unemployment and pensions protection in europe: the ...€¦ · revised book proposal (edited...

PROWELFARE - National workshop, Warsaw, 5-6 May 2016 – Minutes 1

Unemployment and Pensions Protection in Europe: The Changing Role of Social Partners

National workshop, Warsaw, 5-6 May 2016

MINUTES

Luca Mapelli and Bart Vanhercke (OSE)

Summary of Milestones

o Week of 23rd May 2016:

Minutes and slides of Warsaw workshop circulated to teams (OSE);

Draft programme for the Vienna Workshop circulated (OSE + AK)

Revised book proposal (edited volume I) circulated (DN, EP and BV)

o 31 May 2016: Guidelines for the revising and shortening the country chapters (edited

volume I) circulated to teams (DN, EP and BV)

o 15 June 2016:

Draft Introductory chapter circulated to teams (DN, EP)

All teams submit an abstract of their proposed book chapter, based on the

Executive summary of the OSE WP

Revised and full-blown Analytical reports (WP 3, 4, 5) to coordinator

o 19 August 2016:

Draft country Chapters for edited volume circulated to teams and steering

committee

Pre-final Analytical reports (WP 3, 4, 5) circulated to teams and steering committee

o 30-31 August 2016: Vienna national workshop (focused on Database, draft Chapters for

edited volume and pre-final Analytical reports)

o Week of 23 September 2016:

Publication of Analytical Working Papers (WP 3,4 and 5)

Start writing Final report

o 15 October 2016: revised Chapters for edited volume to Coordinator

o 21-22 November 2016: Final conference in Brussels (incl. video)

o 1 December 2016:

Submission of Final report to COM

Submission draft edited volume to COM and publisher

o 30 March 2017: publication of edited volume I


Day 1 – 5 May 2016

Welcome

Jacek Kucharczyk (Institute of Public Affairs – IPA) welcomed participants to Warsaw as his organisation – together with the European Social Observatory – is hosting the workshop. He proceeded by briefly illustrating the history of his institute, established 20 years ago as an independent think tank supporting Polish democratic economic reforms. He stressed that social policies have always been at the heart of the institute, combating the side-effects of reforms, such as unemployment. He referred to the past ‘heroic age’ of Polish welfare reforms, while he sees the current debate on European welfare as a second heroic age. Mr. Kurcharczyk explained that, in order to face rising xenophobia and populism, social dialogue is as important as reforming EU institutions. He thanked Bart Vanhercke and David Natali for the ProWelfare project, which goes to the heart of the current challenges.

Jan Czarzasty (IPA) welcomed participants and explained the schedule of workshops and round table. He then provided information concerning the evening’s dinner. He introduced Dominik Owczarec (IPA) to the audience and thanked him for helping to organise the event.

Bart Vanhercke (European Social Observatory – OSE), general Coordinator of the PROWELFARE project, thanked the IPA hosts. He stated that all national teams were present or arriving. He then thanked participants for their flexibility to meet on a bank holiday and again the Polish hosts for their work. He then gave the floor to David Natali to present the State of Play of the project.

State of Play of the PROWELFARE Project

David Natali (OSE), research Director of the PROWELFARE project, said we are 2/3 of the way through the project, thus starting to have enough information and data to go beyond simple empirical descriptions and to start talking about determinants and key analytical aspects to focus on. He stated that dissemination is an important component, since ProWelfare is a research project aiming to contribute to social dialogue, and information is needed to help the Social Partners to revise their activities and strategy. He described the ProWelfare infrastructure (basecamp, website, videos), the database, reports (in particular the country and analytical reports), and future events (Vienna and Brussels). He then informed the participants about amendments to the timetable: country working papers have been published earlier than expected, while the second national meeting in Warsaw and the draft analytical reports have been somewhat delayed so as to allow for sufficient time to take into account the country cases. David Natali is confident that the project is firmly on track.

Then he gave empirical evidence from the 9 countries under scrutiny in the field of pensions and unemployment benefits, to provide a good starting-point for introducing the three analytical reports. In pills:

Although the country reports are long and full of information, David Natali said there are some problems concerning data collection and definitions/labelling of occupational welfare (OW) vis à vis statutory provision.

Also, in the case of pensions it is easier to identify the kind of benefits to concentrate on, while in the case of unemployment protection this is much harder.

Bent Greve’s division of European OW into two clusters is only partially confirmed by our findings, since there is not only variation between the two clusters, but also within them.

In Southern and Eastern European countries, OW in pensions is still underdeveloped.

As for unemployment-related schemes, there are still difficulties with the gathering of information.

In many countries we see an increase in the coverage of OW, but only in the UK and NL can we observe actual substitution.

Inequalities are being increased by OW, in line with the logic of OW. Where industrial relations are stronger (e.g. SE and NL), this is less true. With regard to trends:


o In the field of pensions, the UK and NL have an important pension system, but the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution puts more risks on the workers’ shoulders. There are puzzling diverging developments in Germany and Austria.

o As for unemployment schemes, statutory schemes are still the backbone (the exception being the Swedish Ghent system) of welfare provision. There are some cases of development of active labour market policies by social partners (Austria, Germany, and Italy).

Bart Vanhercke thanked David Natali, and then, since the audience had no questions about the state of play, left the floor to Martin Seeleib-Kaiser for the first analytical paper.

First Panel – Interplay between occupational, social and fiscal welfare

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (Oxford University) presented the first results of the research carried out by him and Emmanuele Pavolini (Università di Macerata). He gave a comparative reading of the country reports focusing on three dimensions: historical developments, distributional effects, and cause/determinants. He disagreed with Natali, arguing that the division of OW, and its substitute/supplementary nature, depend on the environment in which OW is implemented – either purely private or within the public domain. As an example, he mentioned the Ghent system, which is theoretically private but, in practical terms, public. He differentiated between universal and leaner Beveridgean pension schemes. Systems with well-developed occupational pension regimes have allowed crowding-in and policy space for these through a low level of statutory schemes. It is also important to differentiate between social citizenship and industrial citizenship. In the UK, we see social policy enclaves in some sectors and the historical importance of industrial citizenship. In Bismarckian systems we see, rather, the crowding-out of OW due to high replacement rates, an exception being Germany with its public sector OW provision. Indeed, a main point of disagreement of Seeleib-Kaiser with Natali’s results is the reference to change: OW cannot develop in countries where statutory schemes are generous and do not allow for crowding in. Bringing more evidence to back his argument, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser showed that countries that allowed multiple pillars but did not provide room for phasing-in did not change.

As for Britain, the change towards auto enrolment is said to be aimed at reducing the social security budget rather than at increasing coverage. Moreover, a switch from DB to DC is observable. In Bismarckian countries, Belgium and Germany have changed the most: in Belgium, coverage has increased, while in Germany it is very unequal. The OW divide has an important gender dimension, especially due to voluntarism, and because OW is outside the public domain. As for the future, Germany should converge towards the UK, other countries should keep a higher replacement rate, while Poland oddly moved towards privatisation and then back to state provision. The key explanation for this policy change is the strength of the trade unions, and, in countries with strong trade unions, OW can be agreed upon collectively within the public domain. When voluntarism is present, skills also play a role. Instead, financialisation is not sufficient to explain what has happened. In Germany, unification played a role in the development of occupational pensions, while in Austria reforms were stopped by strong unions. Belgian reforms are trickier to explain. The fact that social-democratic governments initiated reforms in Germany and Belgium is interesting and could be explored further by the BE team (OSE) in view of the forthcoming edited volume.

Acting as the first discussant, Jan Ottosson (Uppsala University) agreed on some points but disagreed on others. He found the gender dimension very interesting. He liked the dynamic approach and admitted that it is a big challenge to identify the drivers of change. While he agreed with the causes listed by Martin Seeleib-Kaiser and Emmanuele Pavolini – such as union strength, skills, and room for crowding in – he suggested that the global financial sector plays a role. Pressure from the state – and how social partners react to it – is also an important factor. He suggested that we think about what factors really exist in terms of institutional change and about the possibility of discussing path dependence.

Josef Wöss (AK Wien) agreed on the differentiation between Beveridgean and Bismarckian countries, and stressed that Bismarckian countries have an occupational system within their statutory system, since it is based on employment criteria. On these grounds, he challenged the assumption that Austria has a ‘small’


occupational welfare. He agreed with the differentiation between ‘OW within/outside the public domain’, and said that a further differentiation should be made within the latter category between schemes based on social dialogue and those not based on such dialogue. He suggested that replacement rates should also be mentioned alongside coverage. He pointed out that the shift of risks should be even more stressed than it has been in the paper. He agreed on the importance of scope for crowding-in, but suggested that a distinction be drawn between replacement rates for high and low incomes. Finally, he expressed doubts about Martin Seeleib-Kaiser’s use of ‘Pensions at a Glance 2012’ instead of the 2015 version.

In his response to the discussants, Emmanuele Pavolini (Università di Macerata) expressed dissatisfaction with the Beveridgean/Bismarckian differentiation, as each of these groups has outliers. Trade union strength and skills can be explanations, but the case of Belgium is still challenging, in terms of defining both ‘the nature of the beast’ of its pensions system and the reason for change. He also mentioned a table showing major occupational pension reforms in EU countries, and asked the audience for feedback once he and Martin had disseminated it. He then emphasised the importance of understanding third pillar dynamics in explaining dynamics of occupational pensions.

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser intervened, claiming that third pillar schemes (and possibly even DC occupational pensions) are in fact not ‘pensions’, but rather ‘savings instruments’, since there is no certainty about their real value, which, for instance, could be undermined by inflation. According to Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, third pillar pensions are rather tax-maximisation – or even tax-evasion – schemes. He then replied to Josef Wöss, stating that he used Pensions at a Glance 2012 because then it was still possible to distinguish between occupational pensions and third pillar replacement rates in the OECD data. He also highlighted the importance of precarisation, and hinted at the possibility of the informal labour market being a reason why Italy and Spain did not develop occupational pensions, since statutory schemes were already ‘exclusive’. He finally discussed earnings-related benefits, which in some countries are typically statutory and in others are occupational.

Concerning Belgium, Ramón Peña-Casas (OSE) pointed to the difficulties of identifying the nature of Belgian governments given the necessary coalition of diverse Belgian parties, and in turn of speaking of a ‘social democratic government’. He claimed that the Vandenbroucke law aimed at equalising outcomes and reducing risks through a minimum guaranteed return.

