Pension Systems’ Privatisation in Central and Eastern Europe

• Authors: Martin Potůček
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Introduction of the second pension pillars in Central and Eastern European countries represents a unique political, social and economic experiment. This paper offers the overview of this paradigmatic shift, taking into account both domestic factors, the role of international financial institutions and the European Union. Ten out of eleven countries - newcomers to the European Union - decided to implement it. Slovenia stayed aside from the beginning. Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania offer a rich and diverse trajectory of the time and conditions of its introduction, further development, in some instances retrenchment, and the scope of benefits for retired insured persons. Hungary was a pioneering country, but later on, it left the camp and dropped this option. The issue the paper deals with is the case of the Czech Republic in more detail. The country was a latecomer, opted just for its voluntary version, and cancelled it completely again just after three years of operation. Concluding remarks address the emerging experience with reform outcomes and a potential role of the European Union as one of the actors influencing pension reforms in the region.

Keywords

EN

pension systems; privatisation; Central and Eastern Europe; European Union

• Publisher: Instytut Polityki Społecznej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Problemy Polityki Społecznej. Studia i Dyskusje
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 48
• Pages: 41-51

Dates

published

2020-07-16

Contributors

author

Martin Potůček

References

• Bielawska, K., Chloń-Domińczak, A., & Stańko, D. (2017). Retreat from mandatory pension funds in countries of the Eastern and Central Europe in result of financial and fiscal crisis: causes and effects. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83345/1/ReportCEEreversals-2017_ISBN_book.pdf.
• Birkland, T. (2005). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy-Making. 2nd ed. M.E. Sharpe.
• Deacon, B. (2000). Eastern European Welfare States: The Impact of the Politics of Globalization. Journal of European Social Policy, 10(2), 146–161.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). Welfare States in Transition. Sage.
• European Commission. (2012). White Paper: An Agenda for Adequate, Safe, and Sustainable European Pension Systems. COM(2012)55 final. European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0055:FIN:EN:PDF.
• European Commission. (2017). European Pillar of Social Rights. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-rights/.
• Ferge, Zs. (2001). Welfare and ´ill-fareʼ systems in Central-Eastern Europe. In R. Sykes, B. Palier, & P. Prior, (eds.), Globalization and European welfare states: challenges and change. (127–152). Palgrave.
• Fultz, E. (2012). The retrenchment of second-tier pensions in Hungary and Poland: A precautionary tale. International Social Security Review, 65(2), 1–26.
• Fultz, E., & Hirose, K. (2019). Second-pillar pensions in Central and Eastern Europe: Payment Constraints and Exit Options. International Social Security Review, 72(2), 3–22.
• Holzmann, R. (2009). Adequacy of Retirement Income after Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe. 2009. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank.
• Holzmann, R., & Hinz, R. (2005). Old-Age Income Support in the 21st Century. The World Bank.
• Kay, S. J., & Tapen, S. (2008). Overview. In Lessons from Pension Reforms in Americas, ed. S. J. Kay and T. Sinha. Oxford University Press.
• Orenstein, M. (2013). Pension Privatization: Evolution of a Paradigm. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(2), 259–281.
• Orenstein, M. A., & Haas, M. R. (2003). Globalization and the Development of Welfare States in Postcommunist Europe. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, J.F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
• Orszag, P. and Stiglitz, J. E. (2001). Rethinking pension reform: Ten myths about social security systems, in R. Holzmann; J. E. Stiglitz (eds): New Ideas about Old-Age Security: Toward Sustainable Pension Systems in the 21st Century. World Bank.
• Potůček, M. (2008). Metamorphoses of welfare states in Central and Eastern Europe. In M. Seeleib-Kaiser (ed.), Welfare state transformations: comparative perspectives (79–95). 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Potůček, M. (2014). A New Social Contract: The Key to European Integrationʼs Political Legitimacy. In Z. Zudová-Lešková, E. Voráček et al., Theory and Practice of Welfare State in 20th Century (136–145). Historický ústav AV ČR.
• Potůček, M. et al. (2017). Public Policy. Karolinum Press.
• Potůček, M., & Rudolfová, V. (2016). Rivalry of Advocacy Coalitions in the Czech Pension Reform. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, IX(1), 117–134.
• Sabatier, P., & Weible, Ch. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. 2nd ed. (189–222). Westview Press.
• World Bank. (1994). Averting the Old Age Crisis. Policies to Protect the Old and Promote Growth. Oxford University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.31971/16401808.48.1.2020.3