Emeklilikte Özelleştirme Eğilimleri ve Organize Sermaye Gruplarının Etkisi: Ekonomik Kriz Ne Gösterdi?

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 87 - 100, 20.01.2014

Esat Aktaşoğlu Erdem Cam

Öz

Son yıllarda giderek artan ve sürdürülemez olarak tahmin edilen emeklilik harcamalarının azaltılması amacıyla sosyal güvenlik ve emeklilik sistemlerinde birçok ülke reform uygulamıştır. Bu reformlar kapsamında emeklilik fonlarının özelleştirilmesi de önemli eğilimlerden biri olmuştur. Ancak özellikle son yaşanan ekonomik ve mali kriz özel emeklilik sistemlerinin aksaklıklarını ve devletin bu alandaki düzenleyici ve denetleyici rolünü tekrar gündeme getirmiştir. Bu makalede krizden çıkarılan dersler ışığında özelleştirme eğiliminin bir hata olup olmadığı ve bu eğilimin yalnızca organize sermaye çevrelerinin baskısı ve etkisiyle açıklanıp açıklanamayacağı genel hatlarıyla incelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak özelleştirmeye yönelik reformların kendi başlarına tamamen hatalı olmadığı; sermaye kesiminin etkisine ek olarak başka birçok etken olduğu; ikame yerine tamamlayıcı özel emeklilik sistemlerinin potansiyel katkıları ve her türden emeklilik fonunun etkin ve şeffaf bir yönetimi gerektirdiği örneklerle açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal Güvenlik Reformları, özel emeklilik sistemi, emeklilikte özelleştirme süreci, sermaye kesiminin baskısı, ekonomik kriz

Pension Privatisation Trends and the Influence of Organised Business Interests:What Did the Economic Crisis Show?

Öz

In recent years, in order to reduce growing pension spending, which is foreseen as unsustainable, social security and pension system reform has been applied in many countries. Within the scope of these reforms, the privatisation of pension funds has been one of the most important trends. However, the economic and financial crisis of 2008 brought into focus once again the problems of private pension systems, and the regulatory and supervisory role of the state in this area. In the light of the lessons learned from the crisis, this article attempts to examine whether the privatisation trend was flawed, and if its adoption can only be explained by the influence of organised business interests. Using cases from countries across the world, this article argues that the trend toward privatisation per se was not a mistake; that, in addition to capital’s influence, there were many other factors involved in the crisis; that, even taking their potential benefits into account, privately funded pensions should only be used as a complement to public old-age security systems and not as substitutes; and that any type of pension funds require effective government.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Security Reforms, private funded system, pension privatisation trend, influence of organised business interest, economic crisis

Kaynakça

• Antolín, P. and F. Stewart (2009) “Private Pensions and Policy Responses to the Financial and Economic Crisis” OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions, No. 36, OECD Publishing.
• Arza, C. and M. Kohli (2008) “The Political Economy of Pension Reform”, Pension Reform in Europe - Politics (Ed.: Camila Arza and Martin Kohli), Policies and Outcomes, Routledge.
• Barr, N. (2012) The Economics of the Welfare State, 5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Beblavý, M. (2011) “Why has the crisis been bad for private pensions, but good for the flat tax? The sustainability of ‘neoliberal’ reforms in the new EU member states”, [http://www.ceps.eu] Centre for European Policy Studies.
• Brooks, Sarah M. (2005) “Interdependent and Domestic Foundations of Policy Change: The Diffusion of Pension Privatization Around the World”, International Studies Quarterly, (2005) 49, 273–294.
• Burtless, G. (2009) “Lessons of the financial crisis for the design of national pension systems” CESifo Working Paper No: 2735, CESifo Group, Munich, Germany
• Congdon, W.J., Kling, J.R. & Mullainathan, S. (2009) "Behavioral Economics and Tax Policy", National Tax Journal, Vol.: 62, No. 3, 375-386.
• Ebbinghaus, B.; Orenstein, M. A. and N. Whiteside (2012) “Governing pension fund capitalism in times of uncertainty”, Global Social Policy, 12 (3) 241-245
• Ebbinghaus, B. (2011a) “Embedded pension reforms in Europe – The forces towards a renewed welfare system for the elderly”. MZES, University of Mannheim, 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference, Valencia, 8-10 September 2011.
• Ebbinghaus, B. (2011b) “The role of trade unions in European pension reforms: From 'old' to 'new'”, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 315-331.
• Eich, Frank (2009) “The financial and economic crisis and its impact on pension systems around the world”, Pensions Tomorrow, 1-23.
• Gooby, P. T. (2005) “UK pension reform: A Test Case For a Liberal Welfare State?”, in Ageing and Pension Reform Around the World: Evidence From Eleven Countries, edited by Bonoli G. and Shinkawa T.
• Gough, I. and G. Wood et al (2004) “Conclusion: Rethinking social policy in development contexts”, Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social Policy in Development Contexts,
• Cambridge University Press.
• Holzmann, R. (2012) “Global Pension Systems and Their Reform: Worldwide Drivers, Trends and Challenges” Social Protection and Labor Discussion, Paper No: 1213, The World Bank.
• Kemmerling, A. and Neugart, M. (2009) “Financial Market Lobbies and Pension Reform”, European Journal
• of Political Economy, 25 (2), 163-173.
• Leimgruber, M. (2011) “The historical roots of a diffusion process: the three-pillar doctrine and European pension debates, 1972-1994” 3rd European Congress on World and Global History, University of Geneva 14-17 April 2011, LSE
• Müller, K. (2003) Privatising Old-Age Security: Latin America and Eastern Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing.