DOCSLIB.ORG

Politics and Organizations 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20111 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30111 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40111

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Politics and Organizations 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20111 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30111 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PART 2: 10111 11 POLITICS AND ORGANIZATIONS 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20111 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30111 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40111 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20111 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30111 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40111 1 2 3 4 2. ORGANIZATIONAL 5 6 HETEROGENEITY AND THE 7 8 9 PRODUCTION OF NEW FORMS: 10111 11 POLITICS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 12 13 AND MUTUAL COMPANIES IN 14 15 AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE, 16 17 1900–1930 18 19 20111 Marc Schneiberg 21 22 23 24 ABSTRACT 25 26 What are the social, political and institutional conditions for organizational 27 heterogeneity and the production of new organizational forms? I address this 28 question using historical methods and time series analyses of 3145 mutual 29 fire insurers – important cooperative alternatives to markets and hierar- 30111 chies. Developing politically oriented neo-institutional arguments, I show 31 that mutuals were vehicles by which property owners and agrarian interests 32 33 resisted corporate consolidation and secured conditions for autonomous 34 economic development. Mutuals embodied a vision of a decentralized, 35 “cooperative commonwealth” of farmers, merchants and independent 36 producers. And they rested on a socio-industrial order characterized by 37 political struggles against corporations; anti-monopoly social movements; 38 immigrants and other cultural carriers of mutual organizing templates; and 39 an institutional infrastructure of protestant churches and local movements. 40111 Social Structure and Organizations Revisited, Volume 19, pages 39–89. Copyright © 2002 by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN: 0-7623-0872-9 39 40 MARC SCHNEIBERG 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 Analyzing mutual companies in American fire insurance, this chapter addresses 4 three related questions: When do new organizational forms emerge? Under what 5 conditions do alternatives to dominant organizing practices arise and proliferate? 6 When can actors institute cooperative alternatives to markets, hierarchies and 7 8 the corporate form? This analysis flows from an interest in economic form, 9 collective self-organization, and their social and institutional foundations. It also 10111 flows from historical interests in both the rise of mass markets and giant 11 corporations as the dominant organizing logics in the U.S., and the extent to 12 which cooperative alternatives emerged during the late nineteenth and early 13 twentieth centuries. A more general concern here is to move beyond the focus 14 in much neo-institutional research on isomorphism and institutional coherence 15 to identify the conditions for heterogeneity and alternative organizational forms 16 (Powell, 1991; Scott, 1995). As Jepperson and Meyer (1991) suggest, societies 17 vary in the extent to which they support organizational diversity and the 18 production of new organizations. 19 20111 Mutuals occupy an ambiguous status in organizational research. Economic 21 analyses of organization view mutuals and other alternatives to corporate or 22 state hierarchy in terms of their problem-solving capacities, their relative costs 23 and benefits, and the intra-organizational dynamics of agency, enforcement and 24 incentive (Hansmann, 1987; Weisbrod, 1988; Ware, 1989; Bonin et al., 1993). 25 This approach is quite helpful in fire insurance, where mutuals were a recognized 26 and viable alternative to joint stock companies, competing successfully with 27 corporate forms. These successes rested, in part, on the economics of organi- 28 zation, that is, on how the internal structure of mutuals altered incentives, solved 29 moral hazards, and created advantages for insureds (Heimer, 1985; Hansmann, 30111 1995). Yet, economic analyses also stress how the costs of collective action 31 32 and enforcement limit the efficacy of cooperative forms, conferring them to 33 a small role or fleeting existence. Such emphases render economic analyses 34 less useful for insurance, where mutuals faced these problems and costs, but 35 proliferated by thousands, enjoyed remarkably high rates of survival, and lasted 36 for a half-century or more. 37 Drawing on Stinchcombe’s classic 1965 essay, I confront this puzzle by exam- 38 ining how rational-adaptive solutions are socially embedded, and by analyzing 39 the social structural conditions for self-organization and new organizational forms. 40111 Cited for its treatment of founding effects and the liabilities of newness, the 1965 essay actually begins with a question that now preoccupies new institutional research: What shapes actors’ incentives or capacities to create new organiza- tions and organizational forms? Moreover, armed with the political-economy Organizational Heterogeneity and the Production of New Forms 41 1 sensibilities of classical institutionalism, Stinchcombe answers his question by 2 invoking the social structures within which actors craft new forms, and by linking 3 the construction of organizations to broad conflicts between elites and challengers 4 over dominance, dependency and social stratification. Here, producing new forms 5 rests on the presence of “organization creating organizations,” and whether actors 6 can piggyback on the resources and trust generated by existing associations. It rests 7 on social relations, including networks for learning about alternatives, and the 8 9 absence of strong ties binding consumers to old organizations. It rests as well on 10111 political factors, like whether the founders of new organizations are sufficiently 11 powerful to resist elites with vested interests in existing regimes. 12 Elsewhere, Stinchcombe analyzed organizations in terms of micro, 13 organizational-level conditions of uncertainty, incentive and information. Such 14 work yielded its own classics – from the 1959 essay on bureaucratic and craft 15 administration to the 1990 collection, Information and Organizations – so we 16 might proceed with care regarding which of “the two Stinchcombes” we invoke 17 or deny. In fact, this diversity of approaches suggests that the greatest gains 18 analytically will come from resisting the temptation to reduce institutions to the 19 purely symbolic and from carefully re-coupling organizational forms to concrete 20111 21 economic problems, politics and actors with intentions (Stinchcombe, 1997; 22 Mizruchi & Fien, 1999). But in 1965, the main focus was contextual, turning 23 from the immediate coordination problems organizations face to the social and 24 historical settings within organizations are built. 25 This chapter analyses the proliferation of mutuals as alternative organizational 26 forms using historical materials and a seven-panel data set of 3145 fire insurance 27 mutuals reported in operation from 1903 to 1929. Part I describes the types and 28 distribution of these mutuals. Parts II and III develop and partially integrate 29 economic theories of mutuals with neo-institutional arguments about the social 30111 and political embeddedness of mutual forms. Parts IV and V assess this embed- 31 dedness view, identifying the political and institutional conditions for alternative 32 33 forms via a state-level analysis of mutuals from 1903 to 1930. 34 As I show, mutuals were solutions to immediate and pressing coordination 35 problems. Yet their proliferation ultimately rested on broader political struggles 36 over economic organization, and on a supportive institutional infrastructure or 37 socio-industrial order (Herrigel, 1994; Berk, 1994). Fire insurance mutuals were 38 vehicles by which merchants, manufacturers, and agrarian interests resisted 39 economic centralization, using consumer self-organization to secure for them- 40111 selves and their local communities a measure of independence and some critical conditions for economic development. Mutuals arose from anti-company poli- tics, agrarian protest, and successful struggles against corporate consolidation in the U.S. They resulted from social movement activity, emerging in force 41 42 MARC SCHNEIBERG 1 where populist organizations like the Grange were well developed and could 2 forcefully articulate alternative models of economic order. And they were 3 imported into the fray by social, immigrant and religious groups with established 4 templates for self-organization, as part of their existing cultural repertoires of 5 organizing forms. 6 In presenting this study, I confirm our growing sense of the possibilities for 7 8 alternatives and organizational diversity in the American economy. Cooperative 9 alternatives to hierarchies and mass markets emerged in far greater numbers 10111 and were far more durable than organizational histories of the U.S. economy 11 commonly allow. In addition, I extend in directions suggested by Stinchcombe’s 12 1965 essay more recent neo-institutionalist research on institutional change and 13 organizational form (DiMaggio, 1991; Berk, 1994; Fligstein, 1996; Clemens, 14 1997; Davis & Thompson, 1994; Haveman & Rao, 1997; Schneiberg, 1999; 15 Dobbin & Dowd, 2000). Looking to political process and state policy, struggles 16 over competing models of order, and supporting conditions and coalitions within 17 fields, neo-institutionalists have begun to bring society and politics back in, 18 analyzing new organizational forms as the product of institutionalization projects 19 20111 or social movements undertaken by entrepreneurs, challengers, or aspiring pro- 21 fessionals. Infusing this work with Stinchcombe’s old institutionalist sensibilities, 22 I pursue a multi-level approach
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PLEDGING BROTHERHOOD: an INTRODUCTION to FRATERNAL, Jen Baldwin BENEVOLENT and SECRET SOCIETIES [email protected]
    PLEDGING BROTHERHOOD: AN INTRODUCTION TO FRATERNAL, Jen Baldwin BENEVOLENT AND SECRET SOCIETIES [email protected] @ancestryjourney During the 1800’s, one in every seven people in the US was a member of a fraternal society. There is a good chance your ancestor was one of them! If the first thing you piCture when you think of fraternal soCieties is a scene from The Da Vinci Code or National Treasure, you may want to reConsider. Understanding the fraternal part of our anCestors’ life Could lead to inCredible genealogiCal disCoveries. HistoriCally, these organizations are the keepers of history – they did more than just take meeting minutes. LoCal Chapters often reCorded important events in the Community and those of their membership. These inClude marriages, “Nothing in life is to be births, and certainly deaths, especially in relation to benefit societies that provided financial support. Many organizations maintained their own feared. It is only to be cemeteries, or sections within cemeteries. understood.” There is also an endless list of possibility for the researCher – thousands of these organizations pop up through United States history, and thousands more ~ Marie Curie when you Consider the global impaCt. They existed in urban and rural areas, had various objectives and goals, and an individual could Certainly be a member of more than one. The first known organization was in the 14th century (perhaps earlier) with the establishment of the “operative” (stone working) masons. “ACCepted” Masonry began in about 1600, and really became important to society a Century later. What is a fraternal soCiety? There are many definitions of these groups, however there is a legal view on the definition of a fraternal soCiety, originally produCed as the Court’s opinion in National Union v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tax Exemption Under Section 501(C)(4)
