Pension Funds and the Politics of Ownership in Britain, c. 1970-86.
Pension Funds and the Politics of Ownership in Britain, c. 1970-86.
复制标题
英国的养老基金和所有权政治，c。
DOI：
10.1093/tcbh/hwy005
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Davies A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Davies A
在战后时期，职业养老金的增长改变了英国的资本所有制模式，因为工人的集体退休储蓄购买了国民经济的很大一部分。本文考察了工党和保守党对这一重大变化的反应，并考虑了它如何在战后解决方案结束时塑造了他们各自的所有权政治。这表明，劳工和工会运动承认职业养老基金是一种新的社会所有制形式，但他们必须调和自己的愿望，即让养老金计划成员直接控制他们的投资，同时更广泛地相信，这些资金需要用于国家协调的工业经济振兴。与此同时，保守党最初对职业养老金的热情，它支持帮助创建一个“拥有财产的民主”，在20世纪80年代初受到激进的新自由主义批评的挑战，该批评试图拆除养老基金并个性化投资。文章中的研究结果表明，历史学家有必要将动荡的20世纪70年代和80年代的政治置于战后几十年发生的重大经济和社会变革的背景下。这些变化往往为制定新政策和政治议程创造了机会，但它们也突显了主要政党意识形态内部更深层次的紧张关系。
The growth of occupational pensions in the post-war era transformed the pattern of capital ownership in Britain, as workers’ collective retirement savings purchased a substantial share of the national economy. This article examines the response of the Labour and Conservative parties to this significant material change, and considers how it shaped their respective politics of ownership at the end of the post-war settlement. It demonstrates that Labour and the trade union movement recognized occupational pension funds as a new form of social ownership but had to reconcile their desire to give pension scheme-members direct control over their investments with a broader belief that the funds needed be used for a state-coordinated revitalization of the industrial economy. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party’s initial enthusiasm for occupational pensions, which it championed for helping to create a ‘property-owning democracy’, was challenged by a radical neoliberal critique in the early 1980s that sought to dismantle pension funds and to individualize investment. The findings in the article assert the need for historians to situate the politics of the tumultuous 1970s and 1980s in the context of the substantial economic and social changes that had taken place during the post-war decades. These changes often created opportunities to formulate new policies and political agendas, but they also served to highlight deeper tensions within the ideologies of the main political parties.