Suchergebnisse

The Personal Pension Scheme (PPS) introduced in Chile in 1981 has acquired a paradigmatic role for pension reforms in developing countries. In contrast to the significant gender gap in private pension coverage observed in other countries, in Chile women's participation in the PPS is marginally higher than men's. Using cross-section data the paper analyses the determinants of personal pension plan contribution in Chile, and their effects. It concludes that women's strong pension propensities and pension plan design explain in large part the absence of a gender gap in private pension coverage in Chile. (DSE/DÜI)

학위논문 (박사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 사회과학대학 사회복지학과, 2020. 8. 홍백의. ; This study characterizes 15 countries' pension reform trajectories and statistically examines how these pension reform trajectories affect pension effort during the CRP (Compound Reform Period 1990-2015). This study defines pension reform are either contractionary and expansionary reforms; pension effort refers to both pension expenditure and pension generosity. Conventionally, studies have often examined how socio-influential factors (e.g. socio-economic, institutional, and political factors) affect pension effort. However, these discourses have heavily emphasized contractionary pension reforms and pension expenditure, but have overlooked expansionary pension reforms and pension generosity. This study argues that the traditional retrenchment-focused approach to pension policy research is rooted largely in inherited theories of the 'Welfare State Crisis' and macro-socio-economics, that are not reflective of the recent post-industrial policy shifts occurring in the world. In particular to pension policy, in response to the 20th century old and new social risks, traditional Bismarckian and Beveridgean countries have implemented a mix of contractionary and expansionary reforms. These reforms were designed to deal with pension financial sustainability and adequacy against old-age poverty. Consequently, two primary limitations of previous studies have become apparent. The austerity-oriented and macro view of pension effort using socio-influential factors overlooks an important building block within the dynamic pension reform process. In addition, existing quantitative and qualitative studies have centered around institutions that examine pension policies from a static perspective - overlooking pension policy dynamic changes. During the CRP, pension systems have experienced two interconnected components - retrenchment and expansionary reforms - that ultimately define pension effort. Accordingly, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate how these components of dynamic pension reform affect pension effort in the context of both pension expenditure and pension generosity. This study organized expansionary and retrenchment pension reforms using ten pension reform variables based on the work Häusermann (2010): insurance (e.g. parametric pension reforms), capitalization (e.g. DB to DC shifts), targeting (e.g. means-tested), and recalibration (e.g. pension credits). In order to evaluate how these pension reforms affected pension effort, this study utilized two analytical methods: unsupervised clustering characterizes pension reform trajectories, and an LMM (Mixed Effect Model) statistically evaluates their effectiveness with respect to pension expenditure and pension generosity. Pension reforms were categorized into four pension reform clusters: labor-activated pension (LAP) reforms, extended privatization pension (EPP) reforms, latecomer structural pension (LSP) reforms, and extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms. The labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster is generally composed of advanced welfare states that experienced the highest unemployment rates and most pressing demographic changes prior to the CRP. However, their transition into the CRP has been met with significant GDP growth and high employment rates. At the same time, this cluster is facing the highest level of new social risks in regions like women's labor participation, employment in services, and economic openness. In response to both old and new social risks, most of the countries in this cluster made significant reforms meant to mitigate their effects. Various parametric pension reforms (e.g. increasing the retirement age, penalizing early retirement, etc.) encourage individuals near retirement to continue working or re-enter the workforce, thus increasing labor supply. In addition, targeting and recalibration reforms incentivize participation in the labor market by lowering pension eligibility requirements. The extended privatization pension reform (EPP) cluster is very similar in its Marco-socio-economic structure to the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster, in that it is defined by developed nations that experienced drastic macro-socio-economic changes before the CRP. However, in the CRP this cluster has the highest levels of aged 65 years and older individuals, coupled with a moderately high economic growth. Growth compared to the labor activated pension reform cluster may be lower due to this aging. When a higher proportion of a total population is elderly, a larger proportion of economic expenses must be spent on retirement care. However, another additional feature of this cluster's socio-economics is lower birth rates. Some new social risks of interest that have had a particular effect on this cluster are increasing service sector employment rates and higher economic openness. However, pension reform strategies are vastly different from the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) reform strategies. This reform cluster shifts enrollment in occupational or individual pension programs from voluntary to mandatory and these programs then work in conjunction with existing public pension systems. However, in order to compensate disadvantaged groups and unpaid workers, various expansionary pension reforms were also implemented in tandem; for example, means-tested pension benefits, tax reductions or earnings-related subsidies to employers, employees or individuals. The latecomer structural pension reform cluster (LSP) is uniquely composed of countries that had transitioned from centrally planned economies to widespread market-based economies at the inception of their original pension programs. Their transition to market based-economies was not smooth and this was reflected in their relatively slow economic growth. Structural changes are not the only facet that describes the struggles these countries have had during the CRP; demographic issues have also played an outsized