政治竞争与年金改革:台湾地区经验的检视

Political Competition and Pension Reforms:A Reflection on Taiwan’s Experience

本论文检视台湾地区过去30年来年金改革的政治过程,比较国民党与民进党这两个主要政党在年金改革过程中的不同主张,并分析两党的政治竞争对于年金改革的影响。台湾地区自20世纪90年代初期至2017年间经历了数次重大的年金改革。在1993—2008年间,改革的重点在完善养老体系的老年经济保障功能,属于'权益扩张'的改革,两党的政治竞争是促成台湾地区年金制度扩张的主要因素。2012—2017年间的改革,则是试图以提高提拨率、降低给付以及延后请领年龄来提升长期的财务永续,属于'权益紧缩'的改革;两党在此阶段采取不同的改革策略,并获致不同的改革结果。尽管改革的方向与目标不同,但各阶段的改革过程中,两党的政治竞争是影响改革过程与结果的重要因素。在权益扩张的阶段,两党分别以不同的年金扩张策略作为选举中争取选票的要求;在权益紧缩的阶段,两党都因迫切的年金财务压力而不得不承担年金改革的责任。就此而言,台湾地区的年金政治与皮尔森(Pierson,1996)所提出的'福利国家新政治'(new politics of the welfare state)的论述并不全然相符。尽管国民党与民进党的福利意识形态相左,且对于年金改革的主张殊异,但两党主政下所推动的年金改革,大体上均是在既有的制度逻辑下做制度调整,符合西方文献所强调的'路径依赖'(path-dependency)的特征。

This paper attempts to examine the political process within which pension reforms had taken place in Taiwan in the past three decades,by comparing the different approaches held by two major parties towards as well as analysing the impacts of political competition upon pension reforms.A series of major reforms towards the pension system had taken place in Taiwan between the early 1990 sand 2017.A phase of'rights expansion'was identified for those reforms taken place between 1993 and 2008 that focuses on enhancing income security for the elderly,during which process political competition between two parties was a key driving force in coverage expansion.Another phase of'rights retrenchment'was suggested for others between 2012 and 2017 during which the key policy goals was to achieve financial sustainability by increasing the contribution rate,lowing the benefits level and postponing the qualifying age and so forth.While political parties witnessed very different reform outcomes because different strategies were adopted,political competition remains the key element in influencing the reform process,regardless of the direction or goals of each reform.While two parties adopted different expansion strategy to appeal to voters during the rights expansion phase,both claimed to assume the financial responsibility of pension reforms during the phase of rights entrenchment.Such a pattern does not fit in the discourse of new politics of the welfare state by Pierson(1996).Even though two parties standing for very different welfare ideologies and approaches to pension reforms,reforms undertaken throughout the years are merely institutional adjustments of the existing framework regardless of the ruling party,which was a key feature of path-dependency.