema. Nevertheless, the breach among the individual viewpoints is typically overlooked, and collectively their reprovals and associated calls foV reformation precipitate public concern. Surveys [112,151 indicate that the citizenry no longer has confidence in social security, and substantial support exists for a major overhaul of the program. However, a premise of this paper is that sophistry more than perspicacity underlies much of the inexorable rationale offered in support of Draconian measures. Specifically, this study will suggest that an enduring concept-ualiGary W. Eldred is now Visiting Associate Professor of Real Estate and Regional Science at Southern Methodist University. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. He is a past contributor to The Journal of Risk and Insurance and received one of the 1977 awards for outstanding feature articles for his June, 1977 article entitled Does The Public Support the Social Security System? *This paper was prepared while the author was Visiting Scholar at the University of British Columbia, and corespondingly the author would like to thank that instituton for its research support and resources.