Download presentation
2017-09-11_EESC_hearing_Brussels_Vandenbroucke

The EU’s social dimension: comments on the Reflection Paper and European Pillar of Social Rights Contribution by Frank Vandenbroucke to EESC hearing “The impact dimension future EU” Brussels 11 September 2017 Background paper: Structural convergence versus systems competition: limits diversity labour market policies in Economic Monetary Union ECFIN discussion paper 065 • Both Single Market EMU need a function well But what is ‘needed’ also depends fundamental aspirations that drive project at large (The policy debate not exhausted we may consider as logical corollaries monetary unification integration ) One should carefully distinguish between (i) ‘social corollary’ (ii) Market; they partly overlap but are different Dimension Europe April insufficiently clear about this an important initiative which has inform operational agenda applying legislative instruments coordination financial 1) In 1990s reform markets was justified advent EES emphasized supply-side flexibility ‘enabling’ activation Today broader approach : requires consensus institutions support ‘symmetry’ ‘stability’ Therefore collective action ‘protective’ order Enabling protective can be mutually reinforcing creating resilient 2) Symmetry: member states deliver wage coordination; excludes totally decentralised uncoordinated bargaining Institutions monitor competitiveness embedded dialogue distributive concerns mainstreamed monitoring Mainstreaming into makes ‘assignment’ for national partners complex challenging such encompassing stand better chance achieve legitimacy 3) Stability: effective stabilisation capacity need: sufficiently generous unemployment benefits notably short-term; sufficient coverage rates benefit schemes; no segmentation leaves part force poorly insured against unemployment; proliferation employment relations integrated insurance; unemployed individuals; constitution budgetary buffers good times so automatic stabilisers do their work bad (These principles become fortiori imperative if Eurozone would equipped with reinsurance insurance 4) addition calls competitive goods services cross-border mobility This turn entails corollary Next regulation posting minimum regimes transparent predictable universal reinforces case total decentralisation sustain each state These (4) = Within many trend towards more inequality ‘homespun’ rather than inevitable result globalisation or europeanisation EU must ‘holding environment’ welfare enabling them address inequalities (‘European Union’) terms political communication speak both mobile non-mobile citizens create constituencies (e g world education) Robust defense idea needs non- discriminatory free movement workers matter fairness Reform Posted Workers Directive Improvements Migration creates less pressure adequately regulated markets: hence importance access security all cf next slide Practical II: Upward standards & performance Rights: made (legislative instruments) Priority areas successful migrant workers: – Access protection Quality Universality features supporting needed view eventual organization re-insurance scheme (‘vaccination metaphor’) [Wage Eurozone: it ‘symmetrical’ linked ‘national conversations’ functional distribution incomes?] Revisit 2013 Investment Package Enhance investment human capital (child care Semester (CSR’s) leeway implement CSR’s fiscal surveillance On convergence: Commission Directorate-General Financial Affairs 20 July (http://ssrn com/abstract=3011847) agenda: Fernandes Making reality Notre Jacques Delors Institute Tribune – Viewpoint Paris 31 May (http://www institutdelors eu/media/socialeurope- fernandesvandenbroucke-may2017 pdf?pdf=ok) non-discrimination: Basic income Union: conundrum solution ACCESS EUROPE Research 2017/02 01 August com/abstract=3008621) www frankvandenbroucke uva nl

Download presentation
2017-09-8-9_Eliamep_2017_Athens_Session-VII_Contribution_Vandenbroucke

Session VII: Is there much that Europe can do in a world of widening inequalities and strong migratory pressures? Contribution by Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam Eliamep Seminar 8-9 September 2017 • Inequality pressure: two different issues is often homespun, rather than the result globalisation or europeanisation EU must be ‘holding environment’ for national welfare states, enabling them to address (‘European Social Union’) In terms political communication, EU’s social dimension speak both mobile non-mobile citizens, create constituencies (e.g. education) Robust defense idea needs non- discriminatory free movement workers posting, as matter fairness Reform Posted Workers Directive Improvements citizens Migration creates less pressure adequately regulated labour markets: hence, importance collective bargaining dialogue, access security all workers, cf. next slide The European Pillar Rights: important initiative, but made operational (legislative, financial & policy coordination instruments) Priority areas stabilisation capacity states successful integration migrant workers: – Access protection Quality unemployment insurance activation Universality minimum wage regimes Upward convergence features supporting fortiori needed with view eventual organization Eurozone re-insurance scheme (‘vaccination metaphor’). [Wage Eurozone: it ‘symmetrical’ linked ‘national conversations’ on functional distribution incomes?] Revisit 2013 Investment Package Enhance investment human capital (child care, Semester (CSR’s), budgetary leeway implement such CSR’s fiscal surveillance member states. Summary statement: Fernandes Vandenbroucke, Making reality Notre Jacques Delors Institute, Tribune – Viewpoint, Paris, 31 May (http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/socialeurope- fernandesvandenbroucke-may2017.pdf?pdf=ok) non-discrimination: Basic income Union: conundrum solution, ACCESS EUROPE Research Paper 2017/02, 01 August (http://ssrn.com/abstract=3008621) On need convergence: Structural versus systems competition: limits diversity market policies Economic Monetary Union, ECFIN discussion paper 065, Commission Directorate-General Financial Affairs, Brussels, 20 July (http://ssrn.com/abstract=3011847) www.frankvandenbroucke.uva.nl

