OECD國家公共年金之研究---單一制與分立制之比較

Abstract

當世界各國六十五歲以上人口普遍逐年穩定遞增，面對高齡化社會的趨勢，年金改革成為各國政府不得不面對的重大考驗，參考相關年金資料文獻，OECD國家之中，屬於分立制國家有11個，有19個國家則可歸屬於單一制國家，而本研究的研究目的即是比較（1）單一制國家與分立制國家之公共老年年金規模以及（2）在分立制國家中，政府對於公務人員與非公務人員間之公共老年年金支出之差異。而影響公共年金支出之因素相當多元，因此，本研究將以OECD三十個會員國、樣本期間為1980年至2003年為分析對象，而影響年金支出因素將區分為五大類，分別為公共年金制度、政治、人口統計、總體經濟與財政因素。 依據實證結果所示，單一制與分立制國家在總體公共年金支出與非公務人員年金支出並無顯著差異，但分立制國家相對於單一制國家，確實較為照顧公務人員的老年生活。並且比較分立制國家之下，公務人員與非公務人員公共年金支出之差異，公務人員雖會受到政黨意識形態以及政府面臨沉重的財政壓力，而對公務人員年金支出做出限縮之改革；但另一方面，公務人員年金制度調整給付額度所依據的指數標準比一般私部門年金更有優勢，從實證結果顯示，公務人員年金支出會隨著消費者物價指數連動，而私部門確沒有明顯地逐年隨物價自動調節。 年金體系是複雜且分歧，所以要進行年金制度比較是相當困難的，並且年金的設置也有多重政策目標，例如要思考社會公平性以及經濟效率性等，這些目標可能不同制度下有不同比重，有的制度符合公平層面的要求，但未必有利於人力資源配置之經濟效率原則，而各項政策目標比重上之取捨則視該國所需，但在規劃上則需通盤考量。並且一國公共年金制度不論是朝向單一制整併之目標，還是維持分立制，在作年金改革之前須多方考量，需考慮改制的風險、成本並且要兼顧社會適當性、個人公平性以及財務負擔性，因此，並以漸進的方式改革才較為周延才具可行性。

As the number and share of the population aged 65 and over will continue to grow steadily in OECD countries over the next decades, reforming pensions is becoming one of the biggest challenges governments have to face. With information for OECD countries, 11 OECD countries can be categorized as having separate public pension arrangements for civil servants, 19 OECD countries are categorized as integrated schemes. Hence, the main purposes of this study are to: (1) compare public pension between separated and integrated schemes and (2) compare public pension between public and private sector in the separated scheme countries. Public pension might be affected by different category of factors, so this study use of 30 OECD countries during the 1980-2003 period data, and the variables in the public pension model include public pension scheme, politics, demography, macroeconomics and finance factors. The empirical result reveals that there is no difference between separated and integrated scheme in public pension expenditures. But comparing with integrated schemes, civil servants in the separated scheme countries whose pension are more generous. And comparing public pension between public and private sector in the separated scheme countries, civil servants’ pension expenditures were mainly influenced by party ideology and fiscal burden. However, we found that civil servant pension was significantly correlated to CPI. On the other hand, we do not find the evidence to support private sector pension also was affected by CPI. Pension systems are complex and diverse, so comparing them is consequently difficult. And pensions have multiple purposes, like social equity and economic sufficiency. These purposes may be given different weights, but policy needs to bear them all in mind. Before reforming, we should judge from the perspectives of equality, efficiency, and feasibility. A move from dualism towards integration may or may not be welfare-improving, depending on a series of country specifics. The analysis of any such move needs to take account of the costs of moving from one steady state to another, rather than simply comparing two steady states And it also needs to take account of differences in risk and of the significant differences in administrative costs of different types of pension arrangement And it also needs to rebalance retirement income provision to ensure it is both adequate and financially sustainable. Moreover, it is suggested that the public pension reform should be implemented incrementally.