role in their economies. Not only had their relative population aged, but at the same time, there was a dramatic drop in their fertility rates. New social risks have been reflected in their rising proportion of service sector employment and the swift opening of their economies. This cluster turned to structural-based reforms as a countermeasure to the ballooning pension expenditures that ensued, because of these different macro-socio-economic hardships. In order to compensate disadvantaged groups and unpaid workers, various expansionary pension reforms were also implemented in tandem with contractionary reforms (ex. targeting reform), but recalibration reforms were not implemented. The extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster (ERP), is composed of countries that demographically aged the most, and experienced the greatest long-term economic hardships because of economic crises during the CRP. Another critical issue was the decline of birth rates in these countries. New social risks have also added stress to their economic hardships with increases in atypical workers, women's labor participation rates, and serious issues with low employment rates. Under these increasing new social risks and problematic pension structures, the extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reform cluster retrenched inherited asymmetric pension systems through radical parametric reforms, then means-tested programs were additionally added to compensate low-income groups and impoverished elderly. Each pension reform clusters' socio-economic backgrounds provide insight into the underlying indicators that are correlated with their adoption of different pension reform policies. Using these pension reform clusters as independent variables, this study demonstrates that different pension reforms have diversified the existing architecture of pension effort. According to the Linear Mixed Effect Model (LMM) results, the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster statistically reduced pension expenditure relative to the reference pension reform cluster (extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster). The extended privatization pension (EPP) reform cluster significantly reduced pension generosity relative to the reference pension reform cluster (extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster). While the labor-activated pension (LAP) reform cluster maintained the highest standard pension retirement age and most restrictions on early retirement, the extended privatization pension (EPP) reform cluster created a more direct link between pension benefits and an individual's pension contributions, by shifting to mandatory enrollment in occupational or individual pension programs. This study asserts that pension reforms are the key to understanding pension effort (pension expenditure and pension generosity), and that contractionary and expansionary pension reform policies should be studied together. In addition, existing comparative studies have often excluded East-Asian countries, in particular, China, Japan, and Korea. They should be included in comparative policy analysis that will allow researchers to determine if they are empirically different, and thus compensate or address those differences more effectively in future research. In comparative social policy research, from the new institutionalism perspective, policy classifications should consider the process of policy change, from a dynamic perspective rather than static characteristics. This study suggests that policymakers may need to be concerned about each pension reform's pros and cons in the context of pension expenditure and generosity when adopting a pension reform. In future pension reforms, policymakers need to explicitly design their policies around increasing new profiles who, if not considered more carefully, are at higher risk of poverty in this post-industrialized global economy. The most sensible means of doing this is if policymakers avoid reducing benefits for these groups when legislating future pension reforms. Take Korean pension reforms as an example. Korea adopted an extensive parametric pension (ERP) reforms that may prove to be an effective way of curbing costs, while means-tested incentives provide more generous benefits to the growing population of at-risk individuals. However, extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms have a high risk of providing inadequate pension benefits to at-risk groups without seriously resolving issues with program expenditure. Since extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms do not sufficiently meet the needs of the Korean pension system, the next step is to look at alternative clusters to resolve these issues. Extended privatization pension reforms (EPP) generally supplement pension benefits by adopting a market-based pension component. However, adopting a reform from this cluster will also likely result in stagnated pension coverage, deteriorated pension benefits, and increased gender and income inequality. Adoption of a latecomer structural pension reform (LSP) (e.g. NDC) is also not realistic, because there are a large number of atypical workers in Korea (e.g. self-employed, part-time workers) who are unable to shoulder considerable financial burdens (double payment issues). This study suggests that adopting a labor-activated pension reform (LAP) may be the most effective pension strategy to strengthen Korean public pension system security. This strategy takes into account new career profiles that were previously overlooked by the system; the goal of including these workers to the system would be to reduce the occurrence of old-age poverty. ; 本论文定量比较分析了15个国家在1990-2015 (compound reform period, CRP:1990-2015)综合改革期间的养老金改革轨迹,及其对养老金努力(pension effort)的影响。本文定义了养老金改革包括消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform),养老金努力(pension effort)包括养老金支出(pension expenditure)和养老金慷慨度(pension generosity)。受"福利国家危机论"的影响,现存的大部分相关学术主要分析了宏观社会・经济因素(包括经济,政治和制度因素)对养老金政策的影响。这些研究集中在研究养老金支出而忽视了对养老金慷慨度的分析. 宏观社会经济背景及制度的遗产(institutional legacy)或历史轨迹等对养老金努力(pension effort)影响效应息息相关,但是本研究认为基于宏观理论并限定于养老金支出的传统文献没有充分的的分析到后工业社会下(post-industrialization)的养老金改革轨迹和特征。尤其是从20世纪末,为了应对新旧社会风险(old and new social risks)的压力,综合型养老金改革(compound pension reform),即消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)被纷纷采纳去同时解决养老金财政可持续性和抵御老年贫困的两个问题。本文认为传统文献在研究养老金政策的影响因素中存在两个主要局限性问题:第一,忽视了核心变量-养老金改革对老金支出(pension expenditure)和养老金慷慨度(pension generosity)的影响。第二,现有的定量和定性社会政策比较或聚类研究只从围绕静态角度(static perspective)的政策特征却忽视了政策的动态变化(policy dynamic change)。 本文以Häusermann (2010)的养老金改革理论为基础,分析了包括消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)养老金改革的十个变量:保险参数(parametric reform参数改革),市场化(例如: 从DB 改革成 DC),目标化(targeting) (例如: 经济能力审查:means-tested), 再调整(recalibration) (例如:养老金补贴: pension credits)。