The Liberalisation of the German Social Model: Public–Private Pension Reform in Germany since 2001

Abstract

Some commentators view reforms to the German political economy since the 1990s as constituting a broad liberalisation of a previously coordinated market economy (e.g., Streeck, 2009). Others argue that by maintaining protection for core workers the reforms represent a dualisation rather than liberalisation (e.g., Palier and Thelen, 2010). This debate has paid little attention to public-private pension reform since 2001. This paper argues that pensions have been a crucial component of the German social model since 1957 and demonstrates why comprehensive analysis of its development must consider them. After summarising how public and occupational pensions have supported core German workers since 1957, the paper calculates core workers' projected net pensions and those of less privileged employees before and after recent reforms. On this basis, it concludes that pension reforms have created a system more characteristic of a liberal than a dualised political economy. Since the reform, the projected pensions of today's young workers are closer to the poverty line, and the gap between the projected benefits of core and peripheral workers has narrowed. Increasingly, as young core workers age, they will thus have less incentive to invest in employer specific skills, a development that threatens the model as a whole.the liberalisation of the german social model 59 Note 1 Coverage numbers did not decline further despite scheme closure to new members because overall industrial employment declined between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, reducing the pool of workers used for calculating coverage rates (Ruppert, 1997).

The retrenchment of public pension provision in the liberal world of welfare during the age of austerity—and its unexpected reversal, 1980–2017

“…More generally, there is scope for research that compares and explains pension system dynamics in the different worlds of welfare. This paper has shown liberal pension systems to be more resilient than expected; the literature on conservative and social democratic systems generally shows the contrary, with dualizing (e.g., Emmenegger et al, ) or liberalizing (Bridgen & Meyer, ) processes evident. Overall, it has been suggested that we are witnessing a “middle‐of‐the‐road convergence” in welfare states (Achterberg & Yerkes, ; see also Overbye, ) rather than the neo‐liberal one predicted by the globalization thesis (see Pierson, , , p. 81).…”

Reform narratives and argumentative coupling in German pension policy: constructing the ‘deserving retiree’

“…Traditionally, the German pension system mainly rested on the public pension pillar, whichbased on social-insurance contributionsused to be directed at maintaining the standard of living during old age. Those main features were basically kept until the new millennium (Bridgen & Meyer, 2014). Similar to other countries (Béland, 2019;Hagelund & Grødem, 2019, both in this Special Issue), however, during the 1990s Germany's public pension system came increasingly under reform pressure in face of population ageing, high unemployment rates, and the financial burden of reunification.…”

How European pension promises changed in austere times: 2002–15

“…In Germany in 2001 radical retrenchment provided a direct solution to the problem that already significant pension contributions were projected to rise over the next decades; at the same time the cuts did not affect anyone immediately, but they would be phased in over decades. The red-green coalition government could thus claim the credit for a reform whose full impact future governments will need to confront (Bridgen and Meyer 2014). In Sweden in the context of a deep recession at the beginning of the 1990s and an ageing society actors across the political spectrum agreed that a structural pension reform was needed, which would cut costs and tie outcomes more strongly to market performance and demographic change, while keeping a minimum level for those on low incomes (Anderson und Meyer 2003;Belfrage and Ryner 2009, p. 270-273;Belfrage 2015).…”