Solutions to Future Policy Making in the Insurance Sector

Introduction

The democratic republic of Timor-Leste, also known as East Timor, is an island country in the Pacific Ocean, south of Indonesia and north of Australia. Its capital is based in Dili and runs a semi-presidential system where the elected president shares power with a parliamentary-appointed minister. The insurance industry is one of the most powerful sectors in the country, accounting for over 5% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

The country’s GDP stood at 1.959 billion dollars in 2020 (Lundahl and Sjöholm, 2020). In 2005, the parliament passed a law empowering the government to license, supervise and regulate insurance companies and intermediaries (Notteboom et al., 2021). The law acknowledges that the insurance industry contributes to the growth of various sectors, securing people and their assets and facilitating private business growth.

The paper employs a conceptual framework that explores details of the Timor-Leste insurance law, current legal challenges, and solutions to future policy formulation. The objective of the paper is to evaluate the insurance law and propose changes and solutions to future policy-making processes. It employs the theory of problem solving to identify, evaluate and propose solutions to the issues associated with the law and the policy formulation in general.

A detailed review of the insurance law touches on the regulatory authority, the scope of the law, and the critical scenarios in the application of the law. The importance of regulating insurance companies guides in the identification of the challenges affecting the formulation and implementation of insurance policies. Further, the solutions proposed to define obstacles in the implementation of policies are built on the importance of enacting legal provisions.

The paper presents a reliable contribution to the existing literature on solving policy-related complications, especially in the political and administrative setups. The pace of enacting laws varies depending on countries, sectors, industries, circumstances, and other definitive factors, leading to varying results and success rates (Lundahl and Sjöholm, 2020). Appreciating the factors contributing to the differences in law formulation processes helps conceptualize general and domain-specific recommendations geared toward solving existing problems. The paper further presents a guideline on the development of policy support programs that govern the process of enacting laws. The guidelines aim at closing the collaborative gap and the contribution of legal professionals and frontline personnel in policy implementation. The conclusion summarizes the issues discussed in the paper and presents recommendations to solve the identified challenges.

The Details of the Insurance Law

The insurance law of Timor-Leste, also known as law number 6, regulations the operations of insurance companies and intermediaries. The main purpose of the law is to instill trust in all participants doing business in the sector and create a supervisory entry to regulate the sector (Tasca, 2019). In this regard, the banking and payments authority was granted the power to intervene as necessary and punish entities as required by the law (Tasca, 2019). The significant impact of insurance demanded a legal and centralized authority to regulate, license, and supervise the industry (Brophy, 2019). The following sections present a detailed description of the law and its viability in the legal policy-making process.

The Banking and Payments Authority (BPA)

The BPA is a legal entry in the government of Timor-Leste tasked with regulating the financial industry. It is responsible for resting the operational and regulatory framework for banks, microfinance, and other financial institutions. In law number 6 of 2005, the BPA was tasked with regulating, and supervising the licensing of insurance companies, intermediaries, and products (Girardi et al., 2021). The authority is also empowered to punish insurers and subsidiaries of contractors within the confinement of the law.

The Scope of the Law

Laws are enacted to protect, guide, or regulate office holders, entities, stakeholders, and entire insurers. The insurance law of Timor-Leste applies to representatives, managers, shareholders, employees, branches, and intermediaries in the insurance sector (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005). The application of the law does not discriminate or overlook the involvement of subcontractors in the insurance business. Instead, all partakers are bound by the law under all operational circumstances. As a result, the equality and applicability of the law remain one of the friendliest.

Powers of BPA

The BPA is primarily tasked with the supervision, licensing, and regulation of insurance intermediaries and companies. The licensing is subject to the requirements set by the law, implying not all applicants may be approved. The authority is further tasked with the responsibility of protecting the interests and rights of the insurers and policyholders from harm. The insurance industry is susceptible to the insecurity and financial instability of the associated companies and intermediaries. The authority is responsible for defining the standards of conduct and operations for all stakeholders as applicable (Brophy, 2019). The authority is empowered to direct institutions through orders on measures that may need to be taken. The BPA is required to publish instructions on the official gazette, which take effect on the publication date.

