Declining welfare states and increasing privatization of the insurance sector are leaving an increasing number of people, particularly in Europe, without insurance. In many countries, new initiatives like Friendsurance (Germany), Broodfonds (the Netherlands), and Lemonade (US) have emerged to fill this gap. These initiatives, sometimes called peer-to-peer insurance, aim to make insurance fair, transparent, and social again. Resembling 19th-century mutuals, they pool premiums in (small) risk-sharing pools. We compare eleven new mutuals with respect to their institutional, resource, and member characteristics and find two broad typologies. The first bears the most resemblance to the 19th-century mutuals: Members are (partly) responsible for governance, there is no risk differentiation, premiums are fixed and low, and insurance payouts cover basic expenses only and are not guaranteed. The second group, while also applying risk-sharing and redistribution of unused premiums, is organized more like the present-day commercial insurers it reacted against, e.g., with refined InsurTech methods for risk differentiation and a top-down organization. We thus pose that, while both groups of new insurers reinvent the meaning of solidarity by using direct risk-sharing groups (as is central to the concept of mutuals), they have different projected development paths—especially considering how, in case of further growth, they deal with problems of moral hazard and adverse selection.

中文翻译：

---

互助中的互惠者：福利国家的排斥过程与互惠主义的重新发现

福利国家的下降和保险部门的私有化日益加剧，使越来越多的人，特别是在欧洲，没有保险。在许多国家，出现了一些新的举措，例如，Friendsterance（德国），Broodfonds（荷兰）和Lemonade（美国）来填补这一空白。这些举措有时被称为对等保险，旨在使保险再次公平，透明和社会化。它们类似于19世纪的共同体，将保费集中在（小的）风险分担池中。我们比较了十一种新的共同体在制度，资源和成员方面的特征，并发现了两种广泛的类型。前者与19世纪的共同体最为相似：成员（部分）负责治理，没有风险分担，保费固定且低，和保险支出仅涵盖基本费用，不能保证。第二组虽然也采用风险分担和未使用保费的再分配，但其组织起来更像当今的商业保险公司，例如，通过完善的InsurTech风险区分方法和自上而下的组织来应对。因此，我们认为，尽管两组新保险公司都通过使用直接风险分担组（对共同体的概念至关重要）重新塑造了团结的含义，但它们具有不同的预计发展路径，尤其是考虑到进一步增长的情况，它们处理道德风险和逆向选择问题。它的组织形式更像当今的商业保险公司，例如，针对风险区分的完善的InsurTech方法和自上而下的组织，它们对此做出了反应。因此，我们认为，尽管两组新保险公司都通过使用直接风险分担组（对共同体的概念至关重要）重新塑造了团结的含义，但它们具有不同的预计发展路径，尤其是考虑到进一步增长的情况，它们处理道德风险和逆向选择问题。它的组织形式更像当今的商业保险公司，例如，针对风险区分的完善的InsurTech方法和自上而下的组织，它们对此做出了反应。因此，我们认为，尽管两组新保险公司都通过使用直接风险分担组（对共同体的概念至关重要）重新塑造了团结的含义，但它们具有不同的预计发展路径，尤其是考虑到进一步增长的情况，它们处理道德风险和逆向选择问题。