A discussion followed, involving Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, Bart Vanhercke, Florian Blank, Josef Wöss, Marina Monaco (ETUC), Alicia Martinez Poza (Fundación 1 de Mayo), and Ugo Ascoli (Polytechnic University of Marche). Issues raised during the discussion were:

What caused statutory replacement rates to fall in Belgium, making space for the Vandenbroucke Law? (Martin Seeleib-Kaiser);

Why do countries with similar industrial relations systems, such as Belgium and Austria, have different reductions in replacement rates? (Emmanuele Pavolini);

Inaccuracy of labelling the Verhofstadt (Liberal party) government as ‘social-democratic’ (Bart Vanhercke);

Checking for variables such as the strength of the financial and banking sector within countries to explain different paths taken in Belgium, Germany and Austria (F. Blank);

Considering the importance of Austrian reforms, such as the civil servants’ pension reform (J. Wöss);

The goal of pension reforms, making occupational pensions substitutes or supplementary (J. Wöss);

The interest of the ETUC about what are drivers of policy change and how OW is approached within the European Semester (Marina Monaco);

The use of OW as a bargaining instrument to contain wages (Alicia Martinez Poza);

The difficulties of saving today – due to the informal market, gender gaps, etc. – leading to inadequate pensions tomorrow (Alicia Martinez Poza);

The importance of the Italian 2012 pension reform, and the difference between the officially high Italian replacement rate (based on workers with 40 years of contribution), and that of other workers, including atypical workers (Ugo Ascoli).


Emmanuele Pavolini then put a question to the Swedish colleagues, asking why Sweden originally had a Beveridgean model, shifted in the 60s, and then went back in the 90s. Olle Jansson (Uppsala University) and Jan Ottosson stressed the importance of the external (financial) shock that Sweden endured in the 1990s: it was more serious than the 2008 crisis for Sweden, and led to the set-up of a more sustainable system.

David Natali concluded the first panel by challenging, to some extent, the neo-institutionalist approach to OW. The picture of OW is complex from an institutional point of view: OW is at the crossroads between industrial relations and public schemes. Three institutional settings drive change: the state, industrial relations, and finance; and it is the mix of the three that produces the outcome. Some institutions allow for the opening of a ‘window for change’, but whether change finally happens might depend on the actors. We also observe an inconsistent paradigm characterising many reforms: the new formulae still grant good replacement rates to those who have worked their whole career, and may result in even more dualism and inequality.

Second Panel - Occupational Welfare and Industrial Relations

Maarten Keune (AIAS-UvA) presented a ‘proto-paper’ which will be further developed into a full OSE Working paper in the next weeks. He claimed that the institutionalist explanation for OW was not satisfactory. Instead, he chose to focus on actors in four similar countries: Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, which are all Bismarckian, characterised by reasonably strong unions and by quite high coverage rates. Maarten Keune focused on occupational pensions. Two questions must be answered concerning OW and industrial relations:

To what extent is OW an autonomous activity of the social partners?

To what extent does OW help achieve trade unions’ objectives?

As for the first question, social partners generally act autonomously in OW, especially in setting up schemes and managing funds. However, the most important decisions in the field of OW are still in the hands of the state. Most reforms have been state-driven. Moreover, the leading role of the state has increased with financialisation because of state supervision. Even the social partners’ power is uneven, since employers’ associations retain more power. The result of combining the role of the state, financialisation, and the uneven power of the social partners is that, in times of financial struggle, contributions cannot be raised due to a veto by employers, which leads to a reduction in pension payments. Indeed, employers have been much more successful in avoiding financial market risks: risks are mainly shouldered by workers rather than employers.

As for the second question, OW generates inequalities concerning: sectors; temporary/permanent workers; gender; education; migrant background. This causes welfare provision to depend to a great extent on luck, which, from a trade union perspective, may be a problem.

Maarten Keune concluded with some questions to the PROWELFARE teams.

Concerning path-dependency, why do these 4 similar countries differ so much when we look at OW?

From an industrial relations point of view, do occupational pensions matter, or are they part of a trade-off with wages?

Do occupational pensions lead to better welfare?

Is it in the interest of trade unions to participate in occupational pension schemes? And if occupational pensions do not lead to more welfare, why do TU participate in them? Do they get any recognition or increase their membership?

Regarding the last question, Maarten Keune said that in Austria and Belgium, the TU prefer public systems, while in the Netherlands occupational pensions are historically rooted. Also, recognition and membership in NL do not seem to be affected by trade union involvement in managing OW. Financialisation and increasing risks for workers make the question even more urgent for trade unions.

As a first discussant Isabella Biletta (Eurofound) criticised the use of the term ‘occupational pensions’ as interchangeable with ‘OW’, while she felt that the level of autonomy of the social partners differs between


occupational pensions and occupational unemployment benefits. She suggested that recent reforms did not substantially change the formal role of the social partners, yet social partners have less and less room for manoeuvre in carrying out their role, this being true for both first and second pillars. As for Maarten Keune’s questions about trade unions’ interests and solidarity, Isabella Biletta suggested that we consider what kind of solidarity trade unions are looking for, and hinted that occupational pensions only reinforce pre-existing labour market dualism. She wondered whether trade unions were trying to increase equality. Indeed, she felt that OW is not the right tool to achieve fairness.

Ramón Peña-Casas appreciated the effort made by Maarten Keune to disentangle the social partners’ autonomy vis à vis the state and market. He felt that some actors can push OW through even against the will of social partners, and mentioned the case of Belgium, where minimum guaranteed returns were under threat. He highlighted that the ‘equality of contributions + inequality of outcomes’ mix generates inequalities. Then he pointed to the switch of risks towards workers as demonstrating the strength of those actors who would not bear the risk. He also expressed doubts about the focus of the proto-paper being limited to continental countries and the exclusion of Sweden and the UK with their well-developed occupational pensions. He concluded by wondering about future possibilities of improving welfare through statutory provision.

