Suchergebnisse

This paper reviews the factors that should guide the design of private funded pensions to create a complete pension system alongside a notional defined contribution—or public—component. It argues that a mix of public and private pensions is the most effective option to deliver the best combination of pension outcomes. Pension design should start with a vision for five core outcomes: coverage, adequacy, sustainability, efficiency, and security. Thinking through these outcomes helps guide choices for market structure, benefit type, contributions, investment strategy, and other factors. As well as technical design, the governance, scale, and expertise of pension funds are critical for good investment and other outcomes. Regulators and supervisors should also focus on these outcomes and then work out how best to mitigate the risks to achieving them over time. These issues are relevant in relation to any public pillar, but notional defined contribution (NDC) systems bring clarity and transparency to policy makers in the benefit formula. The NDC payout formula can offer insights for how to improve the payout options in funded pillars. The clarity on the NDC formula also means that the joint distribution of public and private pensions can be modeled. This is important because the precise NDC formula may have implications for optimal investment strategies for private pensions, given, for example, the negative correlation between real per capita GDP growth and equity market returns over long periods.

Published in April 2017 ; The person, contract, tort, property and remedies form the ' pillars ' 1 of each and every private law system, whatever its origin might be, continental civil law or common law, and however it might appear, traditional private law or regulatory private law. 2 These pillars are subject to a deep transformation, that should be termed ' constitutional ' and that is captured in Duncan Kennedy's distinction between the three globalisations of law and their impact on legal thought. 3 Th e focus in this chapter is placed on European law and on the European Union (EU). EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are the drivers behind the transformation. This focus is justified because the EU is not a state, because the EU has no European constitution and no European Civil Code, and because the CJEU is neither a constitutional court nor a supreme court. In other words, the EU is a very particular and unique entity containing a little bit of everything that makes for a state and a sovereign legal order. Th us, I claim that the ' constitutional ' transformation of the pillars of private law through the EU and the CJEU differs in form and in substance from seemingly comparable processes in at least some of the Member States. Personally, I take as plausible the notion of the experimental character of the EU as a new state formation. Th is perspective views the EU legal (dis)order as a new format for a legal order, with a court that, owing to its particular position in the multi-level structure of the EU, enjoys a degree of freedom and discretion that allows the Court to break boundaries that national courts (whether their position is constitutional or otherwise) tend to defend. However, such an understanding implies equally that my findings are tentative and premature. ; The research leading to these results has received funding from ERPL-European Regulatory Private Law - the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013) / ERC Grant Agreement no. [269722] ; Based on a lecture given by the author at the SECOLA Conference in Oxford 2015.

Explores the tendency to shift portions of the state's social security obligations to the market, family, &/or community, arguing that these other institutions are not capable of assuming the responsibility, & schemes like private pensions & welfare-to-work programs are doomed to fail because of cracks in the other "pillars." Divorce, multiple spouses, & the increasing number of mothers in the workforce have lessened the ability of families to provide the kind of support they once did. At the same time, the market's strength has been weakened by the demise of long-term employment relationships, a growing trend to hire "contract" workers, & poor premium/payout ratios exhibited by private social insurance schemes. The community has likewise become devitalized because of fewer unpaid volunteers & the tendency to contract out public agency services to private providers. These weaknesses are maintained to be the result of various forms of "destandardization" that have made categorical & conditional modes of social policy making impossible. Possible dystopian & utopian policy-making responses to the new circumstances are discussed. J. Lindroth

Written especially for the public sector but applicable far beyond it, The Three Pillars of Public Management offers government managers insights that, for the first time, speak directly to their situation. Unlike other management books that promote fads and private-sector models or focus on politics, policy, and government-wide reforms, this book offers tangible suggestions to improve public service agencies or individual work sites.

Against the background of a recent resounding rejection of substantial increases in user contributions for funding long‐term residential care in Australia, and especially of measures that could require realization of housing assets, this paper examines the scope for extending to long‐term care the "pillars" approach to financing of retirement incomes and health care. The two latter areas are funded through pillars of general revenue, private insurance, social insurance by way of compulsory levies, and direct user contributions, whereas long‐term care is financed only by a large pillar of general revenue and a smaller pillar of user contributions which are themselves drawn largely from transfer payments. Examination of the various pillars in each area suggests that there is limited scope for extending private insurance and user contributions in long‐term care, but that there are several social policy grounds for incorporating a social insurance pillar. However, while discussion of social insurance options is growing in several quarters, the current political climate offers little prospect for the adoption of such a scheme.

