承担护理任务对养老金的影响:几个欧洲国家的典型案例模拟结果

IF 1.5 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Karel van den Bosch, Tanja Kirn, N. Kump, Philippe Liégeois, Amílcar Moreira, Nada Stropnik, Mikkel Barslund, Vincent Vergnat, G. Dekkers
{"title":"承担护理任务对养老金的影响:几个欧洲国家的典型案例模拟结果","authors":"Karel van den Bosch, Tanja Kirn, N. Kump, Philippe Liégeois, Amílcar Moreira, Nada Stropnik, Mikkel Barslund, Vincent Vergnat, G. Dekkers","doi":"10.1177/13882627231221045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Informal care is often accompanied by a reduction or abandonment of professional activity by the caregiver. Therefore, caregiving may be associated with a lower pension for the former caregiver than for people without care obligations. There is a large gender difference in informal care responsibilities, and this may contribute to the gender pension gap. As the impact of care-related labour market decisions depends on the design of the pension system, we carry out a cross-country comparison, in which we analyse the impact of care obligations in countries with high (Luxembourg), middle (Liechtenstein, Belgium, Portugal) and low (Slovenia) gender pension gaps. Using typical-case simulation models, we examine how the impact of care-related events is mediated by pension rules, given women's labour market decisions. To what extent does working part time or interrupting one’s career at the age of 30 or 54 reduce the later pension benefit? How are these losses mitigated by pension credits that are conditional on caregiving? We find that the mitigating effects are generally strongest in Belgium, followed by Luxembourg and Slovenia. Such credits hardly exist in Portugal, while in Liechtenstein they have only a small impact. However, the consequences of either working part time or interrupting work can also be mitigated via general rules in the system that are unrelated to caregiving (such as in Portugal and Liechtenstein). They can, on the other hand, be aggravated by the existence of higher accrual rates for individuals who extend their careers, as in Luxembourg and Slovenia.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of taking up care tasks on pensions: Results of typical-case simulations for several European countries\",\"authors\":\"Karel van den Bosch, Tanja Kirn, N. Kump, Philippe Liégeois, Amílcar Moreira, Nada Stropnik, Mikkel Barslund, Vincent Vergnat, G. Dekkers\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13882627231221045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Informal care is often accompanied by a reduction or abandonment of professional activity by the caregiver. Therefore, caregiving may be associated with a lower pension for the former caregiver than for people without care obligations. There is a large gender difference in informal care responsibilities, and this may contribute to the gender pension gap. As the impact of care-related labour market decisions depends on the design of the pension system, we carry out a cross-country comparison, in which we analyse the impact of care obligations in countries with high (Luxembourg), middle (Liechtenstein, Belgium, Portugal) and low (Slovenia) gender pension gaps. Using typical-case simulation models, we examine how the impact of care-related events is mediated by pension rules, given women's labour market decisions. To what extent does working part time or interrupting one’s career at the age of 30 or 54 reduce the later pension benefit? How are these losses mitigated by pension credits that are conditional on caregiving? We find that the mitigating effects are generally strongest in Belgium, followed by Luxembourg and Slovenia. Such credits hardly exist in Portugal, while in Liechtenstein they have only a small impact. However, the consequences of either working part time or interrupting work can also be mitigated via general rules in the system that are unrelated to caregiving (such as in Portugal and Liechtenstein). They can, on the other hand, be aggravated by the existence of higher accrual rates for individuals who extend their careers, as in Luxembourg and Slovenia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231221045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231221045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非正规护理往往伴随着护理者职业活动的减少或放弃。因此,与没有照护义务的人相比,前照护者的养老金可能较低。在非正规护理责任方面存在很大的性别差异,这可能是造成养老金性别差距的原因之一。由于与护理相关的劳动力市场决策的影响取决于养老金制度的设计,我们进行了跨国比较,分析了护理义务对养老金性别差距较大(卢森堡)、中等(列支敦士登、比利时、葡萄牙)和较小(斯洛文尼亚)的国家的影响。通过使用典型案例模拟模型,我们研究了在妇女做出劳动力市场决定的情况下,养老金规则是如何调节护理相关事件的影响的。30 岁或 54 岁时兼职工作或中断职业生涯会在多大程度上减少以后的养老金福利?以照料为条件的养老金信贷如何减轻这些损失?我们发现,减轻影响的效果一般在比利时最强,其次是卢森堡和斯洛文尼亚。葡萄牙几乎不存在这种抵免,而列支敦士登的影响很小。然而,非全时工作或中断工作的后果也可以通过与护理无关的一般制度规则来减轻(如葡萄牙和列支敦士登)。另一方面,延长职业生涯的个人可享受更高的应计比率(如在卢森堡和斯洛文尼亚),这可能会加重其后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of taking up care tasks on pensions: Results of typical-case simulations for several European countries
Informal care is often accompanied by a reduction or abandonment of professional activity by the caregiver. Therefore, caregiving may be associated with a lower pension for the former caregiver than for people without care obligations. There is a large gender difference in informal care responsibilities, and this may contribute to the gender pension gap. As the impact of care-related labour market decisions depends on the design of the pension system, we carry out a cross-country comparison, in which we analyse the impact of care obligations in countries with high (Luxembourg), middle (Liechtenstein, Belgium, Portugal) and low (Slovenia) gender pension gaps. Using typical-case simulation models, we examine how the impact of care-related events is mediated by pension rules, given women's labour market decisions. To what extent does working part time or interrupting one’s career at the age of 30 or 54 reduce the later pension benefit? How are these losses mitigated by pension credits that are conditional on caregiving? We find that the mitigating effects are generally strongest in Belgium, followed by Luxembourg and Slovenia. Such credits hardly exist in Portugal, while in Liechtenstein they have only a small impact. However, the consequences of either working part time or interrupting work can also be mitigated via general rules in the system that are unrelated to caregiving (such as in Portugal and Liechtenstein). They can, on the other hand, be aggravated by the existence of higher accrual rates for individuals who extend their careers, as in Luxembourg and Slovenia.
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
European Journal of Social Security
European Journal of Social Security PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信