Marina Monaco highlighted that the Commission is pushing towards occupational pensions without providing a specific definition of these, and proposed a shift to the term ‘supplementary’ to address welfare that tops up statutory schemes. She then challenged the arguments for the fiscal sustainability of OW: first, they are expensive for the state, and secondly they have proven not to be sustainable in times of crisis.

Maarten Keune first replied to Isabella. He explained what he meant by social partners’ autonomy: according to him, social partners have little possibility to change the system, but have some room for manoeuvre within it, although that space is being reduced. As for what unions want, he hinted at the possibility of unions in Bismarckian countries having accepted the inherently unequal system. Then he answered Ramon’s concerns, explaining that he would like to only include countries with strong unions and collective bargaining coverage, while better highlighting the role of the market in the process. As for Marina’s question, he agreed with her that the Commission is indeed pushing towards occupational pensions, although that is a dangerous road and increases individual risks.

Florian Blank suggested that unions should be considered not as a homogeneous entity, but rather as differing depending on their constituency and the sector they represent, and also due to the presence of both more social policy-oriented and more pragmatic individuals. He also said that the issue of inequality might not be a problem at all according to some trade unions.

Isabella Biletta put forward the hypothesis that unions may use OW to increase benefits because they have no influence on wages, although OW brings them little recognition.

Josef Wöss stated that trade unions are characterised by a common trait, i.e. skepticism towards financial markets, especially in Austria. Indeed, in Austria, social partners have always managed first pillar pensions and that would explain why they are so skeptical about the development of other schemes.

Emmanuele Pavolini considered the possibility of not defining OW as unequal where it is only a top-up for high income recipients: as long as non-recipients of OW are well covered by statutory schemes, that is not inequality, but rather a case of different mixes covering different income percentiles. In that respect, the NL might not be unequal, while Italy is.

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser stated that sectors that are exposed to international markets often have occupational pensions. He reiterated that local factors are more important in explaining OW and wage dynamics than exposure to international markets.

Maarten Keune replied to Florian Blank by emphasising a difference between confederations and sector unions. He then addressed Josef Wöss’s argument and said that social partners in the Netherlands are not involved in first pillar management, as opposed to their Austrian counterparts. However, he stressed the difference between retaining a significant role and retaining actual power. Finally, he agreed with Martin Seeleib-Kaiser that international exposure was not an important factor.


Third Panel - The Governance of Occupational Welfare

Sebastiano Sabato (OSE) presented the main findings of the draft paper on ‘The Governance of Occupational Welfare’, co-written with David Natali, Luca Mapelli and Bart Vanhercke. He claimed that, in some cases, the evidence gathered so far challenges the initial assumption of a clear distinction between OW and statutory schemes, nor did it allow pure ‘supplementary vs. substitutive’ or ‘dual retreat vs tandem growth’ arguments. Instead the focus should be on a complex governance characterised by a multiplicity of actors, levels, instruments and processes. The Multi-Level Governance approach is used to tackle the topic. The impression is that of ‘big governance’, where national, international, public and private actors interact. Social partners play a role in OW, yet OW is not their ‘realm’; indeed, the state does not retreat from OW, but rather changes its instruments and modes of intervention. Sebastiano Sabato explained how national cases had been selected through an information-oriented strategy: Austria, Germany and Italy for occupational UB, and Belgium, Netherlands and UK for occupational pensions. Due to time constraints, however, the main focus of the presentation was on Italy and the Netherlands, for which he showed the complex net of interactions involving actors, levels, instruments and processes. In the case of Italian bilateral bodies, the state incentivises social partners’ agreements through legislation; as for the Netherlands, social partners interact with market-oriented actors (both national and international) within a dense regulatory framework provided by government and the central bank. Key findings suggest that, in the case of unemployment benefits, boundaries are rather blurred, the state intervenes through regulation, and the European level intervenes through financial resources, the latter often mobilising local authorities. In the case of occupational pensions, the European level mainly plays a regulatory role, and social partners interact with market-oriented actors. In conclusion, social partners still play a role, but this occurs in a complex context of governance, including the state (changing instruments) and private actors. The idea is that of a ‘welfare chain’ where every interlinking actor provides a piece of the complex picture.

As the first discussant, Ugo Ascoli stated that the work done in WP5 was very interesting. In fact, it highlighted important trends: from single to multi-level governance, and growing interplay between OW and fiscal welfare. He agreed that the main point to focus on is not substitution or supplement, but rather recalibration. However, he also expressed some criticisms. Firstly, he pointed out that it is not possible to make general statements about OW without considering fields other than UB and pensions, especially in countries where these two are not significant. Secondly, the report could be further developed by shedding more light on the interplay between private social expenditure and tax expenditure. Finally, he asked for further evidence about the role of financial markets and investors, since these seem to be significant variables in some countries only. He also noted increasing social uncertainty linked to increases in the role of the market and occupational pensions.

