Suchergebnisse

The 2008 financial market crisis, followed by the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises in several EU countries have triggered drastic reforms of old-age security systems. They were supposed to ensure the financial viability of public pension schemes in the short and long run and/or to realize notions of intergenerational fairness. Most urgently, however, was regaining room for fiscal manoeuvre and obtaining financial aid from supranational organizations (such as IMF or EU). These pension reforms differ from previous changes with regard to their scope and the political process. (1) They were large, thus causing a substantial and immediate impact on the living conditions of present and future retirees and, sometimes, changed the hitherto pursued policy direction. (2) The post-2008 reforms swiftly passed the legislative process and were implemented at short notice. Hence, they can be considered as "rapid policy changes". This paper analyses pension reforms in eight crisis-shaken EU countries: Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, and Spain. It explores both reform contents and circumstances which led to the respective changes or facilitated them. As is shown, the challenges, which those countries were (or still are) confronted with, allowed or enforced alterations that would not have been feasible otherwise, or which would rather not have been initiated by the respective governments with regard to the political consequences. Moreover, cross-national comparison reveals similarities and differences and also sheds light on the social consequences that are already visible today.

Die Finanzmarktkrise von 2008 und in deren Gefolge die "Große Rezession" sowie Staatsschuldenkrisen in verschiedenen EU-Ländern haben einschneidende Reformen der Alterssicherungssysteme ausgelöst, die die Finanzierung der Renten kurz- und langfristig sicherstellen, fiskalischen Manövrierspielraum wieder erweitern bzw. den Zugang zu Kredithilfen ermöglichen oder Vorstellungen von Generationengerechtigkeit realisieren sollen. Fast ausschließlich handelt es sich um Einschränkungen mit teilweise drastischen und unmittelbaren Auswirkungen auf die Lebensbedingungen der jetzigen und künftigen Rentenbezieher. Betrachtet werden die Reformen in neun EU-Ländern: Griechenland, Großbritannien, Irland, Italien, Lettland, Portugal, Rumänien, Spanien und Ungarn. Dabei geht es um die Inhalte dieser Reformen und die Umstände, die jeweils zu diesen Veränderungen geführt bzw. sie ermöglicht haben. Gezeigt wird, dass die Herausforderungen, mit denen diese Länder konfrontiert waren (oder sind), einschneidende Veränderungen erlaubten bzw. erzwangen, die ansonsten kaum durchsetzbar gewesen oder in Anbetracht der politischen Konsequenzen von den jeweiligen Regierungen so nicht in Angriff genommen worden wären. Weiterhin werden im Ländervergleich die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede beleuchtet sowie nach den bislang erkennbaren sozialen Konsequenzen gefragt.

One feature of recent pension reforms in OECD countries has been that more individual responsibility is transferred to employees and in particular to those approaching the end of their working life. Enlarged freedom of choice concerns the timing of retirement with corresponding consequences for the level of public pensions as well as the participation in supplementary pension schemes and subsequent decisions about investment of savings, take out of benefits etc. Within such changed framework individual retirement planning becomes more complex and risky. Starting from the question why the government is in the pension businessʺ at all, the paper explores the reasons (and the extent) of enlarging freedom of choice in four countries where major pension reforms have recently taken place (Finland, Germany, Sweden) or are entering the agenda (Norway). The risks of increased self-responsibility with regard to provision for old age are analyzed in general, and the concrete policy changes are evaluated comparatively in view of respective institutional legacies and current challenges and conflicts.

AbstractDuring the last 30 years, all European Union member states have reformed their pension systems. In view of ongoing and intensifying population aging, efforts have aimed at containing the future rise of the contribution rate, improving the system dependency ratio, lowering the benefit ratio and/or infusing tax money or other financial resources into the system. Moreover, since about the early 2000s, we can observe a move towards a multi‐pillar pension system in countries hitherto running a dominant‐pillar system: private pre‐funded occupational pensions and individual provision for old age are given larger roles within the public–private mix of retirement income. An analysis of reforms shows a finite menu of adjustment options, and concrete measures have to be adapted to nation‐specific institutional contexts. Finally, we can conclude that pension reforms focusing on long‐term financial sustainability may increase the risk of old‐age poverty and, thus, violate a central objective of pension schemes.

The 2008 financial market crisis, followed by the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises in several EU countries have triggered drastic reforms of old-age security systems. They were supposed to ensure the financial viability of public pension schemes in the short and long run and/or to realize notions of intergenerational fairness. Most urgently, however, was regaining room for fiscal manoeuvre and obtaining financial aid from supranational organizations (such as IMF or EU). These pension reforms differ from previous changes with regard to their scope and the political process. (1) They were large, thus causing a substantial and immediate impact on the living conditions of present and future retirees and, sometimes, changed the hitherto pursued policy direction. (2) The post-2008 reforms swiftly passed the legislative process and were implemented at short notice. Hence, they can be considered as "rapid policy changes". This paper analyses pension reforms in eight crisis-shaken EU countries: Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, and Spain. It explores both reform contents and circumstances which led to the respective changes or facilitated them. As is shown, the challenges, which those countries were (or still are) confronted with, allowed or enforced alterations that would not have been feasible otherwise, or which would rather not have been initiated by the respective governments with regard to the political consequences. Moreover, cross-national comparison reveals similarities and differences and also sheds light on the social consequences that are already visible today. ; Die Finanzmarktkrise von 2008 und in deren Gefolge die Große Rezession sowie Staatsschuldenkrisen in verschiedenen EU-Ländern haben einschneidende Reformen der Alterssicherungssysteme ausgelöst, welche die Finanzierung der Renten kurz- und langfristig sicherstellen und/ oder Vorstellungen von Generationengerechtigkeit realisieren sollen. Dringlicher war es jedoch, den fiskalischen Manövrierspielraum wieder zu erweitern und Kredithilfen von internationalen Geldgebern (IWF, EU) zu erlangen. Diese Rentenreformen unterschieden sich von früheren im Hinblick auf den Umfang und den politischen Prozess. (1) Sie waren groß, zeitigten demzufolge eine signifikante und unmittelbare Wirkung auf die Lebensbedingungen der jetzigen und künftigen Rentenbezieher, und manchmal wurde auch die bis dahin verfolgte Politikausrichtung verändert. (2) Die nach 2008 erfolgten Reformen passierten rasch den Gesetzgebungsprozess und wurden ohne lange Übergangsfristen umgesetzt. In diesem Papier werden die Rentenreformen in acht krisengeschüttelten EU-Ländern betrachtet, nämlich Griechenland, Irland, Italien, Lettland, Portugal, Rumänien, Spanien und Ungarn. Dabei geht es um die Inhalte dieser Reformen und die Umstände, die jeweils zu diesen Veränderungen geführt bzw. sie ermöglicht haben. Gezeigt wird, dass die Herausforderungen, mit denen diese Länder konfrontiert waren (oder sind), einschneidende Veränderungen erlaubten bzw. erzwangen, die ansonsten kaum durchsetzbar gewesen oder in Anbetracht der politischen Konsequenzen von den jeweiligen Regierungen so nicht in Angriff genommen worden wären. Weiterhin werden im Ländervergleich die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede beleuchtet sowie nach den bislang erkennbaren sozialen Konsequenzen gefragt.

Active and passive labour market policy in Germany has been reformed by a series of laws implemented between 2003 and 2005. This article focuses on the fundamental and most controversial change of income support for unemployed people. The so-called Hartz IV reform had grave implications for many of those who were long-term unemployed and came at a high price for the then incumbent coalition government of Social Democrats and the Green Party, eventually leading to premature federal elections in September 2005. Although the labour market situation started to improve in 2006, it remains unclear whether and to what extent declining unemployment figures are in fact due to the recent labour market reforms.