1 / 22

Diverging productivist pension regimes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan

Diverging productivist pension regimes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. How ‘productive’ are they? Young-Jun Choi. Background . After low social spending- high welfare outcomes with life-long employment, Challenges to productivist welfare regimes: Globalisation and Post-industrialisation

elu
Download Presentation

Diverging productivist pension regimes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Diverging productivist pension regimes in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan How ‘productive’ are they? Young-Jun Choi

  2. Background • After low social spending- high welfare outcomes with life-long employment, • Challenges to productivist welfare regimes: Globalisation and Post-industrialisation • Increasing importance of old-age security and financial sustainability: Incompatible?

  3. Objectives • Identify changing environments affecting old-age security • Review the pension mix and recent changes in three countries, and their characteristics • Examine the effectivenessof each pension mix • Draw implications for the desirable pension development

  4. Economic security of old-age 1 Post-Industrial Effects Globalisation Effects a. Ageing 1~5. Unstable financial market & volatile economic conditions; Unstable pension fund or budget b. Demographic Change: increasing dependency ratio a. 1 1. 2. Due to sound pension budget: Cut benefit; Strict entitlement a.b. Maturing of social entitlement Working Age 3. Due to sound pension budget: Rising pensionable age c. Household Transformation: diminishing role of households in welfare b b Old Age Economic Vacuum Period c 2 4. Flexible labour market: Unstable contribution d. New skill required: Lowering retirementage 3 d e. Service sector Increasing: Reducing role of occupationalbenefit 5. Due to sound pension budget => Rising contribution rate 6. Late entry of labour market: Reducing contribution period e. 4. 5 b b 6

  5. Economic security of old-age 2 • Increasing life-expectancy and decreasing fertility rate • Shortening working years and lengthening inactive years? • Between Pensionable age and Retirement age • Reducing roles of family and enterprises • Financial sustainability • Heterogeneous labour force as well as the elderly

  6. Public-Private Pension mix • After intensive debates; Importance of institutions and structures: no ‘one-size-fit-all’ model • Old-age security: How to cover non-(regular) employees: Outmoded Social insurance? • Financial sustainability: Are they sustainable? • Two ways of looking at ‘Commodification’ in public pensions: 1) Adequacy of old-age income, and 2) Tightness between occupational status and benefits in old-age

  7. Japan’s pension schemes 1

  8. Japan’s pension schemes 2 • Comprehensive public pension and occupational pension coverage (86% of firms) • High income replacement rate and generous occupational benefits, if… • Contribution: 13,000 yen for the self-employed and 17.35% for employees • No contribution for spouses of the EPI members and dependent supplement benefit

  9. Korea’s pension schemes 1

  10. Korea’s pension schemes 2 • Social insurance centered pension mix with the retirement benefit • Employees and Self-employed under the earning-related National Pension Scheme • Full-benefit from 20 years, starting from 2008 • Household-based means-tested allowance: different benefit by household-income/asset level

  11. Taiwan’s pension schemes 1

  12. Taiwan’s pension schemes 2 • Relatively lower benefits for employees: lump-sum benefit + DC pension scheme • No mandatory pension program for non-employees: National Pension plan • Weak dependent-related benefits: no dependent supplement benefit + low survivor benefit (lump-sum) • Comprehensive coverage of individual-based allowance schemes: covering over 70% (2003) of aged 65 + population

  13. Recent pension development and reforms • Japan- Restructuring with retrenchment - 1999 & 2004 reforms • Korea- Expansion of coverage with reducing the benefit level - 1999 & 2005 (?) reforms • Taiwan- Re-organising and expansion of allowance schemes - 2002 & 2004 reforms

  14. Topic One: How to cover non-employees • Japan- contributory Basic Pension & Individual-based DC scheme • Korea- contributory Earnings-related NP, same as employees • Taiwan- Voluntarily join & non-contributory allowance schemes

  15. Breakdown of Type I members in Japan(unit: 1000 persons, Non-con. for 2 years) Total payment rate for Type I in Japan has fallen down from 85.3% in 1994 to 62.8% in 2002 Total payment rate = (Actual payment months of all members/Legal payment months of all members)*100

  16. Korea – 4.8 million who are exempted from contribution and 1.8 million who has not contributed more thanone year among the self-employed in 2004; Problem of the accuracy of income report • Korea- largely uncovered homemakers • Taiwan- Allowance schemes, mainly benefit to homemakers and irregular workers • Taiwan- Voluntary join for the self-employed with state subsidy to their contribution (LI) (Japan/Korea- 100% self-contribution)

  17. Topic Two: Financial sustainability • Huge question onthe financial sustainability of public pensions in J&K • Japan: pension expenditure about 12% of GDP, largely to the BP; About 26 trillion yen revenue and 96 trillion yen spending in 2004 (BP) • Korea: No state subsidy except Admin fees; expected the exhaustion of the NP fund 2040~50 years • State subsidies on social insurance funds and tax relief on occupational benefits: Regressive or progressive

  18. Allowance expensive? • Taiwanese allowance schemes expenditure in 2003: about 0.5% of GDP (if beneficiaries and the level of benefit doubled, then 2% without contribution) - State subsidy to contribution and no actual subsidy to benefit • Less problematic financial sustainability but problems of the low level of benefits

  19. Topic Three: Decommodificaiton & Reform effects • ‘Decommodification’: 1) Income replacement in old-age 2) Degree of reflection of working status and income on old-age income • in T of 1): Japan>Korea>Taiwan • In T of 2): Taiwan>Korea>Japan • Japan: Employees in stable firms can get 1) public pensions with dependent supplement benefit or spouse’ pension 2) the RA or/and corporate pension while non-employees can get only his/her flat-rate pension

  20. Common pension reform trends in J&K • Prefer reducing the benefit level rather than increasing contribution rate; raising pensionable age; strengthening state role to secure (contributors’) pension rights • More focus on financial sustainability • T: Extending the number of allowance beneficiaries and introduce ‘annuity’ scheme for employees - More focus on old-age security

  21. Summary 1: J&K vs. T • Structural and fundamental transformations going on: K&T much faster speed than J where institutions are well-rooted • J&K • DB Social insurance centered pension mix with private occupational benefit; Strong reflection of occupational status on pension benefits; Public assistance as a last resort • T • Rapidly growing allowance schemes with DC social insurance and public lump-sum benefit; Less tighter relationship between OS and PB

  22. Summary 2: More than DB vs. DC… • J&K tend to keep their ‘productivist’ legacies with increasing returns of institutions, while T seems to be in the phase of path-breaking • Pension mix in J&K seems less productive than that in T in terms of 1) covering non-employees 2) financial sustainability • J&K: Different needs caused by structural transformation and Identical reform effects; could be more regressive • Question on contributory schemes and possibility of non-contributory scheme

More Related