金融化和社会保护?英国走向社会保护型公私养老金体系的道路

E. Heins, P. Bridgen
{"title":"金融化和社会保护?英国走向社会保护型公私养老金体系的道路","authors":"E. Heins, P. Bridgen","doi":"10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447343981.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consideration of pension financialisation in recent years has focused on the rise of defined contribution pensions, highlighting the greater level of individualised interaction this has encouraged between citizens and the financial sector. This development has generally been seen as unequivocally neo-liberal, complementary to retrenching reforms replacing private provision for public.\nThis chapter, in contrast, argues for a less rigid, more fluid understanding of UK pension financialisation, one that has entailed the interaction of financialising and progressive social protection agendas in a politics more diverse and negotiated than proposed in the current literature. The result in 2019 is a UK public-private pension mix under which at least some traditional social protection objectives are met through social regulation rather than public provision. To emphasise the continuing role for agents in today’s system, the paper finishes by proposing two ambitious, but feasible, regulatory reforms designed to enhance the system’s socially protective features.","PeriodicalId":193794,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy Review 31","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financialisation and social protection? The UK’s path towards a socially protective public–private pension system\",\"authors\":\"E. Heins, P. Bridgen\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447343981.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Consideration of pension financialisation in recent years has focused on the rise of defined contribution pensions, highlighting the greater level of individualised interaction this has encouraged between citizens and the financial sector. This development has generally been seen as unequivocally neo-liberal, complementary to retrenching reforms replacing private provision for public.\\nThis chapter, in contrast, argues for a less rigid, more fluid understanding of UK pension financialisation, one that has entailed the interaction of financialising and progressive social protection agendas in a politics more diverse and negotiated than proposed in the current literature. The result in 2019 is a UK public-private pension mix under which at least some traditional social protection objectives are met through social regulation rather than public provision. To emphasise the continuing role for agents in today’s system, the paper finishes by proposing two ambitious, but feasible, regulatory reforms designed to enhance the system’s socially protective features.\",\"PeriodicalId\":193794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Policy Review 31\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Policy Review 31\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447343981.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy Review 31","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447343981.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

近年来,对养老金金融化的考虑主要集中在固定缴款养老金(defined contribution pensions)的兴起上,突显出这鼓励了公民与金融部门之间更大程度的个性化互动。这种发展通常被视为明确的新自由主义,是对以公共服务取代私人服务的紧缩改革的补充。相比之下,本章主张对英国养老金金融化有一种不那么僵化、更灵活的理解,这种理解涉及到金融化和进步的社会保护议程在政治上的相互作用,这种政治比当前文献中提出的更加多样化和可协商。2019年的结果是英国公私养老金组合,在这种组合下,至少一些传统的社会保护目标是通过社会监管而不是公共提供来实现的。为了强调代理人在当今制度中的持续作用,本文最后提出了两项雄心勃勃但可行的监管改革,旨在增强制度的社会保护特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Financialisation and social protection? The UK’s path towards a socially protective public–private pension system
Consideration of pension financialisation in recent years has focused on the rise of defined contribution pensions, highlighting the greater level of individualised interaction this has encouraged between citizens and the financial sector. This development has generally been seen as unequivocally neo-liberal, complementary to retrenching reforms replacing private provision for public. This chapter, in contrast, argues for a less rigid, more fluid understanding of UK pension financialisation, one that has entailed the interaction of financialising and progressive social protection agendas in a politics more diverse and negotiated than proposed in the current literature. The result in 2019 is a UK public-private pension mix under which at least some traditional social protection objectives are met through social regulation rather than public provision. To emphasise the continuing role for agents in today’s system, the paper finishes by proposing two ambitious, but feasible, regulatory reforms designed to enhance the system’s socially protective features.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信