The Means and Ends of Insurance Regulation. Basic Ideas
探讨保险监管应聚焦于最终目标，区分直接实现目标的主要手段和间接促进目标的次要手段，为监管机构提供理论补充。
As several organizations have recognized,' one of the factors determining whether a regulatory system is capable of achieving satisfactory results is whether the regulatory agency has a consciously formulated and philosophically sound theory on the means and ends of insurance regulation. Professor S. L. Kimball of the University of Chicago Law School pioneered discussion of theory in insurance regulation, formulating a theory on the means and ends of insurance regulation. Professor Kimball pointed out, however, that his theory did not purport to be a general theory on the of regulation. Its only objective was to suggest some public policy objectives in the field of insurance regulation.2 This paper does not formulate a theory of the of insurance regulation but suggests some ideas complementary to Professor Kimball's efforts. The thrust of this paper is that, in regulating insurance companies, regulators should focus on ultimate objectives. In other words, purposes of insurance regulation should be viewed as end results, in the sense that they cannot be subsumed under a further or more fundamental objective. Purposes or goals of regulation should be confined to such conditions. All other conditions which facilitate the achievement of this final condition should be seen as means to that purpose of regulation.3 There can exist a complexity of means towards achieving a particular purpose of regulation. Therefore, we could differentiate between those means that directly facilitate the achievement of a purpose of regulation and those that do not but, instead, lead to an intermediate condition which is instrumental in directly achieving the desired purpose of regulation. The former may be called primary, and the latter secondary, means.