As in many other countries, the administration of disability and unemployment insurance in the Netherlands is carried out by both public and private organisations. In this article, we sketch the major dilemmas in the (mixed) provision of social insurance and discuss the various types of arrangements that prevail. In doing so, we particularly focus on current administrative arrangements in the Netherlands. We also raise a number of research questions that are relevant for policy but are as yet unexplored, particularly with respect to mixed systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AartsL.De JongPh. (1996), Private voorziening van sociale zekerheid in de praktijk, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
2.
BurgessS.PropperC.RattoM.TomineyE. (2004), ‘Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Government Agency’, CMPO Working Paper 04/103, Bristol: University of Bristol.
3.
CourtyP.MarshkeG. (1997), ‘Measuring Government Performance: Lessons from a Federal Job Training Program’, American Economic Review, 87 (2), pp. 383–388.
4.
CPB (1997), Challenging Neighbours: Rethinking German and Dutch Economic Institutions, Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
5.
De MooijR.A. (2006), Reinventing the Welfare State, CPB, Den Haag: Koninklijke De Swart.
6.
DixitA. (2002), ‘Incentives and organisations in the public sector: An interpretative review’, Journal of Human Resources, 37 (4), pp. 696–727.
7.
HeckmanJ.SmithJ.A.TaberC. (1996), ‘What Do Bureaucrats Do? The Effects of Performance Standards and Bureaucratic Preferences on Acceptance into the JTPA Program’, NBER Working Paper5535, Cambridge: MA.
8.
KoningP.DeelenA. (2003), ‘Prikkels voor UWV’, CPB Document 32, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
9.
KoningP.OnderstalS. (2004), ‘Goed aanbesteed is het halve werk: Een economische analyse van de aanbesteding van reïntegratie’, CPB Document 63, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
10.
LindeboomM.De JongPh. (2004), ‘Privatisation of sickness insurance: Evidence from the Netherlands’, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 11, pp. 121–143.
11.
Van LomwelA.G.C.NelissenJ.H.M. (2003), ‘Ziekteverzuim, bedrijfskenmerken en verzuimbeleid’, OSA rapport A-194, Tilburg: OSA.
12.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: Plume Books.
13.
ThomasonT.BurtonJ.F. (2000), ‘The Cost of Workers' Compensation in Ontario and British Columbia’ in GundersonM.HyattD. (eds.) Workers' Compensation: Foundations for reform, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
14.
Van VurenA.H. (2004), ‘Publieke of private uitvoering van arbeidsongeschiktheidsregelingen: Een case studie van beroepsrisico's in de VS’, CPB Memorandum 117, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
15.
Van VurenA.H.Van VuurenD. (2005), ‘Financial Incentives in Disability Insurance in the Netherlands’, CPB Discussion Paper 45, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
16.
WesterhoutE.W.M.T. (1995), ‘Arbeidsongeschikt of werkloos? Een verdeelmodel voor de inactiviteit’, CPB Research Memorandum120, The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