Florian Blank said it could be worthwhile to re-read the draft WP5 paper with respect to different actors and their features. While some actors in the paper seem unreasonably interchangeable, he wished for further clarification on which actors can do what, and what their specific features are. Secondly, he was unsure whether the “welfare diamond” was appropriate to explain OW, since the latter is hard to place in one of the four dimensions of the diamond. Thirdly, he wondered whether it is helpful to provide a systematic assessment of the relations between key providers to the point of including relations that are not directly linked with the production of welfare – such as trade union lobbying in the UK. Finally, he suggested that we consider the possibility of shifts generating new path-dependencies.

The open floor discussion raised a number of issues:

The possibility of writing about the systemic risks linked to occupational pensions in the light of low interest rates and struggling pension funds (Jan Ottosson);

Request for clarification regarding the paper’s methodology and definition of OW (Isabella Biletta);

Disagreement about the statement ‘the state does not retreat’ and the existence of a gap left for social partners to fill (Josef Wöss, supported by Martin Seeleib-Kaiser and Ugo Ascoli);

Two more general comments were made, concerning:


The puzzling lack of money to pay statutory pensions, while at the same time money is spent on tax breaks for occupational welfare (Maarten Keune, Emmanuele Pavolini, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser);

The regressive effect of the aforementioned tax breaks (Ugo Ascoli).

Sebastiano Sabato thanked discussants for their useful comments. He then said that he and his colleagues had tried to focus on some of the aspects and their implications for the process. He agreed that the analysis could be enlarged and refined. However, he highlighted that, considering the complexity of the picture, the aim of the paper was to map actors, levels and instruments as a basis to address other issues such as strategies and outcomes.

David Natali then concluded by acknowledging the emerging complexity of the analytical framework. He also mentioned the importance of contingencies in changing the path taken by OW, and pointed, as an example, to the diverging Austrian and German cases, or Sweden in 1991. He admitted that the research work is not yet completed, but some of the factors to be further investigated have been identified. The last two presentations in particular might help us to look at the actors, and grasp the dynamics between interest groups or even ‘classes’. He also wondered whether austerity is really cost-containing or whether it is just a shift of expenditure towards regressive tax breaks. He then mentioned the issue of inequalities (between sectors, gender, classes of incomes) and of identifying winners and losers. He also linked the discourse to the power-resources theory, hinting at the possibility of trade unions being squeezed between state and market. He acknowledged the paradox of trade unions not being able to steer the course of OW, which should in theory be their realm. He also challenged the assumption that OW lies somewhere in-between statutory and market welfare, on the grounds that it seems to be more and more based on the market, which could explain social partners’ scepticism towards it. He finally invited those present to enlarge their analysis of the policy area, and in particular he referred to the capacity of OW to better address new risks than old risks.


Day 2 - 6 May 2016

Publications and Next Steps in the PROWELFARE Project

Introduction

Bart Vanhercke announced that the afternoon session about further steps, such as dissemination of results, would be brought forward to the morning, as some participants had to leave earlier.

Next Steps in the PROWELFARE Project

With regard to the next steps, David Natali stated that there would be two milestones from May to November:

The National Workshop in Vienna on 30th and 31st August (the draft programme of which will be circulated in the week of May 23rd), focusing on:

o What is going on in continental European countries (Josef and Florian, especially, could focus on the Austrian vs German case)

o Panel with the OECD and possibly other international organisations + database/information update

Final conference in Brussels in November marking the end of the project. After a brief discussion, the date is being settled: November 21st and 22nd 2016. A video will be produced featuring the highlights of the final conference.

As for the next research deliverables, David Natali explained that the revised (full-blown) WP3, WP4 and WP5 Analytical reports are due by 15th June 2016. The pre-final version of the three reports need to be provided by 19th August 2016, so that we can all read them before the Vienna workshop.

The editors (David, Emmanuele and Bart) will circulate Guidelines for the revision and shortening of the country chapters (in the edited volume) by 31st May 2016. This will be followed by a draft introductory chapter (David and Emmanuele) by 15th June 2016. Country teams will then be able to draw on this introduction to draft country Chapters for the edited volume by 19 August 2016, at the latest. The draft chapters will be discussed during the Vienna national workshop (30-31 August). Revised Chapters for the edited volume are due by 15 October 2016: this should allow to (a) present them at the Final conference on 21-22 November 2016, (b) submit a draft manuscript to the Commission by the end of the project (1st December 2016) and (c) publish the edited volume by the end of March 2017.

David Natali and Josef Wöss, highlighted that the main focus of the Vienna meeting will be on: 1) the dataset/data collection, 2) a roundtable discussion with Austrian and German stakeholders; 3) further discussion on the Analytical reports, in view of their finalisation and publication during the week of 23rd September and 4) the finalisation of the publication and dissemination strategy.

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser expressed doubts about holding an internal meeting just a few days before submitting material to the Commission, on the grounds that there would be no time to make substantial changes. On the other hand, if the Vienna meeting is ‘open’ instead, he said he would see it as very similar to the final 21-22 November conference in Brussels.

After a brief discussion, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser’s concerns are addressed:

The roundtable discussion in Vienna will be open to national and EU stakeholders

The Vienna workshop will differ from that the final conference in Brussels in important ways: the former (Vienna) will focus on the four main issues referred to by David Natali, while the latter (Brussels) will be broader and more all-encompassing: looking at the whole project, presentations of the 9 country cases (i.e. the draft book chapters), addressed to an EU-28 audience and involving external academics.