    The Tax Exemption under Section 501(c)(4) DANIEL HALPERIN A TAX POLICY AND CHARITIES WORKING PAPER MAY 2014 Copyright © May 2014. The Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. This publication is part of the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy and Charities project. The purpose of this project is to analyze the many interactions between the tax system and the charitable sector, with special emphasis on the ongoing fiscal debates at both the federal and state levels. For further information and related publications, see our web page, http://www.urban.org/taxandcharities. The Tax Policy and Charities project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Wasie Foundation, the Rasmuson Foundation, and other donors through June 2014. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Contents Section 501(c)(4) 2 Special Treatment Is Appropriate for Charities 3 Subsidy for Section 501(c)(4) Organizations 4 Action Organizations–Lobbying 5 Action Organizations–Political Activities 7 Insufficient Community Benefit 9 Conclusion 11 Notes 12 The Tax Exemption under Section 501(c)(4) Note to Readers: Organizations exempt from tax under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code have achieved a great deal of notoriety lately as the go-to entity for political campaign expenditures for those seeking to avoid disclosure of contributors and possibly other non-tax rules applicable to PACs or political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report: Mutual P/C Insurers Managing Market Challenges
    U.S. Property/Casualty BEST’S SPECIALOur R Insight,EPORT Your Advantage. Trend Review September 22, 2016 Mutual P/C Insurers Managing Market Challenges All mutual companies operate with a common goal to serve their policyholders, which Mutual allows management to focus on the long-term goal of financial stability. In the mutual company organization structure, policyholders maintain a defined set of rights with carriers are ownership interests. While it’s true that mutuals are customer-focused, there is also heavy expanding emphasis on preserving and steadily increasing surplus levels, which is evidenced by strong pretax return measures. Despite some limited financial flexibility, mutuals benefit from into more surplus notes, Federal Home Loan Banks, and other sources to aid liquidity. In addition, of the small mutuals have been actively participating in affiliations over the years, expanding product and geographic diversification efforts. A.M. Best understands the mutual organization and commercial is cognizant of the operating philosophy that drives performance metrics. Regardless of the market to stay structure, all insurers must have a clearly defined strategic position and solid enterprise risk management capabilities in order to be successful in today’s highly competitive and dynamic competitive. operating environment. Balance sheet strength, operating performance, business profile and enterprise risk management influence the success of all companies. When evaluating a company’s balance sheet strength and long-term financial credit- worthiness, business profile plays an important role. It is A.M. Best’s opinion that a strong business profile drives favorable and sustained operating performance. This can be influenced by a rating unit’s mix of business, both geographically as well as business line concentration.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward an Organizationally Diverse American Capitalism? Cooperative, Mutual, and Local, State-Owned Enterprise
    Toward an Organizationally Diverse American Capitalism? Cooperative, Mutual, and Local, State-Owned Enterprise Marc Schneiberg† ABSTRACT Discussions of economic reform focus on two strategies for tempering corporate excess and mobilizing corporations for growth and prosperi- ty: restructuring markets via competition policies and various forms of countervailing power. Populists, Progressives, and New Dealers looked to anti-trust, regulatory states, and unions as counterweights to corpora- tions. Contemporary efforts look to not-for-profit watchdogs, NGO cer- tification and standard setting, privatization, and corporate governance reform to upgrade markets and deflect corporations from low road paths. This essay recovers a third strategy for regulating and reforming corporate capitalism: promoting organizational diversity via the forma- tion of parallel systems of cooperative, mutual and local, state-owned enterprises. During the “era of corporate consolidation,” producer and consumer groups in the US formed tens of thousands of such enterpris- es in just in agriculture, but also in banking, insurance, and technologi- cally advanced industries like electricity and telephones. These efforts produced enduring systems of cooperatives and kindred enterprise in the American economy, creating alternatives to corporations and orga- nizational legacies for present day problem solving. They provided regulators and policy makers with new options and capacities for state intervention. And they demonstrated possibilities for using mixed or- † John C. Pock Professor of Sociology, Reed College. B.A., Haverford College, 1980; Ph.D., Soci- ology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1994. Research for this Article was funded in part by the National Science Foundation grant #0318466, and the Levine and Corbett-Goldhammer Funds at Reed College. I thank Charles O’Kelley, the participants at the Berle II Symposium at Seattle Uni- versity School of Law, Jerry Davis, and the participants at the ICOS seminar at the University of Michigan for helpful feedback on this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Health Organizations and Micro-Entrepreneurs’ Associations