为了从统计学上评估分析这些养老金改革对养老金努力(pension effort)对影响效应,本文采用了两种分析方法:K均值无监督聚类分析(clustering analysis)和线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)。根据聚类分析(clustering analysis)结果,15国家在1990-2015期间的养老金改革可分为四个改革类型:劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP), 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP), 后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform, LSP),和激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP). 基于定量统计数据比较分析,线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)分析结果发现不同的改革轨迹对养老金支出和养老金慷慨度影响不同。 劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)是由发达福利国家组成,这些国家在CRP(1990-2015)之前遭遇过经济衰退和前所未有的失业率增加和人口转变问题,但是在CRP(1990-2015)的过度期间实现了GDP和就业率的总体水平回升。相比于其他的改革类型,这些国家面临着最高水平的社会新风险(new social risks): 女性劳动就业和服务性就业者不断增加。为了应对新旧社会风险(old and new social risks)和减轻养老金财政压力,这些国家采取了大力度的养老金参数改革。主要包括参数改革(例如: 延后退休, 处罚提前退休等),鼓励接近退休等人继续工作或重新加入劳动市场。此外利用扩张性的目标化(targeting)和再调整(recalibration)改革鼓励人们参与劳动市场并通过养老金水平等。 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)的宏观社会经济结构背景和劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)比较相似,但是他们的养老金改革决策却大相径庭。在CRP前期,这些国家也是经历过宏观经济巨变的发达福利国家.低生育率和最高的老年人口比例,这个改革类型的国家面临养老金支出巨大失衡的压力。另外不规则就业者(atypical worker)和服务性就业者的比例不断上升也威胁着养老金政策的长期可持续性。扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)的主要决策是通过强制性策略提高参加职业和商业养老保险并且采取相对应的公共养老金参数改革方案。扩张型改革(expansionary pension reform)主要是为了弥补弱势和底薪群体,例如,对雇主,雇员或个人就行减税并且给以适当的补贴,经济能力审查的(means-tested)养老金补贴改革也是尤为突出。 后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP)的国家在养老金改革初期经历了市场经济转型独特社会变化。特别是在市场经济转型初期经济增长还没有真正的崛起,养老金制度不仅面临经济转型的挑战,人口转变包括人口老龄化和生育率下降问题更是加剧了养老金制度的财政失衡。另外新社会风险(new social risks)和全球化更激化了服务性劳动者的增加。为了扩大政府财政来源和弥补养老金缺口,这些社会背景推动了这些国家以结构改革(structural pension reform)为主线。为弱势群体也提供一定的社会补助,例如,经济能力审查的(means-tested)养老金补贴,但是后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP)目前缺乏再调整(recalibration)的扩张型改革(expansionary pension reform)。 激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)在CRP初期临最严重的老龄化增长和经济危机带来的长期经济困难。人口转变(生育率急剧下降,老龄化进程加速)更是加剧了养老金的经济持续性问题。同时,这些国家更面临着由迅速的现代化进程所带来的挑战:服务性劳动者,女性劳动市场的参与与日俱增,就业率急剧下降等新社会风险(new social risks)。在这种社会背景下,激进消减改革型 (extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)采用了大幅度的参数改革(parametric pension reform)为消减现存的养老金财政问题。资格审核(means-tested)的社会救助被采用去补助低收入人群和老人的养老金收入。 本文把以上的四个改革类型作为自变量研究分析了各个改革类型对养老金努力(pension effort: pension expenditure, pension generosity)的影响效果。根据线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)的分析结果,相对于激进消减改革型 (extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP), 劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)有效的消减了养老金支出; 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)有效的得降低了养老金的慷慨度。相比之下,劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)维持了最高标准的养老金退休年龄和提前退休的最大限制,而扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)则是通过强制参与职业和商业退休金制度加大紧缩养老金和缴费之间的直接关系。 理论层面,第一,本研究强调养老金改革变量是理解养老金努力(pension effort)的关键。第二,1990年以来的养老金改革应该同时考虑消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)。第三,从新制度主义的理论角度来看,社会政策比较更应该考虑动态政策变化(pension dynamic change),不应该只限于静态视角(static perspective)的政策特征。第四,传统的社会政策比较研究文献经常忽略了东亚国家,比如,中国,日本和韩国。本文认为,尤其是比较研究更应该把这些国家包括在内因为通过比较可以更有效的分析这些制度改革决策的差异性。 政策层面,在制定养老金改革方案时需要同时考虑改革对养老金支出和养老金慷慨度影响的利弊。考虑到后工业化所带来的新风险和现存的旧社会风险,在未来的养老金改革方案中养老金长期可持续性需要要均衡养老金支出可持续性和慷慨度。以韩国养老金改革为例,激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)可能有助于控制养老金支出,另外经济审查性的社会补助(means-tested)是可以填充贫穷老人的养老金水平;但是其改革方案很可能让高风险群体(ex. atypical workers, lower-income)面临养老金严重不足的问题。由于激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)不能充分满足韩国养老金制度的需求,本文总结分析了其他三个改革方案的可取性。扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)方案主要是通过市场养老金组成部分来补充养老金福利慷慨水平,但是此改革方案可能导致韩国养老金覆盖率停滞,并恶化高风险群体(ex. atypical workers, lower-income group)的养老金慷慨度并且加剧性别福利水平不平等等问题。后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP) (ex. NDC) 方案对于韩国的现状更不现实。由于韩国的独特的工业及劳动市场结构,绝大部分的非典型就业者 (atypical workers) 会很难负担双重付费 (double payment issue) 问题。采用劳动激励改革型 (labor-activated pension reform, LAP) 方案可以加固韩国的公共养老金体系并有效的提高新型职业 (new career profiles) 人员的养老金覆盖率且减少老年贫困。 ; 본 연구는 15개 국가를 대상으로 1990-2015년 사이 발생한 다양한 연금개혁의 궤적을 군집화하고 이러한 연금개혁궤적 군집이 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석하고자 한다. 본 연구에서 연금개혁은 축소개혁(Contractionary Reform) 과 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 동시에 고려하며 연금노력(Pension Effort)은 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)과 연금관대성 (Pension Generosity)을 나타낸다. "복지국가의 위기론"의 영향으로 기존 대부분의 연구들은 연금노력(Pension Effort)과 관련하여 주로 거시적 관점에서사회・경제・정치 영향 요인이 연금지출에 미치는 영향에 대해서만 분석이 이뤄졌다. 특히 핵심적 연금정책수단인 연금개혁에 대한 연구가 부족했으며 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 연금관대성을 살펴본 연구는 많지 않았다. 또한 실질적으로 전통적인 "복지국가 축소론"을 기반으로 분석한 연구들은 脫산업화로 인해 복지정책의 다양한 변화 및 특징을 충분히 포착하지 못했다. 지난 20세기말부터 舊사회위험(Old Social Risk) 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk)을 동시에 대응하기 위해 많은 국가들은 연금제도의 지속가능성 개선을 위해 축소개혁(Contractionary Reform)뿐만 아니라 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)도 같이 도입했다. 다시 말해, 기존의 연구들은 크게 두 가지 한계점을 뚜렷하게 나타내고 있었다. 첫째, 거시적 관점에서 분석한 기존연구들은 사회・경제・제도적 영향 요인이 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 미치는 영향과 연금관대성에 대해 연구가 부족하다. 또한 가장 중요한 영향요인 변수인 연금개혁에 대해 분석하지 못했다. 둘째, 기존의 질적 및 양적 비교정책연구들은 주로 연금제도의 정태적(靜態的) 특성만 포착했으며 동태적(動態的) 개혁과정에 대한 연구가 부족했다. 따라서, 동태적(動態的)인 연금개혁이 연금지출과 연금관대성에 대해 어떤 영향을 미치는가에 대한 연구가 시급하고 중요하다. 본 연구는 Häusermann (2010)의 연금개혁을 이론적 기반으로10가지 연금개혁 변수를 포함하며 15개 국가를 대상으로 26년 동안 연금개혁궤적에 대해 분석하고자 한다. 구체적으로 연금개혁 변수는 주로 보험(Insurance), 적립화(Capitalization) (예: DB에서 DC로 전환), 표적화(Targeting) (예: Means-Tested)과 再조준화(Recalibration) (예: 연금크레딧 혹은 교육크레딧)를 포함한다. 우선, 군집분석(Cluster Analysis)을 통해서 다양한 축소 및 확장 연금개혁을 연금개혁궤적으로 규명하였고, 선형혼합효과모형 (Linear Mixed Effect Model, LMM)을 통해 각 연금개혁궤적이 연금노력(Pension Effort), 즉 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)과 연금관대성(Pension Generosity)에 대한 영향을 분석하였다. 분석결과에 따라, 4가지 연금개혁 궤적 유형으로 구분할 수 있다: 노동활성화개혁(Labor-Activated Pension, LAP), 민영화확장개혁(Extended Privatization Pension, EPP)개혁, 후발구조적개혁(Latecomer Structural Pension, LSP) 그리고 긴축연금개혁(Extensive Retrenchment Pension, ERP). 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은CRP(1990-2015) 기간 이전의 매우 높은 실업률과 급진적인 인구학적 변화를 겪은 선진 복지국가로 구성되어 있다. CRP(1990-2015)기간에 진입하여 GDP 성장과 고용률 증가세를 점차적으로 확인할 수 있지만 新사회위험(New Social risk)에 가장 심각한 국면을 직면하고 있었다. 예를 들어, 높은 여성의 노동시장 참가율, 높은 세계화 지수 및 서비스업의 증가 등 있다. 이러한 舊사회위험(Old Social Risk) 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk)을 대응하기 위해 대부분 국가들은 다양한 모수적연금개혁을 실시했다. 특히 은퇴에 근접한 연령인 개인들은 계속 노동시장에 남을 수 있도록 많은 연금개혁을 노력해왔다. 예를 들어, 은퇴연령을 높이고 조기은퇴 연령 축소 및 조기은퇴의 감액을 강화하여 노동시장 참여를 유발하기 위한 많은 연금개혁을 했다. 동시에 표적화(Targeting)와 再조준화(Recalibration)등 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 통해 연금 수급여건을 낮춤으로써 서비스업을 비롯한 저임금 노동자들의 노동시장 참여를 장려하기 위한 개혁을 실시하였다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 거시적 사회경제 변화를 경험한 선진국으로 노동활성화개혁(LAP) 클러스터와 비슷한 거시적 사회변화 구조를 경험하였다. 이 클러스터는 CRP(1990-2015) 기간에 높은 서비스업 취업률과 더 높은 경제적 개방성을 나타낸다. 또한 65세 이상 인구 비율이 가장 높고 저출산 문제를 함께 경험하고 있다. 연금개혁 전략은 노동활성화개혁(LAP)의 채택 전략과 뚜렷한 차이가 존재하고 있다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 직업 또는 개인연금의 가입을 자발적 가입에서 강제가입으로 확정하며 기존 공적연금시스템에 대한 축소개혁을 함께 진행해왔다. 저임금 노동자를 보상화기 위하여 자산조사 (Means-Test)를 통해 연금 혜택이나 연금 크레딧 (Pension Credit)과 같은 다양한 확장연금개혁(Expansionary Reform)도 이뤄졌다. 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 기존의 연금제도는 중앙계획경제에서 광범위한 시장경제로의 이행을 경험한 국가들로 이루어졌다는 독특한 성격을 지닌다. 이러한 국가가 시장경제로 전환한 초기에는 비교적 느리게 경제가 성장하였으며 거시 경제적 전환뿐만 아니라 인구 구조적인 변화도 같이 직면하고 있었다. 또한 빠른 시장경제개방과 脫산업화로 인해 산업구조도 급격한 변화를 겪고 있기 때문에 기존의 연금제도의 골격을 유지하기 힘든 조건에 직면하고 있다. 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 이처럼 다양한 거시 사회경제적 구조변화로 인해 급등한 연금비용 지출에 대한 대책으로 구조적개혁을 선택하였다. 취약한 집단을 보상하기 위해 여러 표적화(Targeting)와 같은 확장 연금개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 했지만 再조준화(Recalibration) 개혁은 아직 도입되지 않았다. 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 가장 빠른 고령화를 겪었으며 출산율이 급격히 하락한 것을 경험하고 있는 국가로 구성되었다. 新사회위험(New Social Risk) 역시 비정규직 노동자, 여성 노동시장 참여율 그리고 낮은 취업률을 포함하는 심각한 사회 및 경제적 어려움을 겪고 있다. 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 이처럼 점차 늘어나는 新사회위험 (New Social Risk)과 전통적인 '고급여, 저분담' 연금구조의 어려움에 직면하기 때문에 포괄적인 모수개혁을 통해 기존의 관대한 연금시스템을 축소하려고 한다. 저소득 집단과 고령 빈곤층에 대한 자산조사 (Means-test) 와 같은 표적화 (Targeting) 개혁을 통해 노후소득보장의 보조적 역할을 추가하였다. 본 연구는 위에 도출한 4가지 연금개혁 클러스터를 독립변수로 혼합효과모형(Linear Mixed Effect Model, LMM)에 투입하여 각 연금개혁이 연금노력 (Pension Effort)에 대해 통계적으로 분석하였다. 분석결과, 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)에 비해 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은 통계적으로 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)을 감소시켰으며, 반면에 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 연금관대성(Pension Generosity)을 통계적으로 감소시켰다. 노동활성화개혁(LAP)의 연금개혁 특징을 보면 은퇴연령과 조기은퇴에 대해 가장 많이 강화했고, 한편 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 직업 또는 개인연금 가입을 강제가입으로 확장하여 연금 기여와 혜택 간의 더 직접적인 연결고리를 강조했다. 본 연구의 이론적 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 본 연구는 연금개혁이 연금노력 (연금 지출 및 연금 관대성)에 대한 영향의 가장 핵심적인 변수라고 강조하며 또한 연금개혁은 축소형과 확장형 연금개혁을 함께 연구해야 한다고 주장한다. 둘째, 대부분 기존의 비교연구는 중국, 일본과 한국 등 동아시아 국가들을 제외해왔다. 하지만 비교정책에서 이러한 국가들을 실증적분석을 통해 차이점을 도출하여 미래 연구에서 더 효과적으로 다룰 수 있도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 이 연구는 비교사회정책 연구의 복지정책 및 제도를 분류에 대한 정태적(靜態的)인 관점이 아닌 정책변화를 반영할 수 있는 동태적(動態的)인 관점으로 보는 것을 더 타당하며 심층적으로 분석할 수 있다고 주장한다. 정책적 함의는 다음과 같이 제시하였다. 개혁 클러스터마다 각 장단점이 존재하며 정책 입안가들은 연금개혁 정책을 도입할 때 연금지출과 연금관대성을 모두 고려해야 한다. 특히 脫산업화로 인해 일시적・장기적 실업의 증가, 비정규직고용과 여성고용의 증가 등 新사회위험 및 舊사회위험을 고려해서 미래 연금개혁에서 연금지출과 연금 관대성을 동시에 고려해야한다. 이를 신중하게 고려하지 않으면 脫산업화 이후의 저소득 및 취약계층은 더 높은 노인 빈곤에 직면할 수 있다. 한국 연금개혁의 예를 들면, 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 장기적으로 연금지출을 낮추고 또한 자산조사(Means-Test)와 같은 표적화(Targeting)개혁을 통해 사회부조형 연금으로 노인빈곤을 해소할 수 있지만 이러한 포괄적인 축소 개혁은 특히 미래 세대의 저소득층의 심각한 연금부족의 문제를 초래할 수 있다. 또 다른 세 가지 한국의 연금개혁에 대한 시사점을 다음과 같이 제시한다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 주로 개인연금 및 직업연금의 강제가입을 통해 연금의 관대성을 제고하기 때문에 이와 같은 개혁전략을 채택하면 한국의 연금의 보장성을 악화시킬 가능성이 매우 크다. 특히 비전형 노동자와 저소득층의 연금수준을 악화시킬 가능성이 매우 크다. 또한 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 한국의 연금제도의 현황에 현실적이지 않다고 본다. 한국의 독특한 산업구조 및 脫산업사회적 요구와 수요로 인해 비정규직 노동자의 증가로 많은 가입자가 이중부담(Double Payment)을 직면해야 하는 실정이다. 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은 한국의 공적연금제도를 강화하며 한국의 노인 빈곤 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk) 등 문제를 완화하는데 있어 도움이 될 수 있다고 판단한다. ; Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 The Purpose of this Study 1 1.2 Limitations of Contemporary Literature 7 1.3 Identifying Dynamic Pension Reform and Pension Effort 13 1.4 Research Scope and Research Questions 15 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 18 1.1 Pension Reform Background 19 1.1.1 Demographic Pressures 19 1.1.2 Macro-economic Pressures 24 2.1 Pension Reforms Trends and Pension Structures 27 2.1.1 Trend 1: Convergence between Bismarckian and Beveridgean Structures 28 2.1.2 Trend 2: Retrenchment of Inherited Pension Systems 41 2.1.3 Summary 43 3.1 What Influences Changes in Pension Effort? Existing Arguments 45 3.1.1 Socio-economic Factors 46 3.1.2 Institutional Factors 50 3.1.3 Political Factors 52 4.1 Pension Reform Implementation - The Linchpin of Pension Effort 59 5.1 Characterizing Pension Reform – Four Pension Reform Dimensions 63 5.1.1 Insurance 69 5.1.2 Capitalization 70 5.1.3 Targeting 71 5.1.4 Recalibration 72 6.1 Empirical Research Overview 73 7.1 Analytical Framework 79 Chapter Three: Research Methodology 81 1.1 Data and Scope 81 2.1 Operational Definition of Variables 82 2.1.1 Dependent Variables 84 2.1.2 Independent Variables 87 2.1.3 Control Variables 98 3.1 Methodology 107 3.1.1 Part One: Pension Reform Classification 110 3.1.2 Part Two: Evaluation for Pension Effort - Linear Mixed-effect Model (LMM) 114 Chapter Four: Empirical Analysis 119 1.1 Descriptive Analysis 120 1.1.1 Data 120 1.1.2 Macro-socio-economic Changes 122 1.1.3 Tendencies of Pension Expenditure and Pension Generosity 127 1.1.4 Pension Reform across Countries from 1990 to 2015 132 1.1.5 Summary 151 2.2 Cluster Analysis Results 152 2.1.1 Identifying Pension Reform Clusters 152 2.1.2 Pension Reform Cluster Descriptive Statistics 156 2.1.3 Pension Expenditure and Pension Generosity 164 3.1 Pension Reform Characteristics in Four Pension Reform Clusters 166 3.1.1 Labor-activated pension (LAP) Reforms 166 3.1.2 Extended Privatization Pension (EPP) Reforms 175 3.1.3 Latecomer Structural Pension (LSP) Reforms 190 3.1.4 Extensive Retrenchment Pension (ERP) Reforms 198 3.1.5 Summary 207 4.1 Mixed Effect Model Analytical Results 211 4.1.1 Pension Expenditure 218 4.1.2 Pension Generosity 226 Chapter Five: Conclusion 232 1.1 Research Summary of Findings 232 1.2 Theoretical Implications 235 1.3 Policy Implications 239 1.4 Research Limitations 244 References 248 Appendix A. 267 Abstract (Korean) 272 Abstract (Chinese) 278 ; Doctor