Classes of Insurance

The law classifies insurance products into two general classes, health, and general insurance. However, companies are required to embark on a single class. The BPA is legally empowered to define the classes of insurance products based on the nature of services or customer needs (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005). Since the industry is innovative but bound by the law, insurance products can only be sold upon approval of the authority.

Cooperation with Other Supervisory and Regulatory Authorities

Government entities share information with contractors and third parties. Usually, governments procure the services of the private sector such as software solutions, consultancy services, or research and development. In this regard, the BPA may engage other regulatory and supervisory agencies with the intention of harmonizing the financial regulatory lattice (Koricheva and Kulinskaya, 2019). Collaboration of regulatory entities and authorities creates a conducive environment for the formulation of policies touching across multiple domains and disciplines. However, the collaborations should be bound by the law as the authorities are usually funded by taxpayers’ money.

Establishing Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries

The establishment of new companies in any domain is guided by the policies formulated by the respective regulatory agency. All companies seeking to operate in the insurance sector within the territory of Timor-Leste must only be licensed by the BPA (Brophy, 2019). The companies are required to use the derivative “insurance” in their business identities. The industry players are also prohibited from using misleading names or providing false information to regulators or clients (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005).

Companies established outside the country are permitted to open up operational branches within Timor-Leste. Insurance intermediaries’ operations are subject to BPA approval and authorization (Lundahl and Sjöholm, 2020). In cases of operations via agents or subagents, the relative value assets needed to engage in insurance business ventures are determined by the BPA.

Licensing of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries

The licensing of companies and intermediaries requires several legal and technical documents depending on the area of specialization or investment. The application for an insurance company is subject to approval or rejection by the BPA depending on the authenticity or completeness of the documents provided (Girardi et al., 2021). The documents include the founder’s agreement, company structure, corporate agreements, and other documents required by the BPA (Girardi et al., 2021). The accompanying application documents help the BPA to carry out investigative, supervisory, and regulatory operations (Lundahl and Sjöholm, 2020).

The application process takes about three months and may end up as a success or failure as determined by the authority (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005). The company license expires after one year; and must be renewed in order to continue operating in Timor-Leste (Girardi et al., 2021). The licensing of intermediaries is almost similar to that of conventional companies. However, different documents such as articles of association, members of the corporate organization, and para-corporate agreements (Lundahl and Sjöholm, 2020). The denial of a license may be triggered by the discovery of measures that might compromise the rights of insurance holders and clients in the future.

Withdrawal from the Insurance Market

The withdrawal of companies registered outside of the Timor-Leste market involves the BPA. The withdrawing company must prove to the authority what happens to their policyholders and whether such services need to be transferred to other service providers. The BPA files at least four credit claim notices before approving the withdrawal of the company from the Timor-Leste market (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005). The company liabilities may be handled through the establishment of a special fund as directed by the BPA. The Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries (2005) requires that life insurance companies pay claims even after they have withdrawn from the market.

Monitoring and Inspection

The law empowers the BPA to monitor and inspect insurance companies and intermediaries from time to time as necessary. The monitoring operation is powerful in that the companies may be required to surrender their financial statements and other records. The records should not be altered and any mischievous activity may attract penalties (Koricheva amd Kulinskaya, 2019). In the case of companies established in other countries but operating branches in Timor-Leste, the company is not subject to BPA supervision, but the regulatory authorities in that country (Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, 2005). BPA may contract auditing and inspection companies to carry out its legal mandate, and the industry must be corporate as required by the law.

Challenges of the Insurance Law

The challenges facing the entire insurance industry are due to the hardships in establishing and running the companies. First, the insurance business has not gained much attention and acceptance in most communities. Majority of the insurance ventures that entail large-scale fortes and liabilities are linked with social security services (Koricheva amd Kulinskaya, 2019). Timor-Leste is not an exception with life and saving contracts as the most valuable contracts. The services are not widely embraced in third-world countries. It makes the regulation and growth of the industry challenging due to the limited social recognition and acceptance.

