Social protection in Europe 1993

European Commission Directorate-General For Employment Social Affairs And Inclusion

Description

Social protection and social security

Sujets

• Comparison
• Social security
• Member state of the European Union

Informations

• Publié par: EUROPEAN-COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE-GENERAL-FOR-EMPLOYMENT_SOCIAL-AFFAIRS-AND-INCLUS
• Nombre de lectures: 44
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 28 Mo

Extrait

^ "A" JL
* / 993 *
Commission of the vV Directorate-General Employment, ir
European Communities Industrial Relations and Social Affairs
* * * Social protection
in Europe
S'Y
1993
Immission of the -&■ ·£- Directorate-General Employment,
uropean Communities A ... Industrial Relations and Social Affairs VCataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994
ISBN 92-826-6973-4
© ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels · Luxembourg, 1994
Reproduction is authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the
source is acknowledged.
Printed in Germany Foreword
Foreword
the aim of establishing common ob­ Community, considering features he challenges facing the Member
jectives as a guide for national which are in common and aspects TStates of the Community in re­
policies, while at the same time where there is divergence between spect of social protection lie at the
leaving the Member States a com­ the Member States. In addition to a heart of the debate on competitive­
pletely free hand to operate and de­ description of each system and its ness, growth and employment. The
cide how to finance their own underlying philosophy (Chapter 1) way in which these challenges are
systems. On this occasion the the report provides comparative tackled will have a decisive impact
Council stressed the importance of data on the rates of benefit payable, on the future of European society.
exchanging information and the re­ in particular cases which are re­
sults of studies so that debate garded as especially indicative
Clearly, the choice of priorities, the
could be enhanced and new ideas (Chapters 4 and 5).
organisation and the methods of
promoted.
funding social protection are matters
for each individual Member State. As Secondly, the report examines the
the Commission has repeatedly This first report is an initial contribu­ changes that have occurred in the
tion to this exchange and to the en­ national systems since the early stated, there can be no question of
couragement of further study, with 1980s — the trends in expenditure harmonising social security systems
which are rooted in the culture, in­ the intention of making it easier for on social protection and its funding
stitutional structures and organisa­ Member States and social protection (Chapter 3), a review of the main
tional procedures of each country. organisations to obtain the informa­ changes in legislation with the aim
tion they need to help them define the of identifying the direction of pol­
options open to them and the action icy in the Member States which es­
However, the Member States are all
they intend to take. This report sentially face similar constraints
facing similar problems: adverse
should, therefore, be seen as suppor­ (Chapter 2).
demographic trends — particularly
ting, and closely related to, the an­
the dramatic changes evident in the
nual Employment in Europe report.
labour market — changes in family Thirdly, the study considers a num­The interaction between these two
structures and the phenomena of so­ ber of the most serious problems cur­areas is one of the key factors deter­
cial exclusion and poverty which rently facing systems of social mining economic and social progress
they generate. Moreover, differences protection. What is the economic im­in the Community. Furthermore, ar­
in levels of social protection can pact of social protection (Chapter 6)? ticle 2 of the Treaty on European
hamper, or even distort, freedom of How can Member States best Union states that the Community
movement. channel their efforts to increase their must ensure "...a high level of em­
control over health expenditure ployment and social protection...".
(Chapter 7)? What is the effect of a It is for this reason that in 1992 the
second job on the social benefits a Council considered a new approach
couple receives and how can social This first report adopts a three­fold — the convergence of social pro­
protection and economic activity be tection objectives and policies approach. First, it sets out a concise
better reconciled (Chapter 8)? How (Counci l Recommendation description of the situation as re­
have the various systems of social 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992) with gards social protection in the
■3 Foreword
protection responded to the increas­
ing importance of atypical socio-
demographic cases (career breaks,
broken families, etc.) (Chapter 9)?
By so doing, this first Report does not
intend to be exhaustive. Future issues
of the Report will need to cover other
aspects which it was not possible to
include here (such as the protection
of non-wage earners or the systems
to help and encourage receivers of
minimum income allowance to enter
the labour market) as well as those
which need further analysis (ie the
relationship between social protec­
tion and employment, the manage­
ment of health expenditure, etc.). At
the same time, the future issues of
this Report will have to provide the
most complete information possible
on the reforms introduced in each
Member States.
The Community's action in setting
common objectives as a guide for
national policies should clearly boost
the exchange of information on the
effectiveness of particular national
policies, while common assessment
criteria are implicitly established by
the Council recommendation. An in­
dication of the potential for each
Member State to benefit from the
experience of others will be the main
contribution which the Community
can make as regards social protec­
tion.
-4-Table of contents
Table of contents
Foreword
Summary of main points
Chapter 1 Social protection systems in the Community:
similarities and differences
Chapter 2 Recent reforms in social protection systems
in the Community
Chapter 3 Social protection expenditure and its financing
Chapter 4 The scale of social protection in Member States
Chapter 5 Measures for social and economic integration
Chapter 6 Social protection: economic considerations
Chapter 7 Systems of health care in the Community
Chapter 8 Social protection and reconciling work
with family life
Chapter 9 The impact of social and economic change
on systems ofl protection
Sources and methodology
-5 -6-Summary of main points
Summary of main points
pensions), where quantitative indica­In the case of retirement pensions the
tors of access to treatment of differ­Differences difference between Member States
ent sections of the population are varies considerably depending on
difficult to devise. Leaving aside whether the average amount of and similarities
Germany and the Netherlands, where benefit actually paid to pensioners is
the wealthiest people can opt out of taken or some theoretical calculation
national health insurance schemes, of the replacement rates (ie benefit
ifferences between Member all Member States have systems of levels in relation to former earnings). DStates in expenditure on social social protection which cover every­The average retirement pension
protection have narrowed over the one against the risk of illness as well ranges from a little under half of GDP
past 15 years as, on the one hand, as most, if not all, of the cost of their per head in Portugal, Ireland and
spending in the Southern countries of treatment. The (all too few) studies Spain to around three-quarters in
the Community has risen substan­ carried out on access to health care France, the Netherlands, Italy and
tially and, on the other, spending in show that although the needs of the Greece. Calculations based on the
the most Northern countries (Bel­ very poor are generally greater than rates in operation on a given date
gium, Germany, Netherlands and those of the better off, all the systems indicate, however, that theoretical re­
Denmark) has stabilised. In 1991 (the operated in the Member States can be tirement pensions, expressed as a
most recent year for which data are said to conform more or less to the proportion of the final wage are in
available) statistics compiled by Eu­ principle of "equal treatment for fact no lower in Spain or Portugal
rostat using the common ESSPROS equal needs". than those in France, Italy or the
system show that transfers, in cash
Netherlands. The difference in ex­
and in kind, effected through the
penditure on retirement pension is
channels of social protection ranged
attributable more to variations be­ For unemployment benefits, the dif­
from just under 20% of GDP in Por­
tween Member States in the numbers ferences between Member States are
tugal to just over 32% in the Nether­
more striking. In Denmark, Belgium of men and women reaching retire­
lands. The difference in net terms is
and the Netherlands, the unemployed ment age with incomplete contribu­
probably smaller since the taxes and
tion records — notably bec