Flexicurity in Bismarckian Countries? Old Age Protection for Non-standard Workers in Belgium

Abstract

In the debate on 'flexicurity', relatively little attention has been paid to how responsive traditional areas of social security have been to increasing flexibility in the labour market. This article tries to fill this gap by focusing on the Belgian pension system. In particular, it asks to what extent pension regulation in the three pillars has been adapted to the proliferation of atypical forms of employment. It does so by examining whether there are significant differences between old age protection of standard and non-standard workers. The article pursues a double research strategy: an analysis of Belgian legislation and relevant collective labour agreements is complemented with a statistical analysis of the Panel Study of Belgian Households (PSBH). The results show that part-time employment results in a lower first-pillar pension, while other forms of temporal flexibility such as career interruptions and temporary unemployment do not. In the second pillar, our findings suggest that workers with contractual flexibility and job mobility are discriminated against. Finally, non-standard workers do not appear to compensate for lower pension protection through increased participation in the third pension pillar. Our findings suggest the need for a re-assessment of the system of 'assimilated' periods. To conclude, we point to some implications for the design of flexicurity policies.

Commensuration and policy comparison: How the use of standardized indicators affects the rankings of pension systems

“…Several classifications have been presented to make sense of the complex pension landscape. In this article, we make use of the three pillar concept (for a more extensive discussion, see Peeters et al, 2008). 5.…”

Challenges of old-age insurance with regard to career breaks and atypical employment

“…Occupational and individual private pension systems (second and third pillars) Flexibly employed workers are frequently either directly (self-employed or short-hours workers) or, in the case of low or irregular wages, indirectly excluded from the additional old-age insurance provision constituted by the second and third pillars. This is shown by Peeters et al (2007) andO'Connell andGash (2003) in their analyses of occupational pensions for, respectively, fixedterm employees in Belgium and part-time workers in Ireland. Looking at eight OECD countries, Antolin (2008) largely confirms these findings for part-time workers, self-employed workers and low-income workers who are less likely to save for private provision.…”

“…Thus in the Netherlands, for example, part-time workers cannot, since 1994, be excluded from the complementary retirement insurance systems; nor, since 2002, can the length of the contract constitute a reason for exclusion (European Commission, 2006). 9 In Belgium too improvements in this respect have been introduced but, even so, flexible employees can suffer disadvantage in relation to benefit levels, as has been shown by Peeters et al (2007) in relation to fixed-term employees.…”

Lifecourses, pensions and poverty among elderly women in Belgium: interactions between family history, work history and pension regulations

“…In so-called Bismarckian welfare states, the number of years worked and wages earned influence the level of the retirement pension (Bonoli and Palier 2007; Peeters et al . 2008). In the Belgian context, retirement pensions are also influenced by the number of assimilated years.…”