“The trade of insurance gives great security to the fortunes of private people, and by dividing among a great many that loss which would ruin an individual, makes it fall light and easy upon the whole society. In order to give this security, however, it is necessary that the insurers should have a very large capital.” (Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Scottish Economist – 1776).
The history of insurance traces the development of the modern business of insurance. Insurance is the oldest method of transferring risk, and is deemed to be one of the oldest in the field of economics. The first activities like insurance appeared nearly 4000 years ago and is as old as the historical society.
The so-called “bottomry” contracts were known to merchants of Babylon as early as 4000–3000BC. Bottomry was also practiced by the Hindus in 600 BC and was well understood in ancient Greece as early as the 4th century BCE.
[Bottomry, referring to the ship’s bottom or keel, is a maritime transaction, where the owner of a vessel borrows money and uses the ship itself as collateral. If the money with interest is not paid at the time appointed at the ship’s safe return or if the ship sinks, the owner forfeits the ship itself to the creditor.
While insurance can be traced back thousands of years, it is only in the last half century that we have come to a comprehensive and deep understanding of this most vital, yet complex, economic institution. To really understand insurance, it takes a deep knowledge of the subtleties of risk and probability, of how rational (and not so rational) people behave when faced with risk; of how insurance companies can be structured to cope with risk; of how governments can effectively intercede when insurance markets fail to deliver
Whether in the past periods or in the modern period the main goal of insurance is protecting health and assets of the people. Insurance is the main element in the operation of sophisticated national economies throughout the world today. Insurance stimulates business activities to operate in a cost-effective manner, by managing risks which associated with business activities are assumed by third parties. As we know, risks and bad accidents can happen always in life. These risks affect people badly and negatively every time. But insurance protects people from these risks. We can say that insurance is a measure, which people take in advance to risks which can happen every time and at any time.
The importance of insurance, like other financial institutions such as banking and the stock market, is vital for the sustainable economic growth of any country. The risk is inherent in every human activity ranging from social life to economic activities. The huge contribution of insurance to the economy as a whole, promotes a greater sense of security, peace of mind, reduction in anxiety and fear among individuals, businesses and governments.
The insurance industry is part of the services sector and is deemed to be a secondary branch of economic activity. Its effect is essentially indirect and intangible, because it deals with consequences of economic activity that would occur if insurance did not exist. Insurance serves production and consumption, international and interpersonal trade, payment and credit transactions, as well as the conservation of existing and creation of new wealth. However, the insurance industry has developed differently across industrialized countries due to differences in regulatory legislations by various regimes.
To individuals, insurance purchase enables an individual to sustain continuous consumption of his property in the case of theft or damage or due to other endangerments and perils.
With regard to corporate institutions, insurance enables businesses to operate in a cost-effective manner by providing risk transfer mechanisms.
To the Government, on the other hand, expenditure on damages caused by natural disasters such as fire, flood and other natural disasters is reduced, if not eliminated, with the help of insurance.
In developed countries, insurance has become a vital part of the economy and they make it a point to insure all assets with reputed insurance companies. Insurance lets people as well as businesses protect themselves against certain potential losses and financial hardship at a reasonable acceptable rate. In modern times there are certain specialized insurances which play great roles in the economy of countries.
The importance of the insurance-growth nexus is growing due to the increasing share of the insurance sector in the aggregate financial sector in almost every emerging and mature market economy.
The main intention of this article is to add to the understanding of the role of the insurance sector in the finance-growth nexus – whether and how insurance influences economic growth. The rationale behind this notion is twofold: on the one hand, the importance of the insurance sector within total financial intermediation has risen over time, including the magnitude and intensity of links between insurance, banking and capital markets. Thus the likely impact of insurance on the economy, consequently, increases.
The literature on finance and growth does not, however, pay sufficient attention to the important and rising role played by non-banking financial intermediaries such as insurance companies. While the actuarial processes for insurance have been in continuous development, it really took till the second half of the twentieth century for a modern theory of insurance economics to emerge. This laid out a model of an optimal insurance contract between risk-averse consumers and an insurance company capable of diversification.
In this ever growing field of enquiry, in which rational consumers and rational insurers come together in a mutually beneficial trade of risk, it deepened the understanding of how people come to share risk in an insurance market, and the natural frictions that occur (particularly the conflicting incentives of the policyholders and insurers); there was growing dissatisfaction with a theory that ignored the quirkiness of actual behavior; in real life people might not be quite so rational and raised questions like: “How would insurance market work in a world of limited rationality”?
Modern financial theory has another set of fascinating implications for those interested in insurance. Uncertainty is at the heart of insurance. This is already manifested in our limited knowledge about observable past events. All our activities depend on uncertain and unknown circumstances beyond the control of a single individual. Unambiguous, deterministic cause-effect relationships are replaced by ambiguity in the perception of the economic environment. With respect to the future, uncertainty looms still larger. Insurance is, however, of particular importance for risks with negative consequences.
What does “risk” mean in insurance parlance?
Usually risk is understood to mean as the danger of incurring a loss. This danger can materialize in different ways in a disaster-stricken community, ranging from complete loss, impairment or reduction of value of an asset, to the disruption of business, to the loss of a limb or even loss of life.
What is meant by the colloquial use of the word – “insurance”?
The pertinent literature gives various definitions of insurance. Problems arise because the term originates from business practices.
Individuals seek to protect themselves against irregular but probabilistic shocks impinging on their assets “health”, “wealth”, and “wisdom” by employing one or several tools of risk management, mainly by purchasing insurance. Therefore, the importance of insurance presumably increases with growth in the value of these assets. In step with the growth in general wealth, the concentration of assets has also increased, leading to so-called catastrophic risks.
It will expose us to modern financial theories such as asset pricing theory and option theory and, in doing so, will expose us to such exotic financial instruments as catastrophe bonds. It will take us deep into public policy and the welfare state and into the challenges of operating universal health insurance programs; and it will face us with the challenges of a world where new and unpredicted risks are appearing and for which normal insurance mechanisms may not function; where such catastrophes are either triggered by human failure as a result of man-made disasters; or by nature (natural disasters).
Disasters with the largest financial consequences fall into the category of natural disasters. We have also witnessed that the more recent disasters are also the more severe ones. This gives rise to the conjecture that increasingly, natural disasters are in fact man-made, caused notably by environmental pollution through Carbon-dioxide – GreenHouse Gases, causing global warming, and the latest Coronavirus – Covid -19 pandemic, pushing mankind into a state of extreme, irremediable, ruin and misfortune.
These challenges will lead to the expectation that the demand for insurance will tend to increase in the future. To achieve this, the industry has to be prepared for the unexpected and to be able to timely respond to the challenges laid before them; insurers and reinsurers must know and follow the trends and dynamics that characterises the global insurance and reinsurance industry.
[The writer counts over 50 years in the insurance industry and is an Associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute [London] and also holds the title of Chartered Insurance Practitioner; as well as an Associate of the Insurance Institute of India.]
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Take Human Rights seriously, not so much the council or office
By Dr Laksiri Fernando
The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.
In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.
UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.
His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.
High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.
Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.
But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.
China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.
He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”
“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”
It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.
His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.
His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,
“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”
‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.
What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.
In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.
President’s energy directives ignored by the Power Ministry: Another Point of View
Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya
Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).
PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.
So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.
PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:
I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.
Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.
In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?
On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.
Enough money even to donate
Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.
Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.
In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !
That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.
Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.
Confusion on NGOs and NSOs in Sri Lanka
If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.
This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.
Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.
Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.
In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.
Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.
When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.