    MUTUAL HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AND MICRO-ENTREPRENEURS’ ASSOCIATIONS GUIDE Copyright © International Labour Organization 2001 First published 2001 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to the Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications. Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P OLP (Fax: + 44 (0)20 7631 5500), in the United States with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (Fax: + 1 508 750 4470) or in other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. ILO Mutual health organizations and micro-entrepreneurs’ associations. Guide. Geneva, International Labour Office, Strategies and Tools against social Exclusion and Poverty Programme (STEP), Small Entreprise Development Programme (SEED), 2001 Guide, mutual benefit society, health insurance, microentreprise. 02.03.2 ISBN 92-2-112398-7 Chapters III, IV et V of this Guide have been reproduced from the “Manuel de formateurs. Mutuelles de santé en Afrique: caractéristiques
    [Show full text]
  • Disclosure 1
    ANNUAL REPORT 2012 Social Responsibility Vision MAPFRE wants to be the most trusted global insurance company Mission We are a multinational team that continuously strives to improve our service and develop the best relationship possible with our customers, distributors, suppliers, shareholders and Society Values SOLVENCY INTEGRITY SERVICE VOCATION INNOVATIVE LEADERSHIP COMMITTED TEAM Values SOLVENCY Financial strength with sustainable results. International diversification and consolidation in various markets. INTEGRITY Ethics govern the behaviour of all personnel. Socially responsible focus in all of our activities. SERVICE VOCATION Constant search for excellence in the development of our activities. Continuous initiatives focused on minding our relationship with our customers. INNOVATIVE LEADERSHIP Willingness to surpass ourselves and to constantly improve. Useful technology for servicing the businesses and their objectives. COMMITTED TEAM Total team commitment with MAPFRE’s project. Constant training and development of the team’s capabilities and skills. ANNUAL REPORT 2012 Social Responsibility Table of contents 2 1. Chairman’s Letter 4 4. MAPFRE’s social dimension 26 2. General Information 6 MAPFRE and its employees 27 MAPFRE and its customers 38 Presence 8 MAPFRE and its shareholders 55 MAPFRE Group’s corporate organization chart 9 MAPFRE and the professionals and entities Key economic figures 10 that help distribute products 57 Governing Bodies 11 MAPFRE and its suppliers 62 3. MAPFRE and Corporate Social 5. MAPFRE’s environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Credit Unions and Demutualization Kevin Davis Commonwealth Bank
    Credit Unions and Demutualization Credit Unions and Demutualization Kevin Davis Commonwealth Bank Group Chair of Finance Department of Finance The University of Melbourne* Ph: 61 3 8344 5098 Fax: 61 3 8344 6914 Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper reviews experience with credit union demutualization to date in the light of increasing discussion about whether demutualization is a likely (or inevitable) future stage in the evolutionary process. It is argued that the credit union industry faces an inherent demutualization bias which emerges as the sector develops maturity. Contributing factors include the emergence of professional management pursuing personal objectives, together with the economic realities of technological change, financial liberalization, increased competition, and prudential regulation based on minimum capital requirements. Demutualization incentives may partially reflect the unsuitability of the mutual form of governance in larger, more sophisticated financial institutions, but there is also a significant risk of demutualization based on wealth expropriation motives. Alternative policies and strategies which might avoid this demutualization bias are examined. Keywords: Demutualization; Credit Unions; Governance; Regulation Credit Unions and Demutualization I. Introduction Although Credit Unions are active in many countries1, there are stark international differences in their financial sector importance2, regulation, and range and sophistication of activities. In some countries larger credit unions are indistinguishable from retail banks (with whom they compete), with membership drawn from all income groups3. In many other countries, credit unions are in more formative stages of the development process and are typically smaller institutions with more limited product offerings, serving lower income groups neglected by mainstream financial institutions.4 Consequently, there are marked cross-country differences in issues of current importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination Handbook 110, Capital Stock and Ownership
