Articles Originally Presented at the Eiss Conference on Federalism and Subsidiarity in Social Security in Rome,September 2004: Old-Age Benefits and Decentralisation: The Spanish Case in Comparative Perspective

Abstract

The decentralisation of social security in general, and old-age pensions in particular, has been proposed by several nationalist parties in Spain. The purpose of this article is to analyse the rationality of this proposal, taking into account efficiency and equity issues. It is divided into four sections. The first introductory section reviews the most important literature on fiscal federalism, applying it to pensions. The second section analyses the division of competencies in Spanish old-age benefits, focusing specifically on legal aspects. The third describes the degree of decentralisation of public transfers for the elderly in several countries: Belgium, Canada, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. The final section evaluates the current Spanish system, considers the possibility of decentralisation in the light of economic efficiency, territorial equity and lessons learnt from other federal countries, and examines the evolution of the principal quantitative variables regarding the old-age pensions in the different Autonomous Regions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Izquierdo

R. Aguilera

Barrios

Sanchez-Urán

(2003), Protección Social Complementaria, Madrid: Ed. UCM.

Aja

(2003), El Estado Autonómico. Federalismo y hechos diferenciales, Madrid: Ed. Civitas.

Alderman

(2002), ‘Do local officials know something we don't? Decentralization of targeted transfers in Albania’, Journal of Public Economics, 83, pp. 373–404.

Ayala

(2005), ‘Pensiones. Lecciones de la experiencia comparada’ in VVAA: Descentralización de políticas públicas, Madrid: Ed. Fundación BBVA. mimeo

Besley

Case

(1995), ‘Incumbent Behaviour: Vote-Seeking, Tax Setting, and Yardstick Competition’, American Economic Review, March.

Bruce

(1995), ‘A Fiscal Federalism Analysis of Debt Policies by Sovereign Regional Governments’. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 28, Special Issue: Essays in International Economics in Honour of Douglas Purvis, November, pp. 195–206.

Brueckner

J.K.

(2000), ‘A Tiebout Tax-Competition Model’, Journal of Public Economics, August.

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung (2002), La Protección Social en Alemania. Situación legal a 1 de enero de 2002 (A997), Bonn: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung.

Cain

Dougherty

(1997), ‘Marginal Cost Sharing and the Articles of Confederation’, Public Choice, 90, pp. 201–213.

10.

Casahuga

(1982), ‘La invalidez general del teorema de la descentralización’. Cuadernos Económicos de ICE, 20, pp. 49–51.

11.

Cattoir

(1998), Federalisme et Solidarite Financiere, Paris: CRISP.

12.

Chubb

J. E.

(1985), ‘The Political Economy of Federalism’, The American Political Science Review, 79(4), December, pp. 994–1015.

13.

Enrich

P.D.

(1996), ‘Saving the States from Themselves: Commerce Clause Constraints on State Tax Incentives for Business’, Harvard Law Review, 377.

14.

Feld

L. P.

Kirchgassner

Schaltegger

(2003), ‘Decentralized Taxation and the Size of Government: Evidence from Swiss State and Local Governments’, CESIfo Working Paper Series, 1087.

15.

Feldstein

(1972), ‘The incidence of the Social Security Payroll Tax: Comment’. American Economic Review, 62(4), pp. 735–738.

16.

Gonzalo

(2000), ‘Reparto Competencial y Complementariedad de las Prestaciones Sociales Básicas’. Foro de la Seguridad Social, Marzo.

17.

Gramlich

E. M.

(1987), ‘Federