The Thatcher pension reforms and their consequences

撒切尔养老金改革及其后果

• 批准号: AH/L004739/1
• 负责人: Hugh Pemberton
• 金额: $ 73.95万
• 依托单位: University of Bristol
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2014
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2014 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FL004739%2F1
• 关键词: Thatcher; pension; reforms; their; consequences

Since the end of 2006 there has been a widespread consensus that Britain's pension system is seriously dysfunctional. The debate over the nature and extent of the 'pensions crisis,' and over ways in which it might best be remedied, has been extensive and given rise to a number of policy responses. Yet surprisingly little attention has been given to the historical roots of that crisis, or to the ways in which the historical development of Britain's complex system of public and private provision for security in old age both helped to create the crisis and constrained options for change. The reforms implemented in the 1980s marked a key moment in the development of Britain's overall system of income replacement in old age. Yet we lack any detailed historical survey of developments in that decade, and their legacy, utilising primary sources from the period. Without fully understanding the roots of the pension problem how can we solve it effectively? Lacking such an understanding we are in danger of repeating mistakes made in the past: in particular:i) a persistent over-estimation of a) the ability and willingness of the private sector to provide decent pensions for the lower-paid; and b) the ability and willingness of consumers to finance and prioritise the necessary long-term saving over short- to medium-term consumption; ii) a persistent under-estimation of the power of vested interests to obstruct and/or channel policy change, an under-estimation owing much to a failure adequately to understand either the nature of the vested interests which must be accommodated by policy makers or the power resources deployed them in the policy process; iii) a failure fully to grasp the constraints placed on policy change by very long-term individual and collective contracts (both financial and political) in pensions; iv) a continuing lack of understanding amongst both academics and policy practitioners of the political and economic cost-benefit calculations that underpin policy making in an area with perhaps the longest time-horizons of any field of policy;v) a persistent tendency to achieve 'reform' by adding new elements to the system, thus making the system more and more complex over time.The project proposed here will fill a significant void in our understanding. It will take advantage of the accelerated release of official and other records consequent on the government's decision to move to a '20-year rule' for document release in order to examine in detail the policy changes of the 1980s. In doing so, it will both build on and extend existing studies of postwar pensions in Britain (by, for example, Bridgen; Pemberton; Thane; Whiteside; and Thornton) and address important debates in political science about institutional development in terms of: a) the effect on institutional development of positive feedback effects ('path dependence') that help to 'lock-in' particular institutional configurationsb) the ability of incremental change cumulatively to produce radical changec) the impact of negative feedback in the system and its implications for both the development of the overall system and the development of government policy, and d) issues of 'governance' and the role of non-governmental actors in the policy process. As such, it will provide a link between contemporary historical research, political science theory, and present policy debates about the future of British pensions in the twenty-first century.In the process, the project will: 1) Connect to the AHRC's 'care for the future' theme by linking history with present policy to address the country's 'pensions crisis' and thus, by extension, with the future welfare of pensioners.2) Contribute to the AHRC's 'pathways to impact', aiding better policy making by enhancing our understanding of the development of Britain's system of pension provision (at once one of the most complex in the world and one of the least effective in the OECD).

自2006年底以来，人们普遍认为英国养老金制度严重失调。关于“养老金危机”的性质和程度以及最佳补救方法的争论一直很广泛，并引发了一系列政策反应。然而，令人惊讶的是，人们很少关注这场危机的历史根源，也很少有人关注英国复杂的公共和私人老年保障体系的历史发展如何助长了这场危机，并限制了变革的选择。 20世纪80年代实施的改革标志着英国老年收入替代整体体系发展的关键时刻。然而，我们缺乏利用这一时期的主要资料来对那十年的发展及其遗产进行详细的历史调查。如果不充分认识养老金问题的根源，如何才能有效解决它呢？如果缺乏这样的理解，我们就有可能重蹈过去的覆辙：尤其是：i) 持续高估 a) 私营部门为低收入人群提供体面养老金的能力和意愿； b) 消费者融资的能力和意愿，并将必要的长期储蓄优先于中短期消费； ii) 持续低估既得利益者阻碍和/或引导政策变化的力量，这种低估很大程度上是由于未能充分理解政策制定者必须照顾的既得利益者的性质或在政策过程中部署他们的权力资源； iii) 未能充分理解养老金方面的长期个人和集体合同（金融和政治）对政策​​变化的限制； iv) 学者和政策实践者对政治和经济成本效益计算持续缺乏理解，而这些计算支撑着一个可能是任何政策领域中时间跨度最长的领域的政策制定；v) 通过向系统中添加新元素来实现“改革”的持续倾向，从而使系统随着时间的推移变得越来越复杂。这里提出的项目将填补我们理解中的一个重大空白。它将利用政府决定采用文件发布“20年规则”后加速发布官方和其他记录的机会，详细审查 20 世纪 80 年代的政策变化。在此过程中，它将建立并扩展英国战后养老金的现有研究（例如，布里根、彭伯顿、塞恩、怀特塞德和桑顿），并解决政治学中关于制度发展的重要争论：a）有助于“锁定”特定制度配置的正反馈效应（“路径依赖”）对制度发展的影响b）渐进变革累积产生根本性变革的能力 c) 系统中负反馈的影响及其对整个系统的发展和政府政策制定的影响，以及 d) “治理”问题和非政府行为者在政策过程中的作用。因此，它将在当代历史研究、政治学理论和有关二十一世纪英国养老金未来的当前政策辩论之间建立联系。在此过程中，该项目将：1）通过将历史与当前政策联系起来，解决国家的“养老金危机”，从而与养老金领取者的未来福利联系起来，从而与 AHRC 的“关心未来”主题相联系。2）为 AHRC 的“实现未来的途径”做出贡献。 影响”，通过加深我们对英国养老金提供体系（既是世界上最复杂的体系之一，又是经合组织中效率最低的体系之一）发展的了解，帮助更好地制定政策。

项目成果

WASPI 's Is (Mostly) a Campaign for Inequality

WASPI（主要）是一场争取不平等的运动

• DOI: 10.1111/1467-923x.12347
• 发表时间: 2017
• 期刊: The Political Quarterly
• 作者: Pemberton H

A Neoliberal Revolution?: Thatcherism and the Reform of British Pensions

新自由主义革命？：撒切尔主义与英国养老金改革

• 发表时间: 2024
• 作者: Pemberton Hugh

The City of London and Social Democracy: The Political Economy of Finance in Britain, 1959 - 1979

伦敦金融城与社会民主党：英国金融政治经济学，1959 年至 1979 年

• 发表时间: 2017
• 作者: Davies

The Neoliberal Age? Britain since the 1970s

新自由主义时代？

• 发表时间: 2021
• 作者: Freeman J

Pension Funds and the Politics of Ownership in Britain, c. 1970-86.

英国的养老基金和所有权政治，c。

• DOI: 10.1093/tcbh/hwy005
• 发表时间: 2019
• 期刊: 20 century British history
• 作者: Davies A