학위논문 (박사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 사회과학대학 사회복지학과, 2020. 8. 홍백의. ; This study characterizes 15 countries' pension reform trajectories and statistically examines how these pension reform trajectories affect pension effort during the CRP (Compound Reform Period 1990-2015). This study defines pension reform are either contractionary and expansionary reforms; pension effort refers to both pension expenditure and pension generosity. Conventionally, studies have often examined how socio-influential factors (e.g. socio-economic, institutional, and political factors) affect pension effort. However, these discourses have heavily emphasized contractionary pension reforms and pension expenditure, but have overlooked expansionary pension reforms and pension generosity. This study argues that the traditional retrenchment-focused approach to pension policy research is rooted largely in inherited theories of the 'Welfare State Crisis' and macro-socio-economics, that are not reflective of the recent post-industrial policy shifts occurring in the world. In particular to pension policy, in response to the 20th century old and new social risks, traditional Bismarckian and Beveridgean countries have implemented a mix of contractionary and expansionary reforms. These reforms were designed to deal with pension financial sustainability and adequacy against old-age poverty. Consequently, two primary limitations of previous studies have become apparent. The austerity-oriented and macro view of pension effort using socio-influential factors overlooks an important building block within the dynamic pension reform process. In addition, existing quantitative and qualitative studies have centered around institutions that examine pension policies from a static perspective - overlooking pension policy dynamic changes. During the CRP, pension systems have experienced two interconnected components - retrenchment and expansionary reforms - that ultimately define pension effort. Accordingly, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate how these components of dynamic pension reform affect pension effort in the context of both pension expenditure and pension generosity. This study organized expansionary and retrenchment pension reforms using ten pension reform variables based on the work Häusermann (2010): insurance (e.g. parametric pension reforms), capitalization (e.g. DB to DC shifts), targeting (e.g. means-tested), and recalibration (e.g. pension credits). In order to evaluate how these pension reforms affected pension effort, this study utilized two analytical methods: unsupervised clustering characterizes pension reform trajectories, and an LMM (Mixed Effect Model) statistically evaluates their effectiveness with respect to pension expenditure and pension generosity. Pension reforms were categorized into four pension reform clusters: labor-activated pension (LAP) reforms, extended privatization pension (EPP) reforms, latecomer structural pension (LSP) reforms, and extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms. The labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster is generally composed of advanced welfare states that experienced the highest unemployment rates and most pressing demographic changes prior to the CRP. However, their transition into the CRP has been met with significant GDP growth and high employment rates. At the same time, this cluster is facing the highest level of new social risks in regions like women's labor participation, employment in services, and economic openness. In response to both old and new social risks, most of the countries in this cluster made significant reforms meant to mitigate their effects. Various parametric pension reforms (e.g. increasing the retirement age, penalizing early retirement, etc.) encourage individuals near retirement to continue working or re-enter the workforce, thus increasing labor supply. In addition, targeting and recalibration reforms incentivize participation in the labor market by lowering pension eligibility requirements. The extended privatization pension reform (EPP) cluster is very similar in its Marco-socio-economic structure to the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster, in that it is defined by developed nations that experienced drastic macro-socio-economic changes before the CRP. However, in the CRP this cluster has the highest levels of aged 65 years and older individuals, coupled with a moderately high economic growth. Growth compared to the labor activated pension reform cluster may be lower due to this aging. When a higher proportion of a total population is elderly, a larger proportion of economic expenses must be spent on retirement care. However, another additional feature of this cluster's socio-economics is lower birth rates. Some new social risks of interest that have had a particular effect on this cluster are increasing service sector employment rates and higher economic openness. However, pension reform strategies are vastly different from the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) reform strategies. This reform cluster shifts enrollment in occupational or individual pension programs from voluntary to mandatory and these programs then work in conjunction with existing public pension systems. However, in order to compensate disadvantaged groups and unpaid workers, various expansionary pension reforms were also implemented in tandem; for example, means-tested pension benefits, tax reductions or earnings-related subsidies to employers, employees or individuals. The latecomer structural pension reform cluster (LSP) is uniquely composed of countries that had transitioned from centrally planned economies to widespread market-based economies at the inception of their original pension programs. Their transition to market based-economies was not smooth and this was reflected in their relatively slow economic growth. Structural changes are not the only facet that describes the struggles these countries have had during the CRP; demographic issues have also played an outsized role in their economies. Not only had their relative population aged, but at the same time, there was a dramatic drop in their fertility rates. New social risks have been reflected in their rising proportion of service sector employment and the swift opening of their economies. This cluster turned to structural-based reforms as a countermeasure to the ballooning pension expenditures that ensued, because of these different macro-socio-economic hardships. In order to compensate disadvantaged groups and unpaid workers, various expansionary pension reforms were also implemented in tandem with contractionary reforms (ex. targeting reform), but recalibration reforms were not implemented. The extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster (ERP), is composed of countries that demographically aged the most, and experienced the greatest long-term economic hardships because of economic crises during the CRP. Another critical issue was the decline of birth rates in these countries. New social risks have also added stress to their economic hardships with increases in atypical workers, women's labor participation rates, and serious issues with low employment rates. Under these increasing new social risks and problematic pension structures, the extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reform cluster retrenched inherited asymmetric pension systems through radical parametric