The performance of the insurance industry is intertwined with the banking sector. Although the regulatory authority in Timor-Leste also covers the banking sector, systemic shifts in the latter could interrupt the entire insurance sector (Notteboom et al., 2021). Law number 6 of 2005 does not describe the relevant or applicable measures if the banking sector interrupts the insurance sector (Girardi et al., 2005). For instance, the collapse of the AIG group during the 2008 financial crisis was triggered by its subsidiary in London (Kar and Navin, 2021). AIG Financial Products (London) transacted with the banks in an unregulated business environment. The business deal led the company into its worst financial situation and ended up being bailed by the government.

The insurance industry is susceptible to systemic risks whose channels remain unknown. Although the banking and insurance sector work hand-in-hand, the threats facing the banking system are known and understood (Notteboom et al., 2021). As a result, the formulation of laws to regulate the insurance industry remains challenging and complicated. The sources of vulnerability in the banking sector include interbank transactions, deposits, and long-term assets that trigger untimely maturity (Tasca, 2019). The operation of banks is purely based on trust, which can easily be exploited by clients or other partners. On the contrary, the operations of the insurance industry are purely bound to financial transactions, making it difficult for regulators to fathom the source of the risks.

Different insurance companies operate jointly in their transactions. However, the interconnection is not well established despite being different from the banking sector. While the banking sector creates products such as credits and functions based on money, the insurance industry is subjected to financial claims (Girardi et al., 2021). It complicates the operations, regulation, and continuity of insurance companies and intermediaries in the worst-case scenarios which could compromise industry standards and operations.

The banking sector embraces leverage to tackle systemic risks which are well understood and appreciated. However, it is not present in the insurance sector, complicating its operations. Regulations such as law number 6 do not stipulate the consequences of engaging in destructive averages (Koricheva and Kulinskaya, 2019). A society that is not guided by necessary laws may fall into chaos, affecting the lives of all people.

Insurance companies have a larger capacity to withstand losses as compared to banks in the midst of a financial crisis. While banks respond by increasing the cost of their balance sheets, insurance companies hold their capital for the payment of their policyholders (Tasca, 2019). The challenge arises in the insurance sector when the cost of the balance sheet is raised as the available assets must be set aside for the repayment purpose (Chen et al., 2022). This implies that any distressing situations in the insurance operations do not have any stabilization function, disrupting the regulation and operation efforts.

The operability of the insurance industry is subject to accounting standards. The United States of America and Europe have contradicting accounting norms, yet they are the biggest consumer of insurance products (Tasca, 2019). They are constituting a large faction of the global economy which is responsible for the growth of the insurance sector (Tasca, 2019). The influence of differences in accounting and regulatory frameworks affects the adoption, implementation, and regulation of insurance companies and intermediaries in distant countries and economies such as Timor-Leste. Since insurers exist as a financial link between investors and savers, their balance sheets lag behind banks, and the regulation of the insurance industry is more vital (Hudson et al., 2019). The formulation of insurance policies and products is challenged by their nature and acceptability by target customers.

Importance of Regulating the Insurance Sector

The greatest motivation for the regulation of the insurance sector is the impact of the global financial crisis which ends up causing the loss of jobs and wealth. In the absence of laws, insurers and bankers develop products and practices that risk entire industries. For instance, the global financial crisis of 2008 saw the AIG group engage in risky deals and ended up being bailed out by the government (Bohnert et al, 2019). The financial and insurance sector operated in high secrecy, making it impossible for policyholders to comprehend the amount of risk held by the insurance agencies.

Financial banks are regulated all over the world with the aim of protecting depositors’ money. However, the introduction of new financial products may be outside the legal scope and may end up threatening financial stability. It happened with the introduction of credit default swaps and collateral debt obligations by American banks (Notteboom et al., 2021). The banks lobbied against the regulation of the products but ended up failing (Gopal and Schnabl, 2022). The insurance industry is congruent with the banking sector, making it necessary to introduce and effect sound and inclusive regulations.

