Rivalry of Advocacy Coalitions in the Czech Pension Reform

• Authors: Martin Potůček , Veronika Rudolfová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The Czech Republic, as many other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, faced and is still facing a pension-reform challenge. The diversification of pension pillars led to the massive displacements of participant contributions from the public PAYG pension pillars to the newly constructed private, defined-contribution, fully-funded pillars. In the Czech Republic, the adoption of the relevant law was preceded by serious political conflict between supporters and opponents of this step (both among different political actors and among professionals). In an analysis of the conflict we critically apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework. We work mainly with the analysis of policy documents, public statements of the individual actors and an analysis of voting on the relevant law in both chambers of the Czech Parliament towards the identification of the crystallization process of two clear-cut coalitions between actors from both sides of the spectrum. The Advocacy Coalition Framework in exploring the dynamics of the public-policy process proved to be able to explain situations where there is sharp political conflict. Through the lens of the devil-shift of both camps (advocacy coalitions with different beliefs), each fell into extreme positions within the coalition to affirm the correctness of their arguments and positions.

Keywords

EN

Pension reform; Czech Republic; diversification of the pension system; the Advocacy Coalition Framework; PAYG pension pillar; a defined-contribution fully-funded pension pillar

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 117-134

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-08-02

Contributors

author

Martin Potůček

• Center for Social and Economic Strategies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague, Smetanovo nábř. 6, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic.

author

Veronika Rudolfová

• Center for Social and Economic Strategies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague, Smetanovo nábř. 6, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic.

References

• Adámková, A. 2011 “Vládní návrh penzijní reformy je taková bramboračka.” Interview with Jiří Rusnok. Parlament, vláda, samospráva [Parliament, government, local government]. Parol, s.r.o. Available at (last accessed, October, 2015).
• Bezděk, V., J. Münich, J. Procházka, J. Rusnok, P. Zahradník and M. Zámečník. 2011. “Důchodová reforma očima nervu” [Pension reform – NERV perspective]. Available at (last accessed July, 2014).
• Birkland, T. 2005. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy-Making. 2nd edn. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
• CESTA. 2011a. “Návrh penzijní reformy (verze s NDC)” [Pension reform proposal (NDC version)]. Available at (last accessed August, 2014).
• CESTA. 2011b. “Návrh penzijní reformy (verze se zohledněním výchovy dětí v průběžném systému)” [Pension reform proposal (a version taking into account the education of children in the PAYG system)]. Available at (last accessed August, 2014).
• ČMKOS. 2011. “Stanovisko Českomoravské konfederace odborových svazů k návrhům zákonů o důchodovém spoření” [Standpoint of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions toward the Law Propositions on Pension Insurance]. Available at (last accessed 17 June 2011).
• ČSOB. 2012. “Státní důchody čeká strmý propad, vstup do II. pilíře se vyplatí téměř polovině populace” [State pensions will fall down sharply, nearly one half of the population will profit from entering the second pillar]. Available at (last accessed 26 June 2012).
• ČSSD. 2011. “Programový dokument – Důchodová reforma ČSSD 2011” [Program Platform – Pension reform CSSD 2011]. Available at (last accessed 2015).
• Kingdon, Robert M. 1994. “The Genevan Consistory in the time of Calvin.” Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620. Ed. Andrew Pettegree. New York: Cambridge University Press., 21–24.
• Kohout, P. 2011. “Důchodová reforma se důsledně vyhýbá návrhům NERVu a Bezděkovy komise” [Pension reform consistently avoids the NERV and Bezděk commission proposals]. Available at (last accessed 1 July 2014).
• Mintrom, M. and S. Vergari. 1996. “Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal 24, 420–435.
• MPSV. 2010. “Závěrečná zpráva PES” [Final Report PES]. Available at (last accessed October, 2015).
• NERV. 2011. “Důchodová reforma” [Pension Reform]. Available at (last accessed October, 2015).
• Poslání Odborné komise pro důchodovou reformu [Mission of the Expert Committee on pension Reform]. 2014. Available at (last accessed October, 2015).
• Potůček, M. and V. Rudolfová. 2015 “Czech Pension Reform: How to Reconcile Equivalence with Fiscal Discipline.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 9(1), 170–195. Available at (last accessed December, 2015).
• Quattrone, G. A. and A. Tversky. 1998. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Politicial Science Review 82(3), 719–736.
• Sabatier, P. and Ch. Weible. 2007. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications.” In Paul Sabatier (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview Press, 189–222.
• Tyden.cz. 2011. “Člen NERV Zámečník se distancuje od penzijní reformy” [NERV’s Member Zámečník Dissociates himself from Pension Reform]. Available at (last accessed October, 2015).
• Vládní programové prohlášení [The government’s policy statement]. 2014. Available at (last accessed 14 February 2014).
• Weible, Ch. and D. Nohrstedt. 2013. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Coalitions, Learning and Policy Change.” In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh and X. Wu (eds). Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Abingdon (New York): Routledge, 125–137.
• Weible, Ch., P. Sabatier, H. Jenkins-Smith, D. Nohrstedt and A.D. Henry. 2011. “A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue.” Policy Studies Journal 39(3), 349–360.[WoS]

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/nispa-2016-0006