Changing Principles in European Social Security
Changing Principles in European Social Security
复制标题
欧洲社会保障原则的变化
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wim van Oorschot
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Clasen;Wim van Oorschot
提供社会保障福利的依据是社会正义的规范性原则。在与收入有关的社会保险中，互惠原则最明显的表现是，随着社会经济变革（如后工业化、全球化）和政治发展（如欧洲化），互惠原则越来越受到以公平、适足性和财政可行性为理由的质疑。在公共预算紧张的情况下，普遍主义计划似乎异常昂贵，在中产阶级越来越依赖个人和职业形式的收入保障的时候，可能会被批评为不公平。需要原则在热衷于针对资源的现代欧洲社会保障制度中似乎变得更加突出。是否有经验证据可以反映这些所谓的趋势？集中在三个原则固有的社会保障转移（需要，普遍性和互惠性），本文的主要关注点是概念和经验。首先，它解决了社会保障原则的可操作性问题，并划定了随时间变化的指标。第二，它采用其中两项指标，以确定和比较自1980年代初以来这三项原则的重要性增加或减少的程度，并从荷兰、联合王国、德国和斯堪的纳维亚取得经验证据。文章认为，第一，应用任一指标，有没有跨国家的趋势，以挤压互惠为基础的社会保险，但以前强（俾斯麦）和弱（贝弗里奇）原则性方案之间的收敛可以确定。第二，在“法律的”范围内可以确定一种明显的基于需求的社会保障趋势，但在“数量”范围内则不然，至少在某些方案和某些索赔人群体中是这样。这是由于政策变化和有利的劳动力市场条件。第三，两个国家显示出非常不同的趋势。英国的社会保障制度在贝弗里奇互惠原则受到侵蚀以及需求原则日益增强方面是与众不同的。在荷兰，某些方案所依据的原则发生了很大变化，但在这两个方向都看不到总的趋势。总的来说，荷兰的社会保障继续体现出多种原则的强烈结合。
The provision of social security benefits rests on normative principles of social justice. Most strongly manifest in earnings-related social insurance, the principle of reciprocity has been increasingly questioned on grounds of equity, adequacy and fiscal viability, in the wake of socio-economic changes (e.g. post-industralisation, globalisation) and political developments (e.g. Europeanisation). Universalist programmes seem extraordinarily expensive under tight public budgets, and could be criticised as inequitable at a time when middle classes increasingly rely on individual and occupational forms of income security. The principle of need appears to have become more prominent within modern European social security systems keen on targeting resources. Is there empirical evidence which would reflect these alleged trends? Concentrating on three principles inherent in social security transfers (need, universalism and reciprocity) the major concerns of this article are conceptual and empirical. First, it addresses the problem of operationalising social security principles and delineating indicators of change over time. Second, it applies two of these indicators in order to identify and compare the extent to which the three principles have gained or lost prominence since the early 1980s, with empirical evidence taken from the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany and Scandinavia. The article argues first that, applying either indicator, there is no cross-national trend towards squeezing reciprocity-based social insurance, but that a convergence between erstwhile strong (Bismarckian) and weak (Beveridgean) principled programmes can be identified. Second, a clear trend towards needs-based social security can be identified within the ‘legal’ but not within the ‘volume’ perspective, at least in some programmes and some claimant groups. This is due to both policy changes and favourable labour market conditions. Third, two countries indicate very diverse trends. British social security is distinctive in terms of the erosion of Beveridgean reciprocity, as well as the growing strength of the needs principle. In the Netherlands, there have been considerable shifts in principles underlying certain programmes, but no general trend in either direction can be observed. On the whole, Dutch social security continues to exhibit a strong mix of principles.