    CapitalRESCINDED Section 110 Capital Stock and Ownership This Section of the Handbook presents information concerning the following: • Mutual organization. • Mutual holding companies. • Stock organization. • Types of capital stock. LINKS Program • Conversions from mutual to stock organization. Appendix A • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements for publicly traded companies. • Insider stock trading. • Change in control. • Divestiture of control. • Contributed capital. • Savings and loan holding companies. • Capital distributions. • Loans by savings associations on its own stock. • Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). MUTUAL ORGANIZATION Savings associations organized as mutual institutions issue no capital stock and therefore have no stockholders. Mutual savings associations build capital almost exclusively through retained earnings. Mutual savings associations may receive pledged deposits and issue mutual capital certificates and Office of Thrift Supervision December 2003 Examination Handbook 110.1 Capital Section 110 subordinated debentures, however, mutuals rarely use these capital forms. When a new mutual savings association organizes, certain founding members pledge savings for the time required for the new mutual to build-up capital and operate profitably. Background The first savings associations appeared in the United States in the first half of the nineteenth century. Savings banks first appeared in Boston and Philadelphia in 1816. The first savings association was in 1831 in Frankford, Pennsylvania, now part of the city of Philadelphia. All thrift type institutions were originally mutual institutions. All federal savings associations were in mutual form from 1933 until 1974, when Congress amended the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA) to permit the conversion of federal mutual savings associations to stock form. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 first authorized the direct chartering of federal stock savings associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Edited Excerpt on Mutual Form from Howell E. Jackson & Edward L
    § 5. The Mutual Form -1- Edited Excerpt on Mutual Form from Howell E. Jackson & Edward L. Symonds, Jr., Regulation of Financial Institutions 551-78 (West 1999) Section 5. The Mutual Form We now turn our attention from the primary focus of insurance regulation -- the relationship between insurer and insured -- to issues of organizational form. One peculiarity of the insurance industry is that many major firms are organized as "mutuals" -- that is legal entities that lack traditional equity shareholders. For example, in the life insurance industry as of 1994, mutual insurance companies held forty-one percent of industry assets. Moreover, six of the ten largest life insurance companies were organized in mutual form. On the property-casualty side, mutuals are somewhat less significant (holding more than a quarter of sector assets), but still constituted a substantial segment of the industry. The focus of attention in this section of the casebook is the "demutualization process," which consists of the legal arrangements whereby mutuals change their corporate form, either through liquidation or conversion into more traditional stock corporations. Demutualization is not unique to insurance companies, and has applications to other types of financial intermediaries, most notably savings and loan associations and savings banks, which also often organize themselves in mutual form. While this section is primarily concerned with the demutualization of insurance companies, we also consider briefly a parallel development in the savings bank industry. A. Demutualization of Insurance Companies To understand the demutualization process, one must first have a general appreciation of the legal relationship between mutual insurance companies and their policyholders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Organization of Insurance Companies: Mutuals, Demutualization and Beyond Comments on the Paper by A
    The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Vol. 26 No. 3 (July 2001) 327±328 The Organization of Insurance Companies: Mutuals, Demutualization and Beyond Comments on the paper by A. Hennequin and P. Peugeot by Miguel Angel MartõÂnezà On the occasion of the Third Meeting of the Amsterdam Circle of Chief Economists, held last February, I had the opportunity to set forth some ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the mutual organization as opposed to the public company. The ®rst question raised was about the forms of growth of mutual insurance companies, because they have limited access to the capital market. The most ef®cient question to ask might rather be: to keep the business highly pro®table, what will allow an accumulation of pro®ts such as to guarantee self-®nancing for this growth? This business growth has also taken place in the mutual companies through the con®guration of subordinate public companies, which undertake part of the insurance business but remain under the political control of the source insurance company. Another question raised at the meeting was about the reasons why a mutual insurance company should become internationalized. Initially, this internationalization process pro- motes the development of a modern management structure while at the same time responding to economic globalization and the satisfaction of multinational clients. Mutual insurance companies can be internationalized via subsidiaries with the format of public companies, or even via alliances and other business networks, getting other bodies of a similar nature involved in the local markets. By this means, the costs or bene®ts of the international business can be shared by the mutual insurer and by the partners in each country.