Isabella Biletta proposed that both trade unions and employers’ representatives should be invited to the Vienna workshop, since they might be particularly interested in the Austrian and German cases to be discussed. Josef Wöss agrees with this suggestion.

Bart Vanhercke then addressed the concern raised by Martin and Josef Wöss about having sufficient time to discuss the analytical reports in Vienna, and to revise them subsequently: WP leaders will be given time until 23rd September to revise the Analytical report (incl. adding an executive summary) in view of the feedback received in Vienna. From September 23rd on, the PROWELFARE Final Report will be drafted (coordination team), and it will be published by the end of the project (1st December 2016).

David and Josef Wöss agreed that both unions and employers’ representatives should be present.

Publication Strategy

David Natali proposed to revise the publication strategy. The coordinator’s proposal is to publish two different edited volumes. This will allow to reconcile the project’s ambitions with time constraints, and also to the need to address different audiences and targets.

- The first volume will be published soon after the end of the project (ideally March 2017). It should be aimed at providing easily accessible information and results to stakeholders. It could contain a summary, and detailed information about risks, challenges, and the role of stakeholders.

- The second volume should be more in line with the academic goals of the project. It should be a new, somehow outstanding publication, with more ambition in terms of theory. It will also be more geared to academic/scientific debate and literature. The second book could be produced by end 2017/early 2018.

In terms of work that means:

For the first volume (covered by the Prowelfare project), shortening the country reports to 20 pages (10,000 words, including figures, tables and references), focused on pensions and unemployment.

For the second book, it will be more demanding, involving work beyond the PROWELFARE timeframe, not supported by its budget, and requiring a commitment to contribute by those who so wish.

Then some issues were raised by participants:

o When would the guidelines for the 20-page contributions be available? (Jan Ottosson) o Deadline for the authors to provide material or drafts for the second volume (Jan

Czarzasty)? o What kind of contributions should be provided by the authors? Should they be more

focused each on their own country or provide a more comparative analysis? (Florian Blank) o Will the second volume be edited by the OSE relying on the collaborators’ contributions, or

instead will it be a common work involving all contributors more closely? (Josef Wöss) o The importance of receiving guidelines as soon as possible (Josef Wöss)

David Natali specified that we will now focus our efforts on the first edited volume, although work for the first and second book would proceed in parallel (if only because we need to table a proposal to a publisher). The first book should be very much related to the work that has been done within the present ProWelfare project, with a clear focus on OW in pensions and UB and involving all country teams/cases.

The second book instead will be about OW in a broader sense, possibly also including material from other policy areas (say healthcare) in order to provide broader empirical evidence. This book will feature a selection of country cases (in which the publisher will have a big say). Since this book goes beyond the timeframe and funding of Prowelfare, there is of course no obligation for experts to participate. Martin Seeleib-Kaiser urged participants to state their commitment concerning the second volume, since the


content would depend on the level of commitment. In a nutshell, all Prowelfare partners confirmed their commitment, be it with some nuances:

Maarten Keune expressed his availability and interest in focusing on Dutch occupational pensions, risks and weaknesses. Depending on the involvement of other AIAS colleagues, a more comparative analysis could also be undertaken.

Emmanuele Pavolini stated on behalf of the Italian team that they would gladly focus on healthcare.

Florian Blank expressed interest in identifying logics and mechanisms resulting in OW being dealt with through industrial struggle or social partnership. In order to get a better analytical grip, he would also include evidence from the first PROWELFARE project. He showed his interest in a comparative analysis (notably with Austria) if other colleagues would collaborate. He also requested information on how to deal with interviews (quotation, references): this should be part of the Guidance for experts.

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser stressed that Marek Naczyk had written the UK report. He also prompted all teams to provide the coordinators with an abstract of their draft book chapter as soon as possible.

Ugo Ascoli stated that the proposals to the publisher should be submitted in one month’s time, if we wish is to publish the second book by the end of 2017. He also wished to know who the editors will be.

Josef Wöss claimed that, although everybody could add their own ideas, there should be more clarity about what should definitely be reported in each of the country chapters of both edited volumes: this should be part of the Guidance notes. He then stated his interest in the second volume.

Jan Ottosson declared an interest on behalf of the Swedish team, and hinted at a possible focus on the Employment Transitional agreement.

Alicia Martinez Poza agreed to contribute and expressed her wish to involve another Spanish expert.

Dalila Ghailani (OSE) expressed willingness to contribute on behalf of the Belgian team, and wished to focus more on pensions. She also suggested a chapter on the gender dimension. The possibility raised by Ramón Peña-Casas of including other national cases (beyond the PROWELFARE experts) was welcomed with slight scepticism by David Natali (feasibility).

Isabella Biletta stated her interest in contributing to the second book.

Jan Czarzasty expressed the need to talk with the colleague who wrote the “PROWELFARE I” Polish report, but he said he could give definitive answers before Vienna.

David Natali summed up that there is unanimous agreement about the perspective of publishing two books. He then concluded that further information about the second book will be provided as soon as more feedback has been received from the experts and possible publishers. Bart Vanhercke urged that such feedback be submitted by all teams by 15 June, in the form of a 10-line abstract.

David Natali also explained who the editors would be:

First book: David Natali, Emmanuele Pavolini and Bart Vanhercke

Second book: David Natali, Maarten Keune and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Round table: welfare state and industrial relations trends in Poland and the EU

Marianna Zielenska (Institute of Public Affairs) introduced the round table.