reforms, then means-tested programs were additionally added to compensate low-income groups and impoverished elderly. Each pension reform clusters' socio-economic backgrounds provide insight into the underlying indicators that are correlated with their adoption of different pension reform policies. Using these pension reform clusters as independent variables, this study demonstrates that different pension reforms have diversified the existing architecture of pension effort. According to the Linear Mixed Effect Model (LMM) results, the labor-activated pension reform (LAP) cluster statistically reduced pension expenditure relative to the reference pension reform cluster (extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster). The extended privatization pension (EPP) reform cluster significantly reduced pension generosity relative to the reference pension reform cluster (extensive retrenchment pension reform cluster). While the labor-activated pension (LAP) reform cluster maintained the highest standard pension retirement age and most restrictions on early retirement, the extended privatization pension (EPP) reform cluster created a more direct link between pension benefits and an individual's pension contributions, by shifting to mandatory enrollment in occupational or individual pension programs. This study asserts that pension reforms are the key to understanding pension effort (pension expenditure and pension generosity), and that contractionary and expansionary pension reform policies should be studied together. In addition, existing comparative studies have often excluded East-Asian countries, in particular, China, Japan, and Korea. They should be included in comparative policy analysis that will allow researchers to determine if they are empirically different, and thus compensate or address those differences more effectively in future research. In comparative social policy research, from the new institutionalism perspective, policy classifications should consider the process of policy change, from a dynamic perspective rather than static characteristics. This study suggests that policymakers may need to be concerned about each pension reform's pros and cons in the context of pension expenditure and generosity when adopting a pension reform. In future pension reforms, policymakers need to explicitly design their policies around increasing new profiles who, if not considered more carefully, are at higher risk of poverty in this post-industrialized global economy. The most sensible means of doing this is if policymakers avoid reducing benefits for these groups when legislating future pension reforms. Take Korean pension reforms as an example. Korea adopted an extensive parametric pension (ERP) reforms that may prove to be an effective way of curbing costs, while means-tested incentives provide more generous benefits to the growing population of at-risk individuals. However, extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms have a high risk of providing inadequate pension benefits to at-risk groups without seriously resolving issues with program expenditure. Since extensive retrenchment pension (ERP) reforms do not sufficiently meet the needs of the Korean pension system, the next step is to look at alternative clusters to resolve these issues. Extended privatization pension reforms (EPP) generally supplement pension benefits by adopting a market-based pension component. However, adopting a reform from this cluster will also likely result in stagnated pension coverage, deteriorated pension benefits, and increased gender and income inequality. Adoption of a latecomer structural pension reform (LSP) (e.g. NDC) is also not realistic, because there are a large number of atypical workers in Korea (e.g. self-employed, part-time workers) who are unable to shoulder considerable financial burdens (double payment issues). This study suggests that adopting a labor-activated pension reform (LAP) may be the most effective pension strategy to strengthen Korean public pension system security. This strategy takes into account new career profiles that were previously overlooked by the system; the goal of including these workers to the system would be to reduce the occurrence of old-age poverty. ; 本论文定量比较分析了15个国家在1990-2015 (compound reform period, CRP:1990-2015)综合改革期间的养老金改革轨迹,及其对养老金努力(pension effort)的影响。本文定义了养老金改革包括消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform),养老金努力(pension effort)包括养老金支出(pension expenditure)和养老金慷慨度(pension generosity)。受"福利国家危机论"的影响,现存的大部分相关学术主要分析了宏观社会・经济因素(包括经济,政治和制度因素)对养老金政策的影响。这些研究集中在研究养老金支出而忽视了对养老金慷慨度的分析. 宏观社会经济背景及制度的遗产(institutional legacy)或历史轨迹等对养老金努力(pension effort)影响效应息息相关,但是本研究认为基于宏观理论并限定于养老金支出的传统文献没有充分的的分析到后工业社会下(post-industrialization)的养老金改革轨迹和特征。尤其是从20世纪末,为了应对新旧社会风险(old and new social risks)的压力,综合型养老金改革(compound pension reform),即消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)被纷纷采纳去同时解决养老金财政可持续性和抵御老年贫困的两个问题。本文认为传统文献在研究养老金政策的影响因素中存在两个主要局限性问题:第一,忽视了核心变量-养老金改革对老金支出(pension expenditure)和养老金慷慨度(pension generosity)的影响。第二,现有的定量和定性社会政策比较或聚类研究只从围绕静态角度(static perspective)的政策特征却忽视了政策的动态变化(policy dynamic change)。 本文以Häusermann (2010)的养老金改革理论为基础,分析了包括消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)养老金改革的十个变量:保险参数(parametric reform参数改革),市场化(例如: 从DB 改革成 DC),目标化(targeting) (例如: 经济能力审查:means-tested), 再调整(recalibration) (例如:养老金补贴: pension credits)。为了从统计学上评估分析这些养老金改革对养老金努力(pension effort)对影响效应,本文采用了两种分析方法:K均值无监督聚类分析(clustering analysis)和线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)。根据聚类分析(clustering analysis)结果,15国家在1990-2015期间的养老金改革可分为四个改革类型:劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP), 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP), 后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform, LSP),和激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP). 基于定量统计数据比较分析,线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)分析结果发现不同的改革轨迹对养老金支出和养老金慷慨度影响不同。 劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)是由发达福利国家组成,这些国家在CRP(1990-2015)之前遭遇过经济衰退和前所未有的失业率增加和人口转变问题,但是在CRP(1990-2015)的过度期间实现了GDP和就业率的总体水平回升。相比于其他的改革类型,这些国家面临着最高水平的社会新风险(new social risks): 女性劳动就业和服务性就业者不断增加。为了应对新旧社会风险(old and new social risks)和减轻养老金财政压力,这些国家采取了大力度的养老金参数改革。主要包括参数改革(例如: 延后退休, 处罚提前退休等),鼓励接近退休等人继续工作或重新加入劳动市场。此外利用扩张性的目标化(targeting)和再调整(recalibration)改革鼓励人们参与劳动市场并通过养老金水平等。 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)的宏观社会经济结构背景和劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)比较相似,但是他们的养老金改革决策却大相径庭。在CRP前期,这些国家也是经历过宏观经济巨变的发达福利国家.低生育率和最高的老年人口比例,这个改革类型的国家面临养老金支出巨大失衡的压力。另外不规则就业者(atypical worker)和服务性就业者的比例不断上升也威胁着养老金政策的长期可持续性。扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)的主要决策是通过强制性策略提高参加职业和商业养老保险并且采取相对应的公共养老金参数改革方案。