International Experience And Enlightenment About The Construction Of Rural Old-Age Security

According to the nature of social old-age security and the ways of collection, administration and distribution of pension funds, rural old-age security in foreign countries can be classified into three main types:old-age security characterized with social insurance, national welfare, and compulsory saving. The differences between these three types is actually the differences in liability basis and liability structure of the system top design, namely, the differences in responsibility assignments of various combinations among government, market and individuals which serve as the responsibility main bodies.Countries implementing the national welfare-type old-age security place emphasis on national responsibility. That is, the government should directly interfere with the construction, operation and regulation of rural old-age security and shoulder the complete responsibility for it, covering all or majority of the expenditure of old-age pension through the common taxation, while individuals have relatively small payment responsibility. For those countries which implement social insurance-type old-age security, they advocate the shared responsibility, which means government should indirectly interfere with rural pension system rather than taking all the responsibilities of funding and administration. Old-age security funds are supposed to be jointly paid by government, employers and employees. The countries enforcing the compulsory saving-type old-age security assert individual responsibility. Government only gets involved in rural pension system by way of regulation and providing preferential policies, while funding for social old-age insurance is mainly garnered by employers and employees or by independent labourers. However, such division is not absolute and incompatible in the construction practice of countries’ rural old-age security.In fact, most countries adopt and combine several institutional models in constructing rural old-age security to establish the multi-pillar, multi-level system. Besides, there is a tendency by many governments to diminish their responsibility for rural old-age security. Governments are inclined to no longer take all the liability for funds and administration, but instead, they try to mobilize the forces from employers, individuals and society to offer and maintain the guarantee for rural old-age security. It doesn’t mean that nations would totally disclaim the governance to rural old-age pension system, but to better exercise government responsibility by way of strictly supervising market operation.Making a general survey of the construction practice of rural old-age security in different countries, we can get the changing laws, features, and international experience from it:although the construction and development of rural old-age security lag behind those in cities, most of them can be promoted duly in developed countries. Governments have explicit responsibility and goals for the construction of rural old-age security, and insist on legislation in advance in the establishment of system. Channels being offered for funds-collection are pluralistic, and national finance play a leading role in basic old-age pension. Establishment of rural old-age security is associated with agriculture restructuring and countries’ economic development policies, which helps to promote agriculture productivity and development of agriculture economy. Multi-pillar, multi-level social pension system has become a main direction for reform in foreign countries’ rural old-age security...Just as an old saying goes:By other’s faults, wise men correct their own. From the perspective of the choices made among various models of old-age security and government responsibility, this essay tries to explore the construction and changes regarding three main types of rural old-age security in foreign countries, so that to inspire the reform and practice of the new-typed rural old-age security which is being enforced in China.The first chapter briefly explains the causes for this researching, introduces relevant research trends and research achievements both at home and abroad. Also, it defines clearly several related basic concepts.The second chapter analyzes relevant theories about construction of overseas rural old-age security. This chapter firstly discusses social structure, system culture and other factors which create impact on foreign countries’ social pension system; then it states the theoretical origin of the establishment of social pension system as well as the two forces which commonly influence the evolution and transformation of old-age security system--relationships between market and government. Following that, it elaborates on the elements composing the social pension system structure and the direction for choosing institutional models. At last, it briefly expounds three main types of old-age security system in contemporary world.The third, forth and fifth chapters respectively select typical countries which can best exemplify these three types of rural old-age security--Britain, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and Chile in order to conduct an in-depth research on the construction and transformation of those countries’ rural old-age security. And meanwhile, it generalizes the rules and characteristics about the development of overseas rural old-age security, drawing lessons and experience from them.The sixth chapter makes the detailed analysis on the problems and quandary that occur during the process of enforcement and expansion of the new-typed rural old-age security in China. Moreover, based on international experience learned from foreign countries’ rural pension system, it proposes suggestions about how to further reform and improve China’s rural old-age security.