Download presentation
2017-07-11-12_Presentation-Barcelona-Conference-on-Ageing-and-Distributive-Justice

Sustainable pension reform on the basis of intergenerational equity: a proposal’ Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam Conference Ageing and Distributive Justice Barcelona 11-12 July • The Belgian Commission Pension Reform Working Group Report 2015 Intergenerational intragenerational justice: role pensions (Schokkaert) risk sharing: proposal 2020-2040 First report: June 2014 Additional report flexibility part-time strenuous work www pensioen2040 belgie be pension2040 belgique New Federal Government (Ch Michel): Sept Statutory age: 67 by 2030 w r t specific advantages in civil servants’ system Creation ‘National Committee’ ‘Knowledge Centre’ ‘Academic Council’ 160 28 140 26 120 24 100 22 80 20 60 40 18 16 0 14 2020 2025 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Old age dependency ratio EU Total economic Life expectancy at 65 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2028 2031 2034 2037 2043 2046 2049 2052 2058 001 000 Belgium with constant life 12 10 8 6 4 2 Impact (no change coverage benefit labour market ratio) actual forecast (incl interaction) impact + Change ratios incl private ( ) 70 50 30 Benefit Structure presentation (based E Schokkaert) Source: Erik Schokkaert seminar ‘Justice between groups’ UCL individuals No problem are free (and remain responsible) to allocate their (equal) endowments over life-cycle Private schemes: funded defined contribution Minimum provided government: mild paternalism rider argument Overlapping (ex ante) equally endowed cohorts Pay-as-you-go system: possibility sharing Mixed (partial funding) preferable Insurance is efficient but may ex post look like redistribution a) Maximin “life-cycle endowment”: relevance minimum b) Should public restricted providing minimum? Arguments favour Bismarckian (“earnings- related”) features: – risk-sharing Minimize distortions Political support for c) Importance non-contributory rights (periods care involuntary unemployment) d) differences expectancy: uniform annuities impose ante-solidarity groups lower from lower-income men higher- income women genetic e) respect working conditions Maximise endowment least well-off cohort so that this can maximise its members: through mix pay-as-you/funding Musgrave criterion as reference point priority pension; negative shock will lead some compression structure earnings-related “just” retirement taking into account Pensions = managing uncertainty integrating adjustment mechanisms Commission: indexing parameters systems longevity (e g career requirements & age) Options ‘Conditional certainty’ individual citizen Stabilize ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (Musgrave Rule) Conditional collective behaviour given macro demographic context choice (number points) x (value point) (actuarial corrections) (indexation growth) Number points <= career: justice Value ≈ f (average employed) Premised desirable sustainable replacement rate ‘standard worker’ ‘normal career’; career’ takes changes demography etc Flexibility: positive / corrections (career) social stratification entry healthy years Positive Indexation (growth real incomes) sustainability coefficient Two objectives Report: Target stabilisation pensioners/employed Stabilisation rates earned average Postponing ‘Alternative’ funding (tax shift) Differentiation according nature shocks (paper Devolder Hindriks Vandenbroucke) Changes longevity: conditional new retirees should not affected Other (baby-boom structural employment rate…) => (gross) (sustainability coefficient) Implementing à la ‘Musgrave rule’ implies further normative questions (relative level pensions/wages): what optimal allocation consumption cycle? Absolute wages &pensions (given productivity): leisure whole life? Resources Towards an equitable A Discussion Paper 2017 European Economy 3/2015 rule: Myles ‘A Contract Elderly’ Esping-Andersen Why we need Welfare State OUP 2002