David Natali presented the ProWelfare project and explained its focus on the role of SPs. A brief explanation of what is meant by OW followed. He listed the 9 countries under scrutiny and stated the three project goals (1) collection of information, 2) analysis of OW and its determinants, 3) dissemination) as well as some of the findings reported the day before. He also listed the ProWelfare partners and described the role of the EU Commission.


Jan Czarzasty then presented the Polish case. He said that the situation in Poland could be used to shed light on CEE countries that are still relatively unknown. Poland is a hybrid mixture of post-communist legacy and neoliberal reforms, but the former is gradually diminishing. Characteristic traits are: weak de-familisation, and industrial relations depending on the private/public and domestic/foreign nature of firms: foreign and public companies are more corporatist, while domestic private firms are more pluralist. OW is a peripheral phenomenon, more relevant in big firms. In spite of a shift towards more than one pillar in 1999, the role of the second pillar pensions has recently been curtailed and the vast majority of their assets have been nationalised. In the field of UB, OW is non-existent. Jan Czarzasty claimed that the round table could also have a role in bringing the issue of OW into the Polish public debate.

Marianna Zielenska then called for a brief first round of questions:

Zofia Rutkowska (IPiSS) expressed her impression that panellists perceived OW as beneficial, and asked for clarification about that.

Irena Topinska (Centre for Social and Economic Research) asked whether Poland is representative of other post-communist countries such as Hungary or Estonia.

David Natali pointed to the ambivalent nature of OW, stressing both the opportunities it provides to grant additional protection, and the risks associated with it – especially in the field of pensions. He concluded by stating that OW makes up a mixed picture, open to the day’s debate.

Jan Czarzasty claimed that the question of whether OW should replace statutory provision is the wrong one. About the second question, he said that within the Eastern cluster there are differences, especially between neo-liberal Baltic States and more corporatist countries such as Slovenia.

Roundtable – Discussion

Marianna Zielenska said that time was up and called for the beginning of the round table discussion itself. She then introduced the panelists to the audience. She announced that the first four speakers would answer the following questions:

What are the main challenges, opportunities, threats and possible directions of change for OW in the field of pensions and UB?

What role for the social partners in building and reconstructing the welfare state in general, and OW in particular?

Marius Kubzdyl (Head of the Social Insurance Department, Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy) decided to focus on the field of occupational pensions. He acknowledged the challenges to the viability and adequacy of statutory schemes, to which OW could be a solution. He noted the lack of such OW in post-communist countries and pointed to the struggle to create a system similar to that of Western countries. However, he also stressed the risks deriving from the DC nature of most OP schemes and from the saturation of the financial markets.

Katarzyna Zimmer-Drabczyk (NSZZ Solidarnosc) listed a number of issues. One is the struggle between financial efficiency and redistribution. Another is the ageing of society. Another issue is precarisation, which limits the possibilities of saving in funds. Digitalisation of industrial relations is also an issue. Another issue is the provision of health in ageing societies: in Poland, 27% of males do not even try to get a job, for health reasons. She concluded by mentioning the commitment of NSZZ Solidarnosc to introducing unemployment insurance in Poland, which, however, has never become a subject of public debate.

Grzegorz Baczewski (Leviathan Confederation) stressed that economies work only with high employment and market participation rates. Welfare should therefore be designed so as not to de-incentivise employment, by encouraging ALMP and reduced tax wedges on labour. Systems should be designed to have people work to earn a living. He pointed to the Polish situation, in which many people move from unemployment to employment, yet many remain inactive. The blame lies with policies such as providing


subsistence payments to families with children, which incentivise people not to work. He concluded by stating that a sustainable welfare state should be based on employment.

Józef Niemiec (ETUC) agreed with Mr. Baczewski about the importance of employment and ALMP. However, he stressed that in the EU the issue of employment has been sacrificed on the altar of budget constraints. He said that it is important to invest in new jobs, but here employers and trade unions differ: the job issue is not just a question of quantity, but also quality, even more when wages are reflected in pensions and OW levels. He finally stressed the importance of political choices, mentioning the case of Austria, and said that here trade unions should take part in discussions and play a role.

Isabella Biletta (Eurofund) was the first to comment on the answers. She said that the question as to whether OW is ‘good or bad’ is maybe not answerable yet; however, we should be asking what room for manoeuvre social partners have to improve working conditions. She stressed the importance of improving working conditions also in motivating the workforce. She finally asked that we should concentrate not only on the field of pensions.

Maarten Keune addressed the issue of the Netherlands, often regarded as a good example, but in fact showing many problems. He described the Dutch situation by claiming that: 1) trade unions are losing ground to employers; 2) the financial crisis has resulted in major losses; 3) huge Dutch funds are being run in the US. He concluded by saying that occupational pensions are not necessarily bad, but that the risks should be known. A minimum guaranteed return could be a good policy.

Dorata Szelewa (ICRA Foundation, University of Warsaw) addressed the problem of dualisation. She focused on people defending their vested rights. Against this backdrop, she also stressed the importance of inter-generational solidarity. Opportunities arise for political formations that are able to mobilise people and try to work on adjustment of social rights. Threats come from outsiders being mobilised by the far right. Unions must use the potential of social dialogue to make the labour market less split.

