Search Results

This comparative chapter by Ebbinghaus and Neugschwender discusses the institutional differences in the public–private mix, distinguishing mature from emerging multipillar systems and hybrid from dominantly public pension systems. It focuses on exploring the interaction between income inequalities in working life and pension system features for old age income. In particular, it considers the first tier of minimum income support, the public and private second-tier earnings-related pensions, and the particularities of private pensions. The empirical analysis compares poverty rates over time and across countries, discussing the impact of public pensions. The further analysis reveals variations in the recipient rate and income share of private supplementary pensions among the elderly. The importance of mandatory or negotiated occupational pensions in order to reduce inequality in multipillar pension systems is evident in addition to the role of public minimum income protection for poverty reduction.

The introductory chapter discusses the need for studying the changing public–private pension mix and the governance and regulation of private (occupational and personal) pensions. Public pension systems with pay-as-you-go financing have not only come under pressure due to demographic and socio-economic changes but also the recent financial crisis has challenged funded private pensions. Mapping the main features of the public–private pension mix of the selected ten European countries, the chapter gives an overview of the content of the country chapters, drawing some lessons from their varied experiences. The introduction also sketches the main topics of the three comparative studies on the changing public–private pension mix, the varieties of pension governance and regulation as well as the poverty and inequality patterns emerging from the different pension systems.

This chapter by Ebbinghaus and Gronwald provides a comparative historical analysis mapping the cross-national institutional diversity in the evolution of pension systems in ten European countries. Analysing the long-term development, it describes the way in which institutional arrangements in private pensions evolved over time and interact with public pension reforms. The process of institutional change is examined by analysing critical junctures in the public–private pension mix. First, the early legacy and path-dependent post-war dynamics in public pension development are sketched, contrasting Bismarckian social insurance and Beveridge basic pension traditions. The second juncture compares successful versus belated or even failed expansion of public pensions to secure living standards in old age, and its consequences for crowding out private pensions. Finally, the more recent pension reforms led towards a multipillar pension system, in some cases retrenchment of public pensions and privatization efforts are crowding in funded private pensions.

Finland's pension system consists of income-tested ‘national pensions’ and statutory employment-related pensions. The latter are ‘hybrid’ public–private pensions that were legislated in the 1960s and partly funded through private insurance companies, while employers and trade unions participate in their administration. There is a strong corporatist element: the social partners have been owners of the statutory schemes, therefore they channelled improvements through ‘their’ own schemes, not via voluntary private pensions as elsewhere. Since the mandatory employment-related pensions are income-related with no ceilings, the high-income earners have had no incentives to contract voluntary supplementary pensions. However, this is changing through piecemeal institutional change: as statutory pension promises are cut back, an expansion of voluntary occupational and individual pensions occurs.

Pension systems have been, and continue to be, the largest part of social protection spending, not least due to demographic ageing. Given ‘blame avoidance’ strategies of politicians, there is not much opportunity for a ‘new’ welfare system with respect to the entrenched policy area of pensions. However, many changes have altered the welfare system for the elderly towards a more privatized, partly funded, less secure and more delayed income support in old age. Adopting a comparative perspective, the chapter discusses four transformative changes in pension systems across Europe that considerably alters the welfare system for the elderly. First, the shifts from public to private responsibility are discussed. Second, the variations in pension fund capitalism are compared as is the differential impact of the recent financial crisis. Third, a paradigm shift also occurred through attempts to reverse the trend towards early retirement and the postponed exit from work. Fourth, the increased reliance on employment-related or defined-contribution benefits will increase the risk of poverty and increase inequality in old age, given the new social risks concerning employment chances. The retreat of the state from its old age protection goal may increase the pressures for its increased role in securing and regulating old age income provision in old age.

This chapter provides an extended look at health politics and the health system in Portugal, characterized by overlapping tiers of coverage including a national health service. The chapter traces the historical development of the Portuguese healthcare system through a series of regime changes, particularly the transition from conservative dictatorship to democracy beginning in 1974. Since the 1979 foundation of the National Health Service, the main issues facing the health system have been the relationship between public and private provision of services and the system’s fiscal solvency. A 1989 constitutional revision, which redefined healthcare from being a constitutional right to universal free healthcare to one which “tended towards” no cost at the time of treatment and was based on individuals’ particular social and economic situation, shifted the system away from universalism, removed obstacles to privatization, and allowed the introduction of other forms of market mechanisms. As the chapter argues, though left and right political parties have differed in their approaches, actors in health politics seem to have largely agreed to move in the direction of a public–private mix of service providers.

The conclusion reports major findings and discusses possible cross-country patterns. It shows that war’s impact on welfare state development can be differentiated into several distinct conclusions, each highlighting specific effects or causal mechanisms. Next, the case study evidence of the long-term effects of war is confirmed with quantitative data. For a sample of eighteen countries (thirteen of which are presented in this volume) war is shown to contribute to a better understanding of several of the phenomena lying at the heart of comparative welfare state research (i.e. social expenditure, benefit generosity, the public–private mix in provision, and the timing of legislation). The impact on outcomes such as income inequality is briefly discussed, along with the impact of the Cold War on welfare state development. Due to changes in warfare and the size of the existing welfare state, the effect of war on welfare state-building has all but disappeared today.

This chapter shows that war preparation and particularly the two world wars have left a strong and lasting imprint on the Austrian welfare state. First, war and war preparation are important factors for understanding the timing of programme adoption. Second, the economic and social repercussions of war strongly affected the public–private mix and financing mode of the welfare state. Third, welfare provision to the victims of wars had a strong impact on the social spending/GDP ratio that only gradually petered out. Fourth, social provision for the victims of war was a harbinger of modern social policies as it informed innovations in (civilian) disability policies, active labour market policy, and long-term care. Finally, war drastically altered the political context in a way that has allowed the welfare state to flourish in the post-war period (via e.g. democratization, a changed distribution of power resources, corporatism and consensus democracy, and centralization of government).