Author:
Scarponetti Patricia,Sepúlveda Leandro,Martín-Artiles Antonio
Abstract
AbstractGlobalisation and international competition have a spillover effect on the reforms of pension systems that imposes a similar pattern of dismantling, hardening access to pensions, reducing expenditure and retrenchment in said reforms. The comparative analysis of four countries with different pension systems: two liberal (United Kingdom and Chile) and another two with contributory-proportional systems (Spain and Argentina) serves to determine the details of the reform processes, which discursively seem to have a shared pattern recommended by the international financial and economic institutions.But the reality of the four case studies shows considerable differences in the implementation of the pension reform policies. The reforms depend on the societal context, institutions, history, the role of unions, the government in power, demographic factors and economic perspectives, among other matters. Many countries need to sustain pension systems because they are associated with many pensioners’ political vote. Therefore, the spillover effect of globalisation and the convergence in certain uniform patterns of reforms is far from reality in the four countries, and as such, the measures adopted are specific for each country.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference59 articles.
1. Adelantado, J., & Calderón, E. (2005). Globalización y Estados del Bienestar. Respuestas semenjantes a problemas parecidos. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 23(2), 15–44.
2. Adelantado, J., & Calderón, E. (2006). Globalisation and the welfare state: The same strategis for similar problems? Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1777/0958928706068275.
3. Antón, A. (2009). Debates sobre las ideas de la izquierda. Madrid: Talasa.
4. Arenas de Mesa, A. (2010). Historia de la Reforma Previsional Chilena: Una Experiencia Exitosa de Política Pública en Democracia. Santiago de Chile: Oficina Internacional del Trabajo – OIT.
5. Arnsperger, C. (2005). L’État social ctif comme un noveau paradigme de justice sociale. In Vielle, P. et al. Op cit. (pp. 279–300).