Marianna Zielenska gave the floor to the discussants. Issues raised in the discussion were:

The difficult situation in Poland and insufficient involvement of trade unions

Putting more emphasis on globalisation and human capital

The UK system as a ‘good example’ of OW (more than the Netherlands)

The importance of tax expenditure and the role of the state in OW

SGP from the EU as a barrier to the welfare state in general and OW in particular

Severe fragmentation stemming from the decentralisation of social dialogue

Then Marianna Zielenska gave the panellists a chance to respond.

Katarzyna Zimmer-Drabczyk stressed the problem of the absence of trade union representativeness. She also claimed that unions and employers can communicate, but employers must stick to agreements, which they do not always do.

Józef Niemiec highlighted the difficulties and the struggle of trade unions in applying the instruments that are agreed. He also said that the UK should be regarded in a more critical way. He finally criticised EU countries which are achieving competitiveness at the expense of employees, which is, globally, a doomed strategy.

Marius Kubzdyl said that OW in Poland could be a way to retain a qualified workforce.

More comments focused on:

Complaints about the lack of willingness of the (Polish) government to fund OW.

Denying the myth of competitiveness-equity trade-off: lowering labour costs is not competitive in the age of globalisation; improving productivity is (Martin Seeleib-Kaiser).

The British model is not at all a good model in terms of equity and adequacy (Martin Seeleib-Kaiser).

Lack of focus on inequality during the ProWelfare project presentation.


Bart Vanhercke then asked employer and employee representatives whether they agreed with the statement that OW indeed increases inequalities. And if so, is that a problem or is it a ‘fact of life’ we all have to live with?

Grzegorz Baczewski agreed with the statement that OW increases inequality. However, he also stressed that inequalities are partly to be blamed on the state. He then emphasised Leviathan’s commitment to advocating for a minimum wage and declared himself in favour of collective agreements. He said that risks arising from increasing flexibility should be shouldered by the state, not by employers and employees. He concluded by saying that the EU is changing the rules of competition within the EU, tackling dumping and price competition; employers look at such developments with mixed feelings but must accept it.

Józef Niemiec agreed with Mr Baczewski, and stressed the employers’ ambivalence towards unfair competition. He called for a possibility for setting minimum standards, at least at Eurozone level.

The discussion went on, regarding:

Competitiveness through investment

Poland not having fully ratified the Convention on minimum standards of social insurance

Redistribution from young to old as well as from poor to rich caused by OW

Auto-enrolment as a partial solution to dualism, yet it reduces social assistance benefits

Crucial interplay of statutory and occupational welfare, and importance of understanding that public schemes should grant redistribution in the first place

Importance of learning from other countries and from a country’s own past

Need to address asymmetric shocks at EU level, including a minimum wage to prevent the exploitation of Eastern European workers

Protection of the family as the core of care, and provision of resources to the family

As opposed to the previous point, improving women’s involvement in the labour market, especially in the field of elderly care, matching the ageing society

Marianna Zielenska announced the end of the round table, and publicly thanked Dominik Owczarek and Françoise Verri for organising the event.

POST LUNCH WRAP-UP

Everybody agreed that the Warsaw workshop has been a real success. Views about OW are rather mixed: experts seem to agree that adequate public provision is the best solution, but OW could be a second-best option in some circumstances.

The discussion then focused on the timing of the Vienna conference in August. Bart Vanhercke suggested starting by 10-11 AM on the first day and finishing around 7.30 or 8 PM (at the latest), while on the second day starting around 8.30 should allow the work to be done by 2 PM at the latest. This scenario will be checked against flight schedules. A draft programme will be circulated by the week of 23rd May.

Florian Blank hinted at the possibility of formulating some policy recommendations in the context of the project, or a statement of experts. Prompted by Bart Vanhercke about the target audience, he said that it should especially be targeted at the social partners.

Isabella Biletta suggested that the final report (and books) should start by stating the preconditions that make OW advisable, or not. The format could be made up of very simple questions, such as ‘Is OW a good thing?’ followed by more complex answers. She also said that the social partners are not a sufficient target audience: we should aim wider.

Emmanuele Pavolini said that the Vienna meeting could be used to write 4-5 clear messages that have emerged from Warsaw. These messages would be strongly backed by broad agreement. The messages could also be used as a conclusion for the first book. The main finding seems to be that the lack of a good public pillar cannot be filled by OW. There are some objectives – such as solidarity – that only a public pillar


can achieve. This said, if there is no other alternative, OW may be a solution. Even there, however, there are better ways to implement it in order to reduce the inequality it entrenches.

Then debate focused on doubts concerning the feasibility of an EU-28 wide set of policy recommendations. (Ramón Peña-Casas). These should be very general, and the importance of social dialogue could also be stressed (Isabella Biletta). Maarten Keune expressed doubts about the ‘recommendations’ formula. Ugo Ascoli proposed to put such recommendations in the form of ‘Lessons from the past for each national case’, from which to draw some conclusions. The substance would be unchanged, but the format would be easier to get across. There was agreement about such a re-labelling. Josef Wöss suggested including the main challenges for each context, from which to draw key lessons. He also suggested mentioning the pre-conditions for a fruitful social dialogue.

Bart Vanhercke concluded by thanking participants, especially Françoise Verri, Dominik Owczarek, David Natali and Jan Czarzasty for the splendid preparation, both in scientific and practical terms. He reminded the audience to send in their reimbursement forms to Françoise Verri by 15 June 2016 … and to fly home safely.

With the financial support of the

unemployment and pensions protection in europe: the ...€¦ · revised book proposal (edited...

Documents