Endurance companies can be as systemic as banks, affecting the entire economy. For instance, the 2008 financial crisis entailed insurance companies securing aid from governments in the US and Europe (Gopal and Schnabl, 2022). The crisis proved that the systemic risks in banks can be translated to the insurance industry and vice versa. As a result, the insurers should be regulated and supervised for the creation of sound products and optimal performance (Hudson et al., 2019).

The Chinese financial and insurance industries are highly regulated, with strict compliance and punishment terms (Chen et al., 2022). The Chinese Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) established in 1998 is responsible for the oversight of the insurance docket. The Chinese insurance market provides products and services that require a stable and legal environment in order to meet customer needs and extractions. The authority has imposed fines on several instance providers upon violation of laws (Chen et al., 2022). The vigilance of the regulatory authority, inclusivity, and strictness of the enacted laws are responsible for the levels of compliance and performance of the entire industry.

The designation of responsibility, mandate and legal powers to regulatory institutions such as the Timor-Leste BPA, Chinese CIRC, or US Federal Insurance Office ensures there is a watchdog overseeing the conduct of private entities. The most vulnerable players in the insurance industry are the poor and must be defended through legislation, licensing, and supervision of the industry. The investors are wealthy, with the goal of creating more wealth and the poor members of the communities are their most vulnerable victims. As a result, the formulation and enactment of legal policies ensure such members of the communities are protected while checking the behavior and conduct of institutions.

Solutions to the Problems of the Insurance Law

Conflict between investors, customers, and regulators is common across the different sectors. The insurance sector is viewed as one of the poorest as the success rate of customer claims is low (Girardi et al., 2021). As a result, the enactment of laws and regulations should be considerate of their implications on the industry stability, customer protection and satisfaction, and adherence to regulations. Most institutions engage in lobbying to coerce the authorities into formulating more friendly rules (Hudson et al., 2019). There is persistence in policy failure across multiple domains, calling for the need to improve the entire formulation process.

First, most policymakers are always over-optimistic, overlooking the risks of their decisions. For instance, the most expensive ventures tend to result in multiple risks of similar magnitude. Brophy (2019) noted that the formulation of laws ends up with the policymakers expecting positive results. However, most lobbyists argue that the inappropriate nature of most laws triggers the negotiation processes. As a result, some institutions end up being exempted from the punishment for breaking such laws, citing collaboration with the authorities through lobbying (Brophy, 2019). The over-optimism in policymaking is due to complexity, misunderstanding, poor evidence base, incentives, and behavior as well as accountability challenges.

The implementation of policies in dispersed governance presents a significant challenge, especially in the public sector. Policies implemented at higher levels trigger inconsistencies in implementations at lower governance levels (Talesh, 2018). The discrepancy in the implementation of the policies results from variations in products, guidelines, or rules that are specific to the local practices and context (Talesh, 2018).

Generally, the “local context” dominates in general governance. In the insurance sector, the implementation of laws is subject to the products and services provided by an insurer, their culture, and other definitive factors. The formulation of policies and laws may not consider the needs and requirements of the “local context”. Talesh (2018) notes that such mistakes are devastating and could result in policy invalidity. However, the formulation of policies with the “local context” in mind is challenging and could complicate the entire formulation process, resulting in ambiguous clauses.

The policymaking bodies do not embrace collaboration and end up missing the skills and expertise of other industry professionals. The policymaking process does not include the target implementers who also understand the operational environment and context better. The implementation of policies remains difficult due to the feeble nature of the collaborative policy-making process (Talesh, 2018).

It is also associated with not establishing a constructive management platform for public participation. Policy-making requires the inclusion of different players such as managerial, administrative, political, and professional personnel. The process also needs to include the end users or actors as they are the frontline agents in the implantation stages (Brophy, 2019). Policies should not be based on consensus as it is impossible to achieve. Instead, they should focus on a generalized operation ground where conflicts are eliminated. The process of policy-making should be integrative and not just a boardroom venture in order to eliminate the inadequacy of collaboration.

