【24h】

Transforming Social Security in Agriculture in Transition Countries: The Case of East Germany)

机译:转型国家农业社会保障的转型:以东德为例)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In this paper practical and political problems concerning the transformation of the social security system in agriculture of the 'old' Federal Republic of Germany to the New Federal States are discussed. The intention is to analyse the impacts of transferring this system to East Germany, especially concerning social security matters and their financial and distributive effects. Furthermore some conclusions from the East German experiences for the trans-formation of the social policy systems for the agricultural sectors in Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) are drawn. Since insight into the interdependencies of polity, politics and policies are important for a successful guidance the political determinants of policy-making in this sectorin unified Germany are examined too. In comparison with the CEECs the transformation process in East Germany has to be dealt with as a special case. The very rapid transition from a planned economy to a market economy lead to a drastic reduction of jobsparticularly in the agricultural sector of East Germany. But unlike other CEECs in transition, a whole string of government programmes has been adopted and contributed a lot to make this process socially acceptable. The transfers from the federal budgetto the New Lander amounted to 615 billion DM from 1991 to 1995; approximately 40 per cent (215 billion DM) has been spent on social policy measures, mainly for the labour market policy measures. In this respect, the New Federal States found themselves ina unique situation which gave them a rather privileged position, facilitating and mitigating the required changes. A further consequence of this general framework of transition was that the transformation in the New Federal States meant in almost everyeconomic sector the transfer of the West German institutions. The structure of agricultural enterprises in East Germany differed, however, considerably from the West German family farms. Therefore, a sole adoption of West German institutions of social security policy for the agricultural sector in the New Federal States was problematic: On the one hand it seemed questionable whether this scheme was applicable to the special situation and particular social security demands of the farm population in the New Federal States. On the other hand the agricultural social security system in the Federal Republic of Germany had become an important instrument of agricultural income policy at the national level. Since it is highly subsidised the question arised howthis would influence the competitiveness between different legal forms of farm enterprises. Hence political decision makers were in a dilemma: introducing the special agricultural insurance system without any significant changes in the financing system would exclude many registered cooperatives from subsidies of considerable amount. So an alternative policy-option was to reform the system by decoupling the social security policy for agriculture from income policy objectives and reforming it using the social insurance systems for employees as a point of reference. Politicians have chosen different options in transferring the social security system in agriculture of the Old Federal States to the New Federal States. In health and accident insurance the policy-option of an unchanged transfer of the West German institutions was preferred. In the old age pension scheme the policy-option of a transfer was linked with a partial reform of the system, reducing the distributive advantages of the sectoral system.With the exception of the agricultural accident insurance covering all types of farm enterprises the working population in agriculture is treated in accordance to their status as self employed or employees. Whereas agricultural entrepreneurs are included into the sectoral systems, agricultural employees remain in the general statutory systems. This was a reasonable solution in terms of the different social needs of both groups. Comparing the distrib
机译:本文讨论了有关将“旧”德意志联邦共和国的农业社会保障体系转变为新联邦国家的实际和政治问题。目的是分析将该系统转移到东德的影响,特别是在社会保障事务及其财务和分配影响方面。此外,还从东德经验中得出了一些有关中欧和东欧国家(CEEC)农业部门社会政策体系转型的结论。由于洞悉政治,政治和政策之间的相互依存关系对于成功指导至关重要,因此也要研究统一德国该部门决策的政治决定因素。与CEEC相比,东德的转型过程必须作为特殊情况来处理。从计划经济到市场经济的快速转变导致工作机会的急剧减少,特别是在东德的农业部门。但是,与转型中的其他CEEC不同,已经采用了一系列政府计划,并为使这一程序在社会上被接受做出了很大贡献。 1991年至1995年,从联邦预算向新兰德的转移总额为6,150亿马克。大约40%(2150亿德国马克)用于社会政策措施,主要用于劳动力市场政策措施。在这方面,新联邦国家处于一种独特的状况,这给了它们一个相当特权的地位,促进和减轻了必要的改变。这一总体过渡框架的进一步后果是,新联邦国家的转型几乎在每个经济领域都意味着西德机构的转移。东德的农业企业结构与西德的家庭农场大不相同。因此,仅在新联邦州的农业部门中采用西德社会保障政策机构是有问题的:一方面,该方案是否适用于农场人口的特殊情况和特殊社会保障需求似乎令人怀疑。在新联邦州。另一方面,德意志联邦共和国的农业社会保障体系已成为国家一级农业收入政策的重要工具。由于它得到了高度补贴,因此出现了一个问题,它将如何影响不同法律形式的农场企业之间的竞争力。因此,政治决策者处于两难境地:在不对融资体系进行任何重大改变的情况下引入特殊的农业保险体系将使许多注册合作社无法获得可观的补贴。因此,另一种政策选择是通过将农业的社会保障政策与收入政策目标脱钩,并以雇员的社会保险制度为参考进行改革,从而对该制度进行改革。在将旧联邦州的农业社会保障体系转移到新联邦州时,政客们选择了不同的选择。在健康和意外事故保险中,优先选择西德机构不变转移的政策选择。在老年退休金计划中,转移支付的政策选择与制度的部分改革相关联,从而降低了部门制度的分配优势。除了涵盖所有类型的农场企业的农业事故保险外,在职人口农业根据其作为个体经营者或雇员的身份来对待。尽管农业企业家被纳入部门系统,但农业雇员仍保留在一般法定系统中。就这两个群体的不同社会需求而言,这是一个合理的解决方案。比较分配

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