扩张型改革(expansionary pension reform)主要是为了弥补弱势和底薪群体,例如,对雇主,雇员或个人就行减税并且给以适当的补贴,经济能力审查的(means-tested)养老金补贴改革也是尤为突出。 后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP)的国家在养老金改革初期经历了市场经济转型独特社会变化。特别是在市场经济转型初期经济增长还没有真正的崛起,养老金制度不仅面临经济转型的挑战,人口转变包括人口老龄化和生育率下降问题更是加剧了养老金制度的财政失衡。另外新社会风险(new social risks)和全球化更激化了服务性劳动者的增加。为了扩大政府财政来源和弥补养老金缺口,这些社会背景推动了这些国家以结构改革(structural pension reform)为主线。为弱势群体也提供一定的社会补助,例如,经济能力审查的(means-tested)养老金补贴,但是后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP)目前缺乏再调整(recalibration)的扩张型改革(expansionary pension reform)。 激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)在CRP初期临最严重的老龄化增长和经济危机带来的长期经济困难。人口转变(生育率急剧下降,老龄化进程加速)更是加剧了养老金的经济持续性问题。同时,这些国家更面临着由迅速的现代化进程所带来的挑战:服务性劳动者,女性劳动市场的参与与日俱增,就业率急剧下降等新社会风险(new social risks)。在这种社会背景下,激进消减改革型 (extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)采用了大幅度的参数改革(parametric pension reform)为消减现存的养老金财政问题。资格审核(means-tested)的社会救助被采用去补助低收入人群和老人的养老金收入。 本文把以上的四个改革类型作为自变量研究分析了各个改革类型对养老金努力(pension effort: pension expenditure, pension generosity)的影响效果。根据线性混合效应模型(linear mixed effect model, LMM)的分析结果,相对于激进消减改革型 (extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP), 劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)有效的消减了养老金支出; 扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)有效的得降低了养老金的慷慨度。相比之下,劳动激励改革型(labor-activated pension reform, LAP)维持了最高标准的养老金退休年龄和提前退休的最大限制,而扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)则是通过强制参与职业和商业退休金制度加大紧缩养老金和缴费之间的直接关系。 理论层面,第一,本研究强调养老金改革变量是理解养老金努力(pension effort)的关键。第二,1990年以来的养老金改革应该同时考虑消减性改革(contractionary pension reform)和扩张性改革(expansionary pension reform)。第三,从新制度主义的理论角度来看,社会政策比较更应该考虑动态政策变化(pension dynamic change),不应该只限于静态视角(static perspective)的政策特征。第四,传统的社会政策比较研究文献经常忽略了东亚国家,比如,中国,日本和韩国。本文认为,尤其是比较研究更应该把这些国家包括在内因为通过比较可以更有效的分析这些制度改革决策的差异性。 政策层面,在制定养老金改革方案时需要同时考虑改革对养老金支出和养老金慷慨度影响的利弊。考虑到后工业化所带来的新风险和现存的旧社会风险,在未来的养老金改革方案中养老金长期可持续性需要要均衡养老金支出可持续性和慷慨度。以韩国养老金改革为例,激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)可能有助于控制养老金支出,另外经济审查性的社会补助(means-tested)是可以填充贫穷老人的养老金水平;但是其改革方案很可能让高风险群体(ex. atypical workers, lower-income)面临养老金严重不足的问题。由于激进消减改革型(extensive retrenchment pension reform, ERP)不能充分满足韩国养老金制度的需求,本文总结分析了其他三个改革方案的可取性。扩展私有化改革型(extended privatization pension reform, EPP)方案主要是通过市场养老金组成部分来补充养老金福利慷慨水平,但是此改革方案可能导致韩国养老金覆盖率停滞,并恶化高风险群体(ex. atypical workers, lower-income group)的养老金慷慨度并且加剧性别福利水平不平等等问题。后发结构改革型(latecomer structural pension reform cluster, LSP) (ex. NDC) 方案对于韩国的现状更不现实。由于韩国的独特的工业及劳动市场结构,绝大部分的非典型就业者 (atypical workers) 会很难负担双重付费 (double payment issue) 问题。采用劳动激励改革型 (labor-activated pension reform, LAP) 方案可以加固韩国的公共养老金体系并有效的提高新型职业 (new career profiles) 人员的养老金覆盖率且减少老年贫困。 ; 본 연구는 15개 국가를 대상으로 1990-2015년 사이 발생한 다양한 연금개혁의 궤적을 군집화하고 이러한 연금개혁궤적 군집이 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석하고자 한다. 본 연구에서 연금개혁은 축소개혁(Contractionary Reform) 과 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 동시에 고려하며 연금노력(Pension Effort)은 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)과 연금관대성 (Pension Generosity)을 나타낸다. "복지국가의 위기론"의 영향으로 기존 대부분의 연구들은 연금노력(Pension Effort)과 관련하여 주로 거시적 관점에서사회・경제・정치 영향 요인이 연금지출에 미치는 영향에 대해서만 분석이 이뤄졌다. 특히 핵심적 연금정책수단인 연금개혁에 대한 연구가 부족했으며 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 연금관대성을 살펴본 연구는 많지 않았다. 또한 실질적으로 전통적인 "복지국가 축소론"을 기반으로 분석한 연구들은 脫산업화로 인해 복지정책의 다양한 변화 및 특징을 충분히 포착하지 못했다. 지난 20세기말부터 舊사회위험(Old Social Risk) 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk)을 동시에 대응하기 위해 많은 국가들은 연금제도의 지속가능성 개선을 위해 축소개혁(Contractionary Reform)뿐만 아니라 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)도 같이 도입했다. 다시 말해, 기존의 연구들은 크게 두 가지 한계점을 뚜렷하게 나타내고 있었다. 첫째, 거시적 관점에서 분석한 기존연구들은 사회・경제・제도적 영향 요인이 연금노력(Pension Effort)에 미치는 영향과 연금관대성에 대해 연구가 부족하다. 또한 가장 중요한 영향요인 변수인 연금개혁에 대해 분석하지 못했다. 둘째, 기존의 질적 및 양적 비교정책연구들은 주로 연금제도의 정태적(靜態的) 특성만 포착했으며 동태적(動態的) 개혁과정에 대한 연구가 부족했다. 따라서, 동태적(動態的)인 연금개혁이 연금지출과 연금관대성에 대해 어떤 영향을 미치는가에 대한 연구가 시급하고 중요하다. 본 연구는 Häusermann (2010)의 연금개혁을 이론적 기반으로10가지 연금개혁 변수를 포함하며 15개 국가를 대상으로 26년 동안 연금개혁궤적에 대해 분석하고자 한다. 구체적으로 연금개혁 변수는 주로 보험(Insurance), 적립화(Capitalization) (예: DB에서 DC로 전환), 표적화(Targeting) (예: Means-Tested)과 再조준화(Recalibration) (예: 연금크레딧 혹은 교육크레딧)를 포함한다. 우선, 군집분석(Cluster Analysis)을 통해서 다양한 축소 및 확장 연금개혁을 연금개혁궤적으로 규명하였고, 선형혼합효과모형 (Linear Mixed Effect Model, LMM)을 통해 각 연금개혁궤적이 연금노력(Pension Effort), 즉 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)과 연금관대성(Pension Generosity)에 대한 영향을 분석하였다. 분석결과에 따라, 4가지 연금개혁 궤적 유형으로 구분할 수 있다: 노동활성화개혁(Labor-Activated Pension, LAP), 민영화확장개혁(Extended Privatization Pension, EPP)개혁, 후발구조적개혁(Latecomer Structural Pension, LSP) 그리고 긴축연금개혁(Extensive Retrenchment Pension, ERP). 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은CRP(1990-2015) 기간 이전의 매우 높은 실업률과 급진적인 인구학적 변화를 겪은 선진 복지국가로 구성되어 있다. CRP(1990-2015)기간에 진입하여 GDP 성장과 고용률 증가세를 점차적으로 확인할 수 있지만 新사회위험(New Social risk)에 가장 심각한 국면을 직면하고 있었다. 예를 들어, 높은 여성의 노동시장 참가율, 높은 세계화 지수 및 서비스업의 증가 등 있다. 이러한 舊사회위험(Old Social Risk) 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk)을 대응하기 위해 대부분 국가들은 다양한 모수적연금개혁을 실시했다. 특히 은퇴에 근접한 연령인 개인들은 계속 노동시장에 남을 수 있도록 많은 연금개혁을 노력해왔다. 예를 들어, 은퇴연령을 높이고 조기은퇴 연령 축소 및 조기은퇴의 감액을 강화하여 노동시장 참여를 유발하기 위한 많은 연금개혁을 했다. 동시에 표적화(Targeting)와 再조준화(Recalibration)등 확장개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 통해 연금 수급여건을 낮춤으로써 서비스업을 비롯한 저임금 노동자들의 노동시장 참여를 장려하기 위한 개혁을 실시하였다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 거시적 사회경제 변화를 경험한 선진국으로 노동활성화개혁(LAP) 클러스터와 비슷한 거시적 사회변화 구조를 경험하였다. 이 클러스터는 CRP(1990-2015) 기간에 높은 서비스업 취업률과 더 높은 경제적 개방성을 나타낸다. 또한 65세 이상 인구 비율이 가장 높고 저출산 문제를 함께 경험하고 있다. 연금개혁 전략은 노동활성화개혁(LAP)의 채택 전략과 뚜렷한 차이가 존재하고 있다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 직업 또는 개인연금의 가입을 자발적 가입에서 강제가입으로 확정하며 기존 공적연금시스템에 대한 축소개혁을 함께 진행해왔다. 저임금 노동자를 보상화기 위하여 자산조사 (Means-Test)를 통해 연금 혜택이나 연금 크레딧 (Pension Credit)과 같은 다양한 확장연금개혁(Expansionary Reform)도 이뤄졌다. 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 기존의 연금제도는 중앙계획경제에서 광범위한 시장경제로의 이행을 경험한 국가들로 이루어졌다는 독특한 성격을 지닌다. 이러한 국가가 시장경제로 전환한 초기에는 비교적 느리게 경제가 성장하였으며 거시 경제적 전환뿐만 아니라 인구 구조적인 변화도 같이 직면하고 있었다. 또한 빠른 시장경제개방과 脫산업화로 인해 산업구조도 급격한 변화를 겪고 있기 때문에 기존의 연금제도의 골격을 유지하기 힘든 조건에 직면하고 있다. 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 이처럼 다양한 거시 사회경제적 구조변화로 인해 급등한 연금비용 지출에 대한 대책으로 구조적개혁을 선택하였다. 취약한 집단을 보상하기 위해 여러 표적화(Targeting)와 같은 확장 연금개혁(Expansionary Reform)을 했지만 再조준화(Recalibration) 개혁은 아직 도입되지 않았다. 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 가장 빠른 고령화를 겪었으며 출산율이 급격히 하락한 것을 경험하고 있는 국가로 구성되었다. 新사회위험(New Social Risk) 역시 비정규직 노동자, 여성 노동시장 참여율 그리고 낮은 취업률을 포함하는 심각한 사회 및 경제적 어려움을 겪고 있다. 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 이처럼 점차 늘어나는 新사회위험 (New Social Risk)과 전통적인 '고급여, 저분담' 연금구조의 어려움에 직면하기 때문에 포괄적인 모수개혁을 통해 기존의 관대한 연금시스템을 축소하려고 한다. 저소득 집단과 고령 빈곤층에 대한 자산조사 (Means-test) 와 같은 표적화 (Targeting) 개혁을 통해 노후소득보장의 보조적 역할을 추가하였다. 본 연구는 위에 도출한 4가지 연금개혁 클러스터를 독립변수로 혼합효과모형(Linear Mixed Effect Model, LMM)에 투입하여 각 연금개혁이 연금노력 (Pension Effort)에 대해 통계적으로 분석하였다. 