Advertisement

Social Security Systems and the Neo-Liberal Challenge

Conference paper
  • 606 Downloads
Part of the Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim book series (IMGB, volume 26)

Keywords

Social Security Pension Fund Pension System Social Security System Public Pension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    International Labour Organization, Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention-C102 (ILO, 1952).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Labour Organization, Social Security: A New Consensus (ILO, 2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    “Partisan Social Security claims questioned”, (27 February 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    George W. Bush, Strengthening Social Security for the 21stCentury (Washington, February 2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ‘Delay to Social Security reform’, (15 July 2005) Financial Times.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Whatever happened to reform?”, (31 January 2006) San Francisco Chronicle.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Some may be surprised to find the International Monetary Fund among those expressing warnings about the fiscal implications of the Bush plan: ‘The Administration proposal to permit younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security contributions into personal retirement accounts... would also imply a significant increase in federal deficits and debt in coming decades...’ (International Monetary Fund, 2005 Article IV Consultation with the United States of America: Concluding Statement of the IMF Mission (International Monetary Fund, May 2005) at 6).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    AFL-CIO Center for Working Capital, The Negative Impact of Social Security Privatization on Defined Benefit Pension Funds (Washington, March 2005).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See for example the opinion articles of seven Social Security experts published under the heading ‘A new act for Social Security’ (23 January 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ‘Whichever way we go, some get left behind’, (13 March 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ‘Unions muffle Wall Street support of private accounts’, (8 March 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ‘Why personal accounts are a real benefit’ (23 January 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ‘A bit of social engineering in disguise’ (23 January 2005) Washington Post.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    World Bank, Averting the Old-Age Crisis: Policies to Protect the Old and Promote Growth (Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    ICFTU, TUAC & ITS, Statement by the ICFTU, TUAC and the ITS to the Spring 2001 Meetings of the IMF and World Bank (Washington, April 2001).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Indermit S. Gill, Truman Packard and Juan Yermo, Keeping the Promise of Social Security in Latin America (World Bank, November 2003).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., at 69 & 6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., at 111.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., at 71.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., at 67.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., at 212–213.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ‘Chile’s retirees find shortfall in private plan’, (27 January 2005) New York Times.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Indermit S. Gill, Truman Packard and Juan Yermo, supra note 17, at 42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robert Holzmann and Richard Hinz, Old-Age Income Support in the Twenty-First Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform (World Bank, 2005).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibid., at 201.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Ibid., at 29.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid., at 15.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., at 77.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Interview with World Bank country team, Sofia, 20 October 2004.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., at 66.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See, for example, World Bank, Country Assistance Strategy for Serbia and Montenegro (World Bank, November 2004) at 14.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Independent Evaluation Group-World Bank, Pension Reforms and the Development of Pension Systems: An Evaluation of World Bank Assistance (Washington, 2006) at 12–13 & 23–24.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid., at 12.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    We noted above that the World Bank’s study Keeping the Promise of Old Age Income Security in Latin America does not fully share this positive assessment. The Bank’s IEG went even further in expressing doubt about the positive impact of pension privatisation and concluded that ‘most capital markets have not developed significantly as a result of multi-pillar pension reform...’ (Independent Evaluation Group-World Bank, Pension Reforms and the Development of Pension Systems: An Evaluation of World Bank Assistance (Washington, 2006) at 36).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    IMF and World Bank, Nicaragua: Joint Staff Assessment of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Second Progress Report (Washington, January 2004) at 11.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    The most important difference is that the World Bank’s model entails putting part of contributions into mandatory private accounts, while the Bush plan would make private accounts voluntary, at least for now. However the World Bank sees an identity in the approach. When the Bank officially launched Old-Age Income Support in the Twenty-First Century, the first line of the Bank’s communiqué declared that the new policy was addressed, among others, to ‘policy makers in the United States... [who] grapple with the long-term affordability of their pensions systems’ (World Bank News Release No. 2005/456/HD, 24 May 2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington office of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)Washington
  2. 2.Global Union FederationsUSA

Personalised recommendations