Cover -- Contents -- Series Foreword -- Preface -- Chapter 1: Development Clusters -- 1.1 Salient Correlations -- 1.2 The Main Questions -- 1.3 Fiscal Capacity -- 1.4 Legal Capacity -- 1.5 Political Violence -- 1.6 State Spaces -- 1.7 Development Assistance -- 1.8 Political Reform -- 1.9 Main Themes -- 1.10 Final Remarks -- 1.11 Notes on the Literature -- Chapter 2: Fiscal Capacity -- 2.1 The Core Model -- 2.1.1 Basic Structure -- 2.1.2 Politically Optimal Policy -- 2.1.3 Fiscal-Capacity Investments -- 2.1.4 Normative Benchmark: A Pigouvian Planner -- 2.1.5 Three Types of States -- 2.1.6 Taking Stock -- 2.2 Developing the Model -- 2.2.1 Microfoundations for Fiscal Capacity -- 2.2.2 More General Models for Public Goods -- 2.2.3 Polarization/Heterogeneity -- 2.2.4 Income Inequality -- 2.2.5 Differences in Group Size -- 2.2.6 Tax Distortions -- 2.2.7 From Trade to Income Taxes -- 2.2.8 An Infinite-Horizon Model -- 2.3 Empirical Implications and Data -- 2.4 Final Remarks -- 2.5 Notes on the Literature -- Chapter 3: Legal Capacity -- 3.1 The Core Model with Legal Capacity -- 3.1.1 Politically Optimal Policy -- 3.1.2 Investments in State Capacity -- 3.1.3 Comparative Statics -- 3.1.4 Taking Stock -- 3.2 Developing the Model -- 3.2.1 Microeconomic Foundations -- 3.2.2 The Genius of Taxation -- 3.2.3 Private Capital Accumulation -- 3.2.4 Predation and Corruption -- 3.3 Empirical Implications and Data -- 3.4 Final Comments -- 3.5 Notes on the Literature -- Chapter 4: Political Violence -- 4.1 The Core Model with Political Violence -- 4.1.1 Model Modifications -- 4.1.2 Policy -- 4.1.3 Investments in Political Violence -- 4.1.4 Empirical Implications -- 4.2 Developing the Model -- 4.2.1 Asymmetries -- 4.2.2 Polarization, Greed, and Grievance -- 4.2.3 Anarchy -- 4.2.4 Conflict in a Predatory State -- 4.2.5 Investing in Coercive Capacity.

This article addresses the puzzle of the politics of social policy formation by two post-communist authoritarian regimes in China and Russia. It argues that two interrelated dimensions—which we term the pillars of power and policy—shape social policymaking and change in authoritarian regimes and support authoritarian regime stability. The pillar of power involves autocrats' bargains with the public and elites, while the policy pillar includes bureaucratic and ideational processes. The latter are understood as the way policy actors perceive problems, choose solutions, and frame their policy choices. To demonstrate this empirically, the article analyzes and compares Chinese and Russian housing policies between 1990 and 2020. We find that despite bureaucratic competition within the policy pillar, neoliberal policy beliefs have guided policy while statist measures served to support—in China—and deepen—in Russia—the neoliberal approach focused on private homeownership. Yet, neoliberal measures have been channeled in ways that underpinned and adjusted the authoritarian regime bargains with different segments of the public and the elite within the pillar of power. Policy framing to match social cultural ideas was used in both countries to support public acceptance of the neoliberal measures while underlining the state's care for people's housing needs.

Egypt as a developing country aims to promote sustainability among its various sectors. Noticing the need for promoting better life among local communities, as the corner stone for promoting sustainable development, the government has initiated a number of private and public attempts that aimed for utilizing the local communities as a catalyst for promoting sustainability. After 3 decades of real attempts for promoting local sustainability approaches most of the attempts has failed to achieve its objectives. The research aims to introduce an innovative practical approach that would have the ability to overcome the defined deficiencies of the existing approaches and to practically promote sustainability among local communities. The research methodology will depend on an analytical comparative analysis of the existing sustainability local communities frameworks based on which the deficiency and contributions of the current situation can be defined. Then based on theoretical analysis the research is to innovate and introduce a new approach for promoting local sustainable communities, 'Foundation and Pillars for Sustainable local communities' (FPSLC). The developed framework was then applied to Damietta Governorate as a case study where it was tested and proven. The research developed frame work is requested by the development agencies in Egypt to enable the achievement outputs and result of this research can be summarized in the formulation of the conceptual framework for sustainable development and mechanisms leading to realizing self sufficiency within the competitive industries through the introduced pillars of development.

"The transition to a globalised world is progressing rapidly, but the transition to a
sustainable one is not. Globalisation and the environment are still 'worlds apart', as a title
of a recent book says (Speth 2003). Therefore, I am grateful for the efforts undertaken to
find answers to the question of how to reach globalisation of environmental management.
I would like to start my presentation with four introductory remarks:
1. First of all, congratulations! The Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) stands for
25 years of imaginative and successful environmental research. That is quite a long
period of time; that means quite some experience. I have seen many institutes and
researchers coming during those years; quite a few of them then disappeared…Thanks,
therefore, for inviting me to this special event; and let's start for another 25 years today!
2. International advertisements of the University of Leiden used to begin with a wonderful
motive: 'The Universiteit Leiden never hesitates to push aside what is outdated or
obsolete, yet values tradition and the attainments from the past. It often has to lead the
way, and always takes a critical stance on fashion and trends'. I very much like that
motive, and intend to make it my own. 3. The first speaker at a symposium or conference should never try to give all - or even the
'final' - answers to the questions asked by the organisers. Better leave that to the other
speakers or the rapporteur. For today's event, and in view of the excellent speakers you
invited, this old wisdom should hold all the more. Instead of giving final answers, I
shall start with some observations and add a few more questions, before coming to
some possible priorities on how to proceed with global environmental management.
4. The Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) obviously is fond of 'triangles' or
'three pillars' models'. The CML is doing work (1) on Environment and Development,
(2) on Environmental Biology, and (3) on Industrial Ecology - one such triangle.
Today's symposium is also structured like a triangle or three pillars' model. The main
question of the organisers was: Should environmental problems and globalisation of
environmental management be approached in a supra-national, a multi-lateral and/or a private way?
Are these three approaches complementary or competing?" (author's abstract)