Download presentation
2017-06-29_Nibud_presentatie_Vandenbroucke

Ongelijkheid en armoede: een Europees Nederlands perspectief Nibud-Congres 2017 Wat is genoeg? Utrecht, 29 juni Frank Vandenbroucke Universiteitshoogleraar UvA • SCP: absoluut tekort, objectief vastgesteld – Arm: iemand die gedurende lange tijd niet de middelen heeft om te kunnen beschikken over goederen voorzieningen in zijn samenleving als minimaal noodzakelijk gelden Referentiebudgetten (2014, alleenstaande): Basisbehoeftenbudget : 971 euro / maand Niet-veel-maar-toereikendbudget: 1063 Personen armoede,2001-2014 (in absolute aantallen x 1000 procentenvan bevolking) % van bevolking 8 1500 aantal lOOO 7 1200 6 900 5 600 4 300 3 2001 2005 2010 2014 0 scp.nl e niet-veel-maar-toereikend – basisbehoeften Bron: CBS (!PO’Ol -’14),SCP-bewerking Beweegde cursor figuur voor meer -nformafe het aanta percentage arrnenperjaar enper armoedegrens. CBS: lage inkomensgrens Bijstandsuitkering 1979, geïndexeerd met prijzen 2014, alleenstaande, 1020 per De Europese definitie ‘armoede’: risico-indicator op basis inkomen: armoedegrens = 60% mediaan beschikbaar huishoudinkomen (gestandaardiseerd) land Nederland, alleenstaande: 1065 ‘niet veel maar toereikend’ 2008, 1008 > (961) Risico’s: kosten gezondheid zorg huisvestingskosten onverwachte (bv. reparaties) schulden … Kritische bedenkingen bij bewegende, relatieve armoedegrenzen ‘Verankerde armoede’: 60%-armoedegrens wordt verankerd 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Lage-inkomensgrens inkomen Centraal Bureau Statistiek, Statline 10 2 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -30 -20 20 30 Armoedegrens 2007 Nederland andere EU-lidstaten 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 Bron (deze volgende slides): Eurostat, EU SILC, eigen bewerkingen; observatiejaren 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% EU27 2004-07 2011-14 NL Zeer hoog Hoog Medium Laag laag Werkintensiteit huishouden 45% 35% 25% 15% 5% 2006-08 2012-14 Geboren buiten EU28 rapporterend Geboorteplaats Globalisering? integratie? Ontwikkelingen verschillen tot Gemeenschappelijke trends ≠ onvermijdelijke Vandenbroucke, F. & Rinaldi, D. (2015) Social inequalities Europe The challenge of convergence and cohesion. In: Vision Summit Consortium (eds.): Redesigning European welfare states Ways forward, Gütersloh (http://www.vision-europe-summit.eu/) Cantillon, B., (eds.) (2014), Reconciling Work Poverty Reduction. How successful are states?, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Alle publicaties: www.frankvandenbroucke.uva.nl

Download presentation
2017-03-13_Presentatie_Vandenbroucke_NPC_Flexibiliteit_in_een_coherente_hervorming_van_de_pensioenstelsels

Flexibiliteit in een coherente hervorming van de pensioenstelsels Inleidende beschouwing Welke vragen dienen beantwoord? Presentatie voor het Nationaal Pensioencomité 13 maart 2017 Frank Vandenbroucke Voorzitter Academische Raad Universiteit Amsterdam Documentatie ¥ Pensions en répartition par points 12 2 (slide show) Twee rapporten Commissie Pensioenhervorming 2020-2040 (www pensioen2040 belgie be) Ð Rapport juni 2014: Een sterk betrouwbaar sociaal contract april 2015: Zware beroepen deeltijds pensioen eerlijke flexibiliteit pensioensysteem Waarom grondige hervorming: nieuwe zekerheid Als sociale verzekering vormt dat houvast moet bieden iedereen jongeren zowel als ouderen actieven gepensioneerden Bij ongewijzigd beleid is financieel niet houdbaar strookt meer met evoluties samenleving rijzen er problemen inzake kwaliteit Louter parameters bestaande systeem wijzigen volstaat De pleit daarom Doelstellingen: ambitie gemiddelde verhouding tussen inkomens zich binnen wenselijke bandbreedte situeren (“noch defined benefit noch contribution maar ambition”) Ook bijdragen op arbeidsinkomens moeten bepaalde blijven => o Loopbanen verlengen Financiering andere basis dan (o m factor vermogen) Vooraf vastgelegde spelregels verzekeren doelstellingen behaald worden evenwicht stand wordt gehouden rechtvaardige spreiding inspanningen die daarvoor nodig zijn Flexibiliteit: aanvullend advies 2015 beroepen: Meerdere dimensies spelen rol Evoluerende realiteit Objectiveerbaar ook resultaat (preventieve) beleidskeuzes Sociaal overleg ⇒ Verschil maken berekening leeftijds- of loopbaaneisen Vereist algemene (keuzevrijheid) Deeltijds vorm flexibiliteit: opportuniteiten vragen: Wat kan men bijverdienen bij pensioen? Kan verder opbouwen door te werken terwijl reeds geniet? correcties toegepast vervroegde opname Hoe corrigeren? (sociale ongelijkheid levensverwachting) In welke mate b t Extra punten zware Correcties i f v Moment Omvang Concrete illustratie: slideshow ‘Pension points’ Pensioenleeftijd loopbaangevoelige correcties: zie slides 28-47 pensioen: 89-93 Conclusies regering vooreerst goed gestructureerd hervormingsproces voorstelt garanderen samenhang verschillende onderdelen chronologie hervormingen bewaakt raadt om administratieve redenen af implementeren huidige pensioenregelingen Te beantwoorden principiële (beperkt tot 1ste pijler): Wil ‘defined ambition’ d w z inkomen stabiliseren? Zo ja welk niveau? aanpassingsmechanismen ingebouwd zelf? vooraf loopbaan- leeftijdseisen? berekeningsformules? stelsels convergeren ze toch apart beheerd worden? pensioensysteem? over toegelaten arbeid actuariële … rekening houden zwaarte via hoogte gezinsdimensie moderniseren? richting? minima vereenvoudigen verbeteren? •