【作者】 刘影春；

【导师】 程又中；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 国际政治， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 从社会养老保险的性质及养老基金的筹集、管理、发放方式区分,国外农村社会养老保险制度主要分为社会保险型养老保险制度、国家福利型养老保险制度、强制储蓄型养老保险制度三大类型模式。这三种模式的差异实质上是制度顶层设计的责任基础与责任结构的差异,即作为保障责任主体的政府、市场、个人三者间不同组合的责任分配方案的差异。国家福利型社会养老保险制度主张养老保险的国家责任,政府直接介入农村社会养老保险制度的建立、运行与调控,承担农村社会养老保险的完全责任,以一般税收方式负责养老金的全部或绝大部分的供款,而个人所承担的缴费责任非常小；社会保险型社会养老保险制度倡导养老保险的责任共担,政府不直接承担所有的供款和管理等责任,而是间接介入农村社会养老保险制度的建立与运行,养老保险资金由政府、雇主、雇员三方共同分担；强制储蓄型社会保险制度主张养老保险的个人责任和市场化运作,政府只以调控的方式介入农村社会养老保险,社会养老保险资金主要由雇主和雇员或由独立劳动者个人缴费筹集,政府仅给予政策优惠。但在各国的农村社会养老保险制度建设实践中这种划分并不是绝对和不可融合的,多数国家的农村社会养老保险制度的建设大多采用了几种制度模式,构建了既有国家提供又有市场提供,既发挥个人能动性又促进社会经济发展的多支柱多层次的混合型农村社会养老保险制度。各国政府积极引入市场因素,弱化国家作用,政府责任承担呈现“淡出”趋势,即政府在农村社会养老保险制度中的功能角色由提供养老保险福利向管理和促进私人养老保险计划转移,政府不直接承担所有的供款和管理等责任,而是作为引导者通过调动雇主、个人、社会等多方面力量提供并维系农村人口的养老保障；国家不完全放弃对农村社会养老保险的管理,而以严格监管市场运作方式行使政府责任。从制度构建与政府责任角度而言,国外农村社会养老保险制度变迁的规律特征及可借鉴的国际经验主要为：尽管农村社会养老保险制度的构建与发展滞后于城镇,但发达国家的农村社会养老保险制度大都得到适时推进；农村社会养老保险制度建设政府责任目标明确,且制度构建立法先行；农村社会养老保险资金筹集渠道多元,基本养老保障国家财政发挥主导作用；农村社会养老保险制度构建与农业结构调整及国家经济发展政策相联系,促进了农业生产效率的提高及农业经济的发展；多支柱多层次的社会养老保险体系构建成为国外农村社会养老保险制度改革的取向……它山之石可以攻玉。本学位论文从社会养老保险制度模式机制选择与政府责任承担的视角考察国外三大类型农村社会养老保险制度的构建与变迁,以启示我国目前正在施行的新型农村社会养老保险制度的改革实践。论文第一章简单交代了论题研究的缘起及国内外相关的研究动态及研究成果,并明确界定了与该论题研究相关的几个基本概念。第二章论述分析国外农村养老保险制度构建的相关理论。该章先论述了国外社会养老保险制度建立的社会结构及制度文化等影响因素；然后阐述了社会养老保险制度构建的理论渊源及共同影响着养老金制度演进和变迁的两种力量——市场与政府的关系；之后较详细地阐析了社会养老保险制度结构构成要素及其制度模式选择的路径取向；最后简单阐述了当今世界三大类型的社会养老保险制度。第三、四、五章分别选取了三大类型农村社会养老保险制度较有代表性的典型国家——英国、巴西、德国、日本、智利等国,分别对其农村社会养老保险制度构建与变迁进行较深入研究分析,并总结归纳出国外农村社会养老保险制度建设发展演变的规律特征及可借鉴的经验。第六章对我国新型农村养老保险制度推广实施过程中出现的问题及所面临的困境进行了深入细致的分析,并借鉴国外农村社会养老保险制度建设的经验,提出了改革完善我国新型农村养老保险制度的政策建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原