    [Show full text]
  • Global 500 2014 the World’S 500 Largest Mutual and Cooperative Insurers
    icmif FINANCIAL INSIGHTS International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation Global 500 2014 The world’s 500 largest mutual and cooperative insurers INCLUDING THE GLOBAL 500 BY COUNTRY | THE GLOBAL 500 BY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE THE GLOBAL 500 BY LONGEVITY | FASTEST-GROWING MUTUAL AND COOPERATIVE INSURERS www.icmif.org 2 | GLOBAL 500 | 2014 Global 500 2014 The global mutual and cooperative insurance sector in 2014 MUTUAL AND COOPERATIVE PREMIUM PREMIUM GROWTH (2007-2014) INCOME (USD TRILLIONS) +13.6% Total market +29.6% Mutual/cooperative market 0.99 1.09 1.11 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.29 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Mutual and cooperative insurers in 2014 collectively represented... USD 8.3 1.11 955 trillion million million in total assets employees members/policyholders Global mutual/cooperative market share TOTAL LIFE NON-LIFE 27.0% 24.3% 30.4% GLOBAL 500 | 2014 | 1 INTRODUCTION: THE GLOBAL 500 This report, the Global 500, is the outcome of the latest statistical research conducted by the International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation (ICMIF) on the global mutual and cooperative insurance sector. The Global 500 report features an analysis of the world’s 500 largest mutual and cooperative insurers ranked by premium income, using 2014 year-end data. This is the eighth edition of the report, published annually alongside Global Mutual Market Share, ICMIF’s market intelligence report on the size and financial performance of the global mutual and cooperative1 (hereafter referred to as “mutual”) insurance industry. The world’s 500 largest mutual insurance companies in terms of premium revenue (referred to in the report as the Global 500), collectively wrote USD 1,221 billion in insurance premiums in 2014, representing 95% of the total global mutual sector (USD 1,286 billion).
    [Show full text]
  • The Ties That Provide
    Harvard Business School Social Enterprise Series No. 6 The Collaboration Challenge: Making the Most of Strategic Alliances between Nonprofits and Corporations James E. Austin Copyright © 1999 James E. Austin Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. The Collaboration Challenge Copyright © 1999 James E. Austin THE COLLABORATION CHALLENGE Making The Most Of Alliances Between 1 Nonprofits & Corporations FOCUS AND PURPOSE We are entering the “Age of Alliances” in which cross-sectoral collaboration between nonprofit organizations and corporations will grow in frequency and complexity. Other types of alliances between nonprofits and governmental entities and among nonprofits, and across the three sectors will also increase,2 however, this paper focuses only on the relationships between nonprofits and companies. There are political, economic, and social pressures propelling the move toward collaboration. Governments are downsizing and public functions are being devolved to the private sector, both the corporate and the civic sides. The exigencies of balanced budgets have led to cuts in public funding of many segments of the nonprofit sector, whose numbers have been increasing but they are chasing fewer economic resources. The complexity of social problems is growing beyond the institutional capabilities of nonprofit organizations. And lastly, corporations have been rethinking their traditional approaches to philanthropy and seeking forms of engagement that are of higher impact and of greater business relevance. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework and substantiating examples that will deepen our understanding of how these collaborative relationships develop and evolve, what factors contribute to their sustenance, and what challenges they face.
    [Show full text]