Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration?
There are good theoretical reasons for expecting pension reform in Anglo-Saxon countries to follow similar paths. Esping-Andersen (1990) famously identified these countries as belonging to the same ‘Liberal’ model of welfare, under which benefits, including pensions, are said to be residual and weak...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association 2013-01, Vol.12 (1), p.77-90 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 90 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 77 |
container_title | Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association |
container_volume | 12 |
creator | Lain, David Vickerstaff, Sarah Loretto, Wendy |
description | There are good theoretical reasons for expecting pension reform in Anglo-Saxon countries to follow similar paths. Esping-Andersen (1990) famously identified these countries as belonging to the same ‘Liberal’ model of welfare, under which benefits, including pensions, are said to be residual and weakly ‘de-commodifying’, reducing individuals’ reliance on the market to a much lesser degree than elsewhere. Pierson (2001) has furthermore argued that because of path dependency welfare states are likely to follow established paths when dealing with ‘permanent austerity’. Following this logic, Aysan and Beaujot (2009) argue that pension reform in liberal countries has resulted in increasing re-commodification. In this paper, we review pension reforms in the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand in the 2000s. We argue that because, in reality, the pension systems differed significantly at the point of reform, the paths followed varied considerably in terms of whether they focused on ‘re-commodification’, ‘cost-containment’ or ‘recalibration’. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1474746412000450 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1622299903</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1474746412000450</cupid><sourcerecordid>2832550581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-9135fadbd1e76483c8653985983750e92a884904c5d43eb277193edd7b4617ab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1KxDAUhYsoOI4-gLuCGxdWkyZpGjcig38woMzouqTt7ZChTTTJiO7mMfT15knM_CxEEbmLe7nnOweSG0WHGJ1ihPnZGFMeKqM4RQhRhraiXlixhCBOtlczTZb6brTn3BShlDLCetF8BI2xndKTeOylh_gBtFNGxw_WvKrVpHS8mH8MVQlWtov5Z3ypJ61JxvItiAMz094qcOfxCJKB6TpTq0ZV0gfrSZCdD1vtpdIdaB8bG7hKtqq0K-RiP9ppZOvgYNP70dP11ePgNhne39wNLodJRUXqE4EJa2Rd1hh4RnNS5RkjImciJ5whEKnMcyoQrVhNCZQp51gQqGte0gxzWZJ-dLzOfbbmZQbOF51yFbSt1GBmrsBZmqZCCET-RxkTCIWvzgN69AOdmpnV4SEFDnmBEmJJ4TVVWeOchaZ4tqqT9r3AqFier_h1vuAhG4_sSqvqCXyL_tP1BRKLnSg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1222006998</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration?</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Lain, David ; Vickerstaff, Sarah ; Loretto, Wendy</creator><creatorcontrib>Lain, David ; Vickerstaff, Sarah ; Loretto, Wendy</creatorcontrib><description>There are good theoretical reasons for expecting pension reform in Anglo-Saxon countries to follow similar paths. Esping-Andersen (1990) famously identified these countries as belonging to the same ‘Liberal’ model of welfare, under which benefits, including pensions, are said to be residual and weakly ‘de-commodifying’, reducing individuals’ reliance on the market to a much lesser degree than elsewhere. Pierson (2001) has furthermore argued that because of path dependency welfare states are likely to follow established paths when dealing with ‘permanent austerity’. Following this logic, Aysan and Beaujot (2009) argue that pension reform in liberal countries has resulted in increasing re-commodification. In this paper, we review pension reforms in the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand in the 2000s. We argue that because, in reality, the pension systems differed significantly at the point of reform, the paths followed varied considerably in terms of whether they focused on ‘re-commodification’, ‘cost-containment’ or ‘recalibration’.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1474-7464</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-3073</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1474746412000450</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Benefits ; Canada ; Liberalism ; Market ; Markets ; New Zealand ; Old age benefits ; Pensions ; Reform ; Reforms ; Retirement ; Social policy ; Themed Section on Rethinking Retirement Incomes: Inequality and Policy Change in the UK and Anglo Saxon Countries ; U.S.A ; United Kingdom ; Wealth ; Welfare ; Welfare State</subject><ispartof>Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association, 2013-01, Vol.12 (1), p.77-90</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-9135fadbd1e76483c8653985983750e92a884904c5d43eb277193edd7b4617ab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-9135fadbd1e76483c8653985983750e92a884904c5d43eb277193edd7b4617ab3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474746412000450/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,12845,27343,27923,27924,30998,33773,33774,55627</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lain, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vickerstaff, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loretto, Wendy</creatorcontrib><title>Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration?</title><title>Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association</title><addtitle>Social Policy & Society</addtitle><description>There are good theoretical reasons for expecting pension reform in Anglo-Saxon countries to follow similar paths. Esping-Andersen (1990) famously identified these countries as belonging to the same ‘Liberal’ model of welfare, under which benefits, including pensions, are said to be residual and weakly ‘de-commodifying’, reducing individuals’ reliance on the market to a much lesser degree than elsewhere. Pierson (2001) has furthermore argued that because of path dependency welfare states are likely to follow established paths when dealing with ‘permanent austerity’. Following this logic, Aysan and Beaujot (2009) argue that pension reform in liberal countries has resulted in increasing re-commodification. In this paper, we review pension reforms in the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand in the 2000s. We argue that because, in reality, the pension systems differed significantly at the point of reform, the paths followed varied considerably in terms of whether they focused on ‘re-commodification’, ‘cost-containment’ or ‘recalibration’.</description><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Market</subject><subject>Markets</subject><subject>New Zealand</subject><subject>Old age benefits</subject><subject>Pensions</subject><subject>Reform</subject><subject>Reforms</subject><subject>Retirement</subject><subject>Social policy</subject><subject>Themed Section on Rethinking Retirement Incomes: Inequality and Policy Change in the UK and Anglo Saxon Countries</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Wealth</subject><subject>Welfare</subject><subject>Welfare State</subject><issn>1474-7464</issn><issn>1475-3073</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1KxDAUhYsoOI4-gLuCGxdWkyZpGjcig38woMzouqTt7ZChTTTJiO7mMfT15knM_CxEEbmLe7nnOweSG0WHGJ1ihPnZGFMeKqM4RQhRhraiXlixhCBOtlczTZb6brTn3BShlDLCetF8BI2xndKTeOylh_gBtFNGxw_WvKrVpHS8mH8MVQlWtov5Z3ypJ61JxvItiAMz094qcOfxCJKB6TpTq0ZV0gfrSZCdD1vtpdIdaB8bG7hKtqq0K-RiP9ppZOvgYNP70dP11ePgNhne39wNLodJRUXqE4EJa2Rd1hh4RnNS5RkjImciJ5whEKnMcyoQrVhNCZQp51gQqGte0gxzWZJ-dLzOfbbmZQbOF51yFbSt1GBmrsBZmqZCCET-RxkTCIWvzgN69AOdmpnV4SEFDnmBEmJJ4TVVWeOchaZ4tqqT9r3AqFier_h1vuAhG4_sSqvqCXyL_tP1BRKLnSg</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Lain, David</creator><creator>Vickerstaff, Sarah</creator><creator>Loretto, Wendy</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration?</title><author>Lain, David ; Vickerstaff, Sarah ; Loretto, Wendy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-9135fadbd1e76483c8653985983750e92a884904c5d43eb277193edd7b4617ab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Market</topic><topic>Markets</topic><topic>New Zealand</topic><topic>Old age benefits</topic><topic>Pensions</topic><topic>Reform</topic><topic>Reforms</topic><topic>Retirement</topic><topic>Social policy</topic><topic>Themed Section on Rethinking Retirement Incomes: Inequality and Policy Change in the UK and Anglo Saxon Countries</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Wealth</topic><topic>Welfare</topic><topic>Welfare State</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lain, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vickerstaff, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loretto, Wendy</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lain, David</au><au>Vickerstaff, Sarah</au><au>Loretto, Wendy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration?</atitle><jtitle>Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association</jtitle><addtitle>Social Policy & Society</addtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>77</spage><epage>90</epage><pages>77-90</pages><issn>1474-7464</issn><eissn>1475-3073</eissn><abstract>There are good theoretical reasons for expecting pension reform in Anglo-Saxon countries to follow similar paths. Esping-Andersen (1990) famously identified these countries as belonging to the same ‘Liberal’ model of welfare, under which benefits, including pensions, are said to be residual and weakly ‘de-commodifying’, reducing individuals’ reliance on the market to a much lesser degree than elsewhere. Pierson (2001) has furthermore argued that because of path dependency welfare states are likely to follow established paths when dealing with ‘permanent austerity’. Following this logic, Aysan and Beaujot (2009) argue that pension reform in liberal countries has resulted in increasing re-commodification. In this paper, we review pension reforms in the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand in the 2000s. We argue that because, in reality, the pension systems differed significantly at the point of reform, the paths followed varied considerably in terms of whether they focused on ‘re-commodification’, ‘cost-containment’ or ‘recalibration’.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1474746412000450</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1474-7464 |
ispartof | Social policy and society : a journal of the Social Policy Association, 2013-01, Vol.12 (1), p.77-90 |
issn | 1474-7464 1475-3073 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1622299903 |
source | Cambridge Journals; Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Benefits Canada Liberalism Market Markets New Zealand Old age benefits Pensions Reform Reforms Retirement Social policy Themed Section on Rethinking Retirement Incomes: Inequality and Policy Change in the UK and Anglo Saxon Countries U.S.A United Kingdom Wealth Welfare Welfare State |
title | Reforming State Pension Provision in ‘Liberal’ Anglo-Saxon Countries: Re-Commodification, Cost-Containment or Recalibration? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A26%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reforming%20State%20Pension%20Provision%20in%20%E2%80%98Liberal%E2%80%99%20Anglo-Saxon%20Countries:%20Re-Commodification,%20Cost-Containment%20or%20Recalibration?&rft.jtitle=Social%20policy%20and%20society%20:%20a%20journal%20of%20the%20Social%20Policy%20Association&rft.au=Lain,%20David&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=77&rft.epage=90&rft.pages=77-90&rft.issn=1474-7464&rft.eissn=1475-3073&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1474746412000450&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2832550581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1222006998&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1474746412000450&rfr_iscdi=true |