Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:34:22.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Friendly Societies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

George F. Hardy
Affiliation:
Institute of Actuaries.

Extract

In considering the origin and development of the friendly society system, it is necessary to recognize the twofold purpose that these institutions have fulfilled. In the view of the actuary they are merely associations for the mutual assurance of certain benefits, generally in the case of the sickness or death of any of the members. This, however, represents only one side, and that by far the most recent, of the work of these institutions. A not less prominent and much older feature is to be found in the opportunities for social intercourse, companionship, and mutual help, which such associations naturally afford—wants common to man in every state of society, and as old as civilization itself. Hence, from the earliest times, small communities have existed, drawn together by the common interests, tastes, or pursuits of the members, such communities being originally purely social in character, subsequently charitable and mutually protective, and only in recent times financial.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1889

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 267 note * The report for 1859, however, gives the rate of sickness among the members, from 18 to 50 years of age, as 6·81 days, a result stated to be midway between the French and English experience.

page 277 note * This formula is not quite true to second differences, differing from the true value of ux by one-twelfth of the central second difference. The error is, however, insignificant, being not greater in value than that due to the neglect of fourth differences in all such formulas. The error might be corrected by taking .08ux instead of ux/12in column (2), and by summing in 5's in columns (6), (7), and (8) (see next page); but there would be no practical advantage as regards accuracy, while the graduation would be less smooth.

page 287 note * In the earlier returns numerous inaccuracies were apparent—especially i s this the case with those of 1856 to 1860. For example, on reference to Table 5 (p. 17), the numbers at risk at age 52 appear to have been put down at 7,443 instead of 6,443, and as a consequence the rates of death and sickness from 51 to 55 are under-estimated about 3 per-cent. A similar error occurs in Table 6 (p. 19), at age 50, where the numbers 6,180 should clearly read 5,180. Even as the figures stan d the rate of sickness given for this quinquennium is erroneous, the same being the case also from 61 to 65, where the rate should be 5·950 instead of 4·625. These and other errors have affected the final Table, although the effect on the financial results may have been small.

page 322 note * See the demonstration I have given of the formula in J.I.A., xxvii, 214.Google Scholar