Beveridge and Bismarck remodelled: the positions of British and German organised interests on pension reform

Klitzke, Julia

Preview

PDF
2017.04.13 Dissertation Drucklegung FINAL v.2-1.pdf - Published
Download (5MB)

URL:	https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/42079
URN:	urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-420791
Document Type:	Doctoral dissertation
Year of publication:	2017
Place of publication:	Mannheim
University:	Universität Mannheim
Evaluator:	Ebbinghaus, Bernhard
Date of oral examination:	4 October 2016
Publication language:	English
Institution:	School of Social Sciences > Makrosoziologie (Ebbinghaus 2022-)
Subject:	300 Social sciences, sociology, anthropology
Subject headings (SWD):	Rentenversicherung , Rentenreform , Nichtstaatlicher Akteur , Interessenverband , Sozialstaat , Sozialpolitik , Arbeitnehmerverband , Beveridge-Plan , Soziale Sicherheit , Altersversorgung , Vergleichende politische Wissenschaft , Experteninterview
Keywords (English):	NGO , pension system , pension reform , trade unions , employers , comparitive politics , institutional change , pensions , expert interview
Abstract:	This thesis compares the changes that the pension systems of the United Kingdom and Germany underwent from the 2000s onwards and analyses them through the lens of stakeholders such as trade unions, social associations, employer organisations and insurance associations. The two archetypal pension models of the Bismarck system in Germany and the Beveridge system in the United Kingdom have undergone significant changes, in particular with the milestone reforms that were the introduction of the Riester pension in Germany and auto-enrolment in the United Kingdom, while the raising of the statutory retirement age that is in process in both countries remains controversial and subject to heated political conflict. In a qualitative analysis, this thesis investigates what the systemic consequences of the recent reforms are for these two pension systems, and draws on interview data with over 30 organisation representatives to see how organised interests cope with and try to adapt to these changes, and which organisations have been supportive of or opposed to recent reforms and why. The positions of these organisations are rendered in a two-dimensional policy space and put in a qualitative discussion context. The results not only suggest systemic development in different directions of welfare state typology, but also directly opposing developments in terms of systemic cohesion.