분석결과, 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)에 비해 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은 통계적으로 연금지출(Pension Expenditure)을 감소시켰으며, 반면에 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 연금관대성(Pension Generosity)을 통계적으로 감소시켰다. 노동활성화개혁(LAP)의 연금개혁 특징을 보면 은퇴연령과 조기은퇴에 대해 가장 많이 강화했고, 한편 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 직업 또는 개인연금 가입을 강제가입으로 확장하여 연금 기여와 혜택 간의 더 직접적인 연결고리를 강조했다. 본 연구의 이론적 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 본 연구는 연금개혁이 연금노력 (연금 지출 및 연금 관대성)에 대한 영향의 가장 핵심적인 변수라고 강조하며 또한 연금개혁은 축소형과 확장형 연금개혁을 함께 연구해야 한다고 주장한다. 둘째, 대부분 기존의 비교연구는 중국, 일본과 한국 등 동아시아 국가들을 제외해왔다. 하지만 비교정책에서 이러한 국가들을 실증적분석을 통해 차이점을 도출하여 미래 연구에서 더 효과적으로 다룰 수 있도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 이 연구는 비교사회정책 연구의 복지정책 및 제도를 분류에 대한 정태적(靜態的)인 관점이 아닌 정책변화를 반영할 수 있는 동태적(動態的)인 관점으로 보는 것을 더 타당하며 심층적으로 분석할 수 있다고 주장한다. 정책적 함의는 다음과 같이 제시하였다. 개혁 클러스터마다 각 장단점이 존재하며 정책 입안가들은 연금개혁 정책을 도입할 때 연금지출과 연금관대성을 모두 고려해야 한다. 특히 脫산업화로 인해 일시적・장기적 실업의 증가, 비정규직고용과 여성고용의 증가 등 新사회위험 및 舊사회위험을 고려해서 미래 연금개혁에서 연금지출과 연금 관대성을 동시에 고려해야한다. 이를 신중하게 고려하지 않으면 脫산업화 이후의 저소득 및 취약계층은 더 높은 노인 빈곤에 직면할 수 있다. 한국 연금개혁의 예를 들면, 긴축형연금개혁(ERP)은 장기적으로 연금지출을 낮추고 또한 자산조사(Means-Test)와 같은 표적화(Targeting)개혁을 통해 사회부조형 연금으로 노인빈곤을 해소할 수 있지만 이러한 포괄적인 축소 개혁은 특히 미래 세대의 저소득층의 심각한 연금부족의 문제를 초래할 수 있다. 또 다른 세 가지 한국의 연금개혁에 대한 시사점을 다음과 같이 제시한다. 민영화확장개혁(EPP)은 주로 개인연금 및 직업연금의 강제가입을 통해 연금의 관대성을 제고하기 때문에 이와 같은 개혁전략을 채택하면 한국의 연금의 보장성을 악화시킬 가능성이 매우 크다. 특히 비전형 노동자와 저소득층의 연금수준을 악화시킬 가능성이 매우 크다. 또한 후발구조적개혁(LSP)은 한국의 연금제도의 현황에 현실적이지 않다고 본다. 한국의 독특한 산업구조 및 脫산업사회적 요구와 수요로 인해 비정규직 노동자의 증가로 많은 가입자가 이중부담(Double Payment)을 직면해야 하는 실정이다. 노동활성화개혁(LAP)은 한국의 공적연금제도를 강화하며 한국의 노인 빈곤 및 新사회위험(New Social Risk) 등 문제를 완화하는데 있어 도움이 될 수 있다고 판단한다. ; Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 The Purpose of this Study 1 1.2 Limitations of Contemporary Literature 7 1.3 Identifying Dynamic Pension Reform and Pension Effort 13 1.4 Research Scope and Research Questions 15 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 18 1.1 Pension Reform Background 19 1.1.1 Demographic Pressures 19 1.1.2 Macro-economic Pressures 24 2.1 Pension Reforms Trends and Pension Structures 27 2.1.1 Trend 1: Convergence between Bismarckian and Beveridgean Structures 28 2.1.2 Trend 2: Retrenchment of Inherited Pension Systems 41 2.1.3 Summary 43 3.1 What Influences Changes in Pension Effort? Existing Arguments 45 3.1.1 Socio-economic Factors 46 3.1.2 Institutional Factors 50 3.1.3 Political Factors 52 4.1 Pension Reform Implementation - The Linchpin of Pension Effort 59 5.1 Characterizing Pension Reform – Four Pension Reform Dimensions 63 5.1.1 Insurance 69 5.1.2 Capitalization 70 5.1.3 Targeting 71 5.1.4 Recalibration 72 6.1 Empirical Research Overview 73 7.1 Analytical Framework 79 Chapter Three: Research Methodology 81 1.1 Data and Scope 81 2.1 Operational Definition of Variables 82 2.1.1 Dependent Variables 84 2.1.2 Independent Variables 87 2.1.3 Control Variables 98 3.1 Methodology 107 3.1.1 Part One: Pension Reform Classification 110 3.1.2 Part Two: Evaluation for Pension Effort - Linear Mixed-effect Model (LMM) 114 Chapter Four: Empirical Analysis 119 1.1 Descriptive Analysis 120 1.1.1 Data 120 1.1.2 Macro-socio-economic Changes 122 1.1.3 Tendencies of Pension Expenditure and Pension Generosity 127 1.1.4 Pension Reform across Countries from 1990 to 2015 132 1.1.5 Summary 151 2.2 Cluster Analysis Results 152 2.1.1 Identifying Pension Reform Clusters 152 2.1.2 Pension Reform Cluster Descriptive Statistics 156 2.1.3 Pension Expenditure and Pension Generosity 164 3.1 Pension Reform Characteristics in Four Pension Reform Clusters 166 3.1.1 Labor-activated pension (LAP) Reforms 166 3.1.2 Extended Privatization Pension (EPP) Reforms 175 3.1.3 Latecomer Structural Pension (LSP) Reforms 190 3.1.4 Extensive Retrenchment Pension (ERP) Reforms 198 3.1.5 Summary 207 4.1 Mixed Effect Model Analytical Results 211 4.1.1 Pension Expenditure 218 4.1.2 Pension Generosity 226 Chapter Five: Conclusion 232 1.1 Research Summary of Findings 232 1.2 Theoretical Implications 235 1.3 Policy Implications 239 1.4 Research Limitations 244 References 248 Appendix A. 267 Abstract (Korean) 272 Abstract (Chinese) 278 ; Doctor

The pension structures of the Nordic countries are often described as statist structures. Generous public pensions are supposedly crowding out private pension alternatives (including occupational pensions). It is argued that these systems unite the pension-political interests of workers and marginal groups resulting in stable "pension regimes". This paper questions these statements. It argues that old political tensions are "built into" the institutional designs of the Nordic pension systems. There is a general tendency away from flat-rate "universal" pension arrangements toward dual systems in which the working population receives earnings-related pensions and the non-working (marginal groups) receive means-tested benefits. This development fits in with Gordons (1988) hypothesis that a convergence process is taking place in industrialized countries toward "two-tier" systems. High tax levels, gloomy demographic forecasts and increased competition at the world market have led the Nordic countries to consider cutbacks in their public pension systems. Tax subsidies to occupational and individual pension plans have also been cut back, partly to increase government revenue and partly to create increased competition in the markets for different types of financial assets. Recent changes in regulation policies also aims at creating increased competition in the private pension sector. If this trend prevails, a larger and more diversified private pension sector is likely to emerge in the Nordic countries in the future.

The Pensions Commission is to make its recommendations on pension policy reform later this year, in the light of comments on the challenges identified in its first Report. Widespread agreement on the need for such reform is partly a consequence of problems which have already surfaced, such as the insolvency of some pension schemes, moves to curtail benefits and mis-selling scandals. However the main impetus comes from the fact, clearly demonstrated by the Pensions Commission (2004), that for pensioners to enjoy the current relative standard of living in fifty years time will require people either to (i) retire later (ii) save more; or (iii) pay higher taxes. In the Commission's view the key issues are to find a consensus on the appropriate combination of these three, or of the alternative of lower pensioner incomes, and to find ways of bringing about such an outcome. We focus on aspects of such a reform and suggest one measure which could be implemented without further ado.