This article provides a comparative study of the labour market and social policy measures introduced in light of the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom between March 2020 and January 2021. Its main aim is to understand whether the crisis response has changed the structures of the welfare states concerned. Focusing in particular on the differences regarding the crisis measures taken for individuals in ‘standard employment’ and ‘non-standard workers’ in each country, it argues that, although extensive temporary protection instruments were introduced for both groups during the crisis, these did not lead to an immediate convergence as regards these groups’ social protection. Rather than changing the underlying structures of welfare systems, many of the measures in fact highlighted the specific vulnerabilities of large segments of Europe’s labour markets. States have, however, granted social compensation at unprecedented levels, which could result in improved infrastructures and a clearer understanding of the responsibility of the welfare state in future emergencies.

No abstract

No abstract

Maintaining adequate pension levels throughout the entire retirement phase is a persistent challenge in old-age protection. Most public pension schemes in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries provide for some form of indexation for pensions in payment. These mechanisms have been object of frequent revisions for different purposes, in particular across Europe. This article explores the social and financial policy objectives linked to standard indexation parameters in public pension schemes, and offers a rough taxonomy of additional factors used to modify traditional indexation arrangements, with a special focus on changing rules and practices adopted in the European Union (EU) area after the 2008 international economic and financial crisis. Analysis suggests that early responses were mainly driven by cost containment ideas, whereas more recently, a subtle shift towards adequacy-oriented interventions can be noticed. The article argues that restrictive pension indexation rules in combination with overall retrenchment of public pension provision fail to take into account the increasing duration of retirement and corresponding pension erosion. Such failure calls into question not only income security during retirement as a major objective of old-age pensions but also compliance with international standards of social security set by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Council of Europe. More social policy research is needed in view of the increasing complexities of indexation rules, as shortfalls in indexation can cause significant impairment in the living conditions of older pensioners, predominantly women.

The pension reform, approved in Germany in 2001, and implemented on January 1, 2002, has been described by the Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Walter Riester, as ‘one of the greatest social reforms this country has seen’ (Federal Ministry, 2002a) and it has prompted considerable discussion and publications. This article analyses key assumptions on the effects of the German reform in the light of two decades of experience with structural pension reforms (‘privatisation’) in Latin America. This region has pioneered this type of reform and has influenced both the international debate and changes in other regions such as Eastern Europe. The article has four objectives: (1) to elaborate a taxonomy of old-age structural pension reforms in the world and place Germany's within it; (2) to identify and analyse crucial assumptions related to the effects of the German reform (incentives for affiliation, competition and administrative costs, impact on the level of pensions, sustainability of the public pension contribution ceiling, and effects on national saving, fiscal costs, the capital market and investment returns); (3) to contrast those German assumptions that are similar to their counterparts in Latin America with data collected on real outcomes from the pension reforms in several countries of that region and, to a lesser extent, from a few Eastern European countries (the two regions combined embrace more than 80 million insured persons in private pensions); and (4) to summarise our findings and draw some useful lessons. Economic, social security and other differences between Germany and the countries compared will be taken into account in the analysis.