wow-inequalities/02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/a129ccef37d667b565da2bb95b3ebfcc-mehl-p/info.yaml

232 lines
7.8 KiB
YAML
Raw Normal View History

2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
abstract: 'In this paper practical and political problems concerning the
transformation of the social security system in agriculture of the `old''
Federal Republic of Germany to the New Federal States are discussed. The
intention is to analyse the impacts of transferring this system to East
Germany, especially concerning social security matters and their
financial and distributive effects. Furthermore some conclusions from
the East German experiences for the transformation of the social policy
systems for the agricultural sectors in Central and Eastern European
countries (CEECs) are drawn. Since insight into the interdependencies of
polity politics and policies are important for a successful guidance the
political determinants of policy-making in this sector in unified
Germany are examined too.
In comparison with the CEECs the transformation process in East Germany
has to Se dealt with as a special case. The very rapid transition from a
planned economy to a market economy lead to a drastic reduction of jobs
particularly in the agricultural sector of East Germany. But unlike
other CEECs in transition, a whole string of government programmes has
been adopted and contributed a lot to make this process socially
acceptable. The transfers from the federal budget to the New Lander
amounted to 615 billion DM from 1991 to 1995; approximately 40 per cent
(215 billion DM) has been spent on social policy measures, mainly for
the labour market policy measures. In this respect, the New Federal
States found themselves in a unique situation which gave them a rather
privileged position, facilitating and mitigating the required changes. A
further consequence of this general framework of transition was that the
transformation in the New Federal States meant in almost every economic
sector the transfer of the West German institutions.
The structure of agricultural enterprises in East Germany differed,
however, considerably from the West German family farms. Therefore, a
sob adoption of West German institutions of social security policy for
the agricultural sector in the New Federal States was problematic: On
the one hand it seemed questionable whether this scheme was applicable
to the special situation and particular social security demands of the
farm population in the New Federal States. On the other band the
agricultural social security system in the Federal Republic of Germany
had become an important instrument of agricultural income policy at the
national level. Since it is highly subsidised the question arised how
this would influence the competitiveness between different legal forms
of farm enterprises. Hence political decision makers were in a dilemma:
introducing the special agricultural insurance system without any
significant changes in the financing system would exclude many
registered cooperatives from subsidies of considerable amount. So an
alternative policy-option was to reform the system by decoupling the
social security policy for agriculture from income: policy objectives
and reforming it using the social insurance systems for employees as a
point of reference.
Politicians have chosen different options in transferring the social
security system in agriculture of the Old Federal States to the New
Federal States. In health and accident insurance the policy-option of an
unchanged transfer of the West German institutions was preferred. In the
old age pension scheme the policy-option of a transfer was linked with a
partial reform of the system, reducing the distributive advantages of
the sectoral system. With the exception of the agricultural accident
insurance covering an types of farm enterprises the working population
in agriculture is treated in accordance to their status as self employed
or employees. Whereas agricultural entrepreneurs are included into the
sectoral systems, agricultural employees remain in the general statutory
systems. This was a reasonable solution in terms of the different social
needs of both groups. Comparing the distributive effects of the two
systems however shows, that there are still considerable advantages for
the farmers'' system, despite a remarkable reform of the farmer''s old age
pension scheme. Explaining these policy outcomes in social security
policy in agriculture has to focus on changing policy networks before
and after German unification. The path-dependency and in some way
contingency of the policy process and its results make it almost
impossible to draw general conclusions, in order to provide guidance as
to how to manage reform processes in agricultural policy.
Due to the fact that all CEECs are undertaking or initiating reforms of
their social security systems, however, these countries do have a
particular interest to find the best possible solutions for the social
problems they are involved, bearing in mind, however, that a social
security system cannot simply be copied from another country. A look at
social security systems in West European countries demonstrates the wide
range of possibilities available for organizing social security. In
Central and East European countries too there was not one single
socialist system of social security policy. Hence, CEECs have to reform
their own schemes due to the overall conditions and the historical
backgrounds in each country. This does not, however, imply that
experiences from social security in western democratic countries or the
transformation process in East Germany may not be of interest to the
other states undergoing transformation.
In all 15 member countries of the EU employees in agriculture and
self-employed farmers as well are covered by comprehensive compulsory
insurance schemes. But especially the insurance schemes for farmers,
obligatorily insured in old age pension schemes in all states, are very
heterogenously organized. Partly, farmers are insured in special
agricultural systems or in social security systems for self-employed
persons, partly, farmers are members of the general social security
systems. Despite great varieties in entitlement rules, insured persons,
level of benefits etc. all sectoral systems for farmers have the
following in common: more old age pensioners than contributors; a high
dependency on state subsidies; a low level of pensions and problems of
compatibility with other old age pension schemes, if a farmer decides to
change occupation.
Up to now among the CEECs only Poland has a special system of old age
pensions for farmers. In the other CEECs, farmers as well as the entire
working population in agriculture were insured within the general
system. Experiences in Poland with KRUS, the agricultural social
security fund, are similiar to those in Western European countries with
special security systems for farmers. Looking at the experiences in the
FRG, in the other West-European countries with special systems for
farmers and in Poland, it seems not to be a recommendable solution for
other CEECs to follow these examples.'
affiliation: Mehl, P (Corresponding Author), BUNDESFORSCH ANSTALT LANDWIRTSCHAFT BRAUNSCHWEIG,INST
STRUKTURFORSCH,BRAUNSCHWEIG,GERMANY.
author: Mehl, P
author_list:
- family: Mehl
given: P
da: '2023-09-28'
files: []
issn: 0458-6859
journal: LANDBAUFORSCHUNG VOLKENRODE
language: English
number: '2'
number-of-cited-references: '59'
pages: 75-88
papis_id: c54e138da5d195dfebea43144044cf31
ref: Mehl1997transformingsocial
times-cited: '0'
title: 'Transforming social security in agriculture in transition countries: The case
of East Germany'
2023-10-01 08:15:07 +00:00
type: article
2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
unique-id: WOS:A1997YA11300004
usage-count-last-180-days: '0'
usage-count-since-2013: '13'
volume: '47'
web-of-science-categories: Agriculture, Multidisciplinary
year: '1997'