Mobility across countries is often suspected to affect the coexistence of different social insurance systems. A wide variety of social protection systems exist within the EU. Some are of Beveridgean inspiration (with universal and more or less flat benefits), while others are mainly Bismarckian (with benefits related to past contributions). Concerns about the sustainability of the most generous and redistributive (Beveridgean) insurance systems are often based on the assumption of (near) perfect and costless mobility. In reality, labor mobility remains limited. Such low levels of migration rates could, mistakenly, lead to the conclusion that migration would currently not be affecting the redistributive social insurance systems. We address this issue in a two-country setting, where mobility is costly and where individuals differ in mobility cost (attachment to their native country). A Bismarckian insurance system is not affected by migration while a Beveridgean one is. Our results suggest that the race-to-the-bottom affecting tax rates may be more important under Beveridge-Beveridge competition than under Beveridge-Bismarck competition. Finally, we study the strategic choice of the type of social protection. We show that Bismarckian governments may find it beneficial to adopt a Beveridgean insurance system.

The aging population and the epidemic of chronic diseases requires an accompanying finance reform of long-term care that will become increasingly dominant. Many countries have faced this situation and have set up a separate public funding for such care on the basis of a universal insurance covering both home care and institutions. Canada and Quebec must adopt such autonomy insurance and create a separate fund financed partly by a more judicious use of current budgets and tax credits, and also by a significant investment in home care. An autonomy support benefit could be allocated in kind to fund public services and by contract to pay for services delivered by private, voluntary, and social economy agencies. This benefit would be established following a standardized assessment of functional autonomy achieved by the case manager who will manage the services and control their quality.

Cet article étudie le rôle redistributif d'une assurance sociale exclusive en présence d'un mécanisme d'imposition directe optimale. Les agents sont caractérisés par une productivité individuelle et un risque maladie. La réalisation de ce risque engendre une dépense de santé ainsi qu'une perte de revenu liée à l'arrêt maladie. L'objectif est de déterminer les conditions sous lesquelles une couverture uniforme des soins de santé et un revenu de remplacement individuel sont redistributifs. L'assurance sociale optimale peut-elle être complète ?