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'
type: article
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'