Policymakers in the public sector are not answerable to the regulatory agencies whenever their policies flop due to the frequent implementations of transfers or end-of-office terms. The major problem with public policymakers is the obsession with short-term goals (Bohnert et al., 2019). The policies behind such goals are formulated and implemented within short periods. Policy making could be messy, frustrating, or protracted depending on the nature of the industry, the nature of the project being carried out, or the target environment (Bohnert et al., 2019). Political behaviors during policy formulation can be broken down into three phases: rising salience, building block, and embedding phases.

The initial phase politicizes the issue, drawing the attention of public servants and communicating the desired goals. A perception of the expected results is conceptualized in this phase. The second phase is concerned with the formation of problem-solving teams that rally different forces to support the motion. The last phase is concerned with eliminating the factors that increase political capital and reduce interest in order to achieve success.

Developing Policy Support Programs

The policy development process requires a detailed understanding of the activities to be undertaken and the expected results. The partakers should ask the question “what if” in order to address all possible issues arising from the legality, applicability, and viability of their policies (Tasca, 2019: Talesh, 2018). A policy support program comprises four main phases: preparation, tracking, implantation, and review. The respective stages are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Policy Preparation

It is vital to ensure that policymakers comprehend and familiarize themselves with the details of policy proposals. Faults in policy formulation occur due to several reasons including poor quality evidence, conflicting goals, misinformation, or limited knowledge (Hudson et al, 2019). The policymakers should enquire whether the proposals are visible to individuals outside the policy team. It should also scrutinize the adopted framework, the implementation strategy, and an evaluation of the expected performance and results. Studies have shown that, although policies allow for the activation of oversight mechanisms, they are only employed in case of serious mishaps in the actualization stages (Hudson et al, 2019). Such conducts are common with policymakers who rush to complete motions for political achievement only.

A successful policy fulfillment process is conceptualized during the draft stage and includes spheres such as planning, assessment and appraisal, monitoring, risk evaluation, governance, resource utilization, and the overall scheme. Breaking down the respective domains presents fulfillment toolkits for the entire process (Hudson et al, 2019). The entire process does not present a successful appraisal approach and the policy-makers should procure the services of a third party to assess the assumptions for funding government spending.

Policy Tracking

The implementation process of a policy is referred to as policy tacking. The implementation of policy tracking has proliferated recently, especially in the United Kingdom with specific goals. First, it monitors performance against key priorities based on evident and reliable data (Talesh, 2019). The tracking process also identifies barriers to policy implementation, recommending additional resources to solve arising problems and threats. The biggest mistake with most tracking units is that they operate from within governments (Koricheva and Kulinskaya, 2019). In other instances, the tracking processes are implemented for specific projects or ministries which should not be the case. Although the efficacy of policy tracking units is not evaluable and may be susceptible to mishaps, it is perceived that they present a stepping stone in harmonizing the policy-making process.

Policy tracking units are best suited for specific domains depending on the most imminent challenges. Koricheva and Kulinskaya (2019) note that the effectiveness of the tracking units in complicated situations is complex. The units may not succeed in an environment where compliance is expensive and demanding. The units may not have the power to oversight institutions that are not autonomous. Hostility and mistrust as well as lack of information by the target client are other grinding challenges faced by policy tracking units (Koricheva and Kulinskaya, 2019). However, they are theoretically suited to perform excellently in ideal operational environments. The incorporation of weak tracking units could end up adding more challenges to the policy formulation process, hence may not be required.

Policy Implementation Support

Policies may be long-term and complex in nature, calling for additional oversight besides the tracking units discussed earlier. In such situations, it is necessary to fathom whether the policies require support mechanisms for implementation. Conventionally, frontline personnel such as managers have a better understanding of the implementation process than the policymakers (Hudson et al., 2019). This implies that support personnel should utilize the experience and knowledge of individuals whose conduct eases policy implementation. The process must encompass assessing the institution’s capacity to implement the policy and whether there is a need to seek support or additional resources (Hudson et al., 2019). It is essential to create a common ground between the national and local contexts through intermediaries.

The creation and implementation of intermediary programs perform two main functions: executing mock programs and empowering institutions by creating room for adopting system changes. The acceptability and adoption of intermediary agencies depend on the qualities, skills, and competencies of their personnel (Notteboom et al., 2021). Such characteristics are rare as they include critical thinking, leadership, and high intuitive standards. Although support programs during policy implementation are vital, they may be contradictory, causing confusion in the “local context”. Ideally, the implementation support involves managing and regulation, problem-solving as well as capacity building depending on the nature of the policy.

Policy Implementation Review

The last step of policy implementation is the review, where stakeholders establish how the objectives were accomplished. The review process finds responses to “wh” questions such as “what”, “when”, “where”, and “which”. The review committee seeks to establish what may have been assumed or overdone. Policy expectations are a critical point of concern as they point to the lessons learned based on available data. The answers to the questions posed aid in adopting changes, goals, and other decisions. They also help determine the next course of action, especially in terminating the review process. The conceptualization and evaluation of policy support are complicated as the success of policies is linked to processes, programs, and politics (Notteboom et al., 2021).

As a result, establishing the impact of support programs on the success of the policy acceptability and success is mandatory in the review process. The purpose of a policy as well as its success in achieving objectives are dependent on the influence of the success support programs. Such contributions are evaluated in the review stages in order to fathom whether the policy was successful or failed.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The paper discussed the importance and challenges facing the insurance law. The connection Banking and Payments Authority is mandated to license, regulate and investigate insurance companies. It also ensures they operate within the law while safeguarding their business interests and the rights of the citizens. The policy formulation process is complicated and faces numerous challenges. The success of the laws enacted thereof is debatable. Government policies are subject to scrutiny and lobbying, affecting their implementation and serving the intended purpose. Before implementing laws, policy makers should conduct a prerequisite study to establish stakeholders, potential barriers and the expected results. The following recommendations are put forward to handle future policy formulations.

1. Legislators need to embrace an adequate collaborative policy-making approach that includes all stakeholders.
2. Policy makers are to conduct necessary research to establish the required input, time frames, challenges and expected results before embarking on the policy-making endeavor.
3. Policy formulation processes should be transparent and engage the “local context”.
4. Institutions need to develop a policy support program encompassing policy preparation, tracking, support and implementation review.
5. Institutions should embrace long-term policy goals to avoid the common mistakes arising from short-term policy objectives
6. The unpredictability of political cycles is to be factored in the development of short-term and long-term policies.
7. Legislators must be held accountable for the performance of their policies.

References

Bohnert, A., Fritzsche, A., & Gregor, S. (2019). Digital agendas in the insurance industry: the importance of comprehensive approaches. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 44(1), 1-19. Web.

Brophy, R. (2019). Blockchain and insurance: a review for operations and regulation. Journal of financial regulation and compliance, 28(2), 215-234. Web.

Chen, Q., Ning, B., Pan, Y., & Xiao, J. (2022). Green finance and outward foreign direct investment: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment of green insurance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(3), 899-924. Web.

Girardi, G., Hanley, K. W., Nikolova, S., Pelizzon, L., & Sherman, M. G. (2021). Portfolio similarity and asset liquidation in the insurance industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(1), 69-96. Web.

Gopal, M., & Schnabl, P. (2022). The rise of finance companies and fintech lenders in small business lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 35(11), 4859-4901. Web.

Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy design and practice, 2(1), 1-14. Web.

Kar, A. K., & Navin, L. (2021). Diffusion of blockchain in the insurance industry: An analysis through the review of academic and trade literature. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101532. Web.

Koricheva, J., & Kulinskaya, E. (2019). Temporal instability of evidence base: a threat to policy making? Trends in ecology & evolution, 34(10), 895-902. Web.

Lundahl, M., & Sjöholm, F. (2020). Economic Challenges for East Timor (No. 2020: 14). Working Paper. Web.

Notteboom, T., Pallis, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2021). Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: the COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 23(2), 179-210. Web.

Regime for The Licensing, Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Companies and Insurance Intermediaries, Pub. L. No. 6 (2005).

Talesh, S. A. (2018). Data breach, privacy, and cyber insurance: How insurance companies act as “compliance managers” for businesses. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(2), 417-440. Web.

Tasca, P. (2019). Insurance under the blockchain paradigm. In Business transformation through blockchain (pp. 273-285). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Web.