首页> 外文期刊>Developing Country Studies >Pension Privatization in Africa: The Coercive Power of an Idea and the Politics of Retirement Income Security Reforms in Ghana and Nigeria
【24h】

Pension Privatization in Africa: The Coercive Power of an Idea and the Politics of Retirement Income Security Reforms in Ghana and Nigeria

机译:非洲的养老金私有化:加纳和尼日利亚的一个观念的强制力和退休收入安全改革的政治

获取原文
       

摘要

Why did Ghana and Nigeria as latecomers in social security reforms adopt private pension systems when they (a) have limited formal sector labour force to contribute to private pension fund, (b) lacked the necessary capital market for the investment of worker’s retirement contributions, and (c) lacked the administrative capacity required of a political system to be able to enforce contributions and investment regulations? And why did the two countries differ in terms of the overall institutional arrangement of their new pension system although they were confronted with similar policy challenges, and share similar policy legacies? Existing explanations for privatization of social security in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe show the World Bank and a coalition of other global actors were directly involved in the decision to privatize social security in countries in the two regions. However recent analysis of similar reforms in Nigeria and Ghana show that the World Bank-led coalition did not play any direct or active role in pension reforms in both countries. This paper argues that policy makers in Ghana and Nigeria adopted private sector solutions without the Bank’s direct involvement because privatization as an idea and a policy instrument which the Bank helped to reconstruct since the 1980s had become a global norm, the adoption of which is thought to enhance a countries’ legitimacy, acceptability and investment favorability among the comity of countries. The analysis shows that differences in how private sector solutions were applied in these two countries were driven by domestic politics. In particular, more democratic deliberation led to non-replacement of pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) in Ghana versus replacement in Nigeria. Better governance in Ghana had the same effect.
机译:为什么加纳和尼日利亚作为社会保障改革的后来者,采用以下条件:私人养老金制度(a)正规部门劳动力有限,无法向私人养老金缴款,(b)缺乏必要的资本市场来投资工人的退休金,并且(c)缺乏政治系统能够执行捐款和投资法规所需的行政能力?为何尽管两国面临相似的政策挑战,并拥有相似的政策遗产,但两国在新的养老金体系的总体机构安排上为何有所不同?关于拉丁美洲和中欧和东欧社会保障私有化的现有解释表明,世界银行和其他全球行为者的联盟直接参与了两个地区国家社会保障私有化的决定。然而,最近对尼日利亚和加纳类似改革的分析表明,世界银行领导的联盟在两国养老金改革中均未发挥任何直接或积极作用。本文认为,加纳和尼日利亚的决策者在没有世行直接参与的情况下采用了私营部门的解决方案,因为私有化是世行自1980年代以来帮助重建的一种思想和政策工具,已被采纳为全球规范。增强一国在大国之间的合法性,可接受性和投资偏好。分析表明,这两个国家在私营部门解决方案应用方式上的差异是由国内政治驱动的。特别是,更民主的审议导致加纳不再取代现收现付(PAYGO),而尼日利亚则被取代。加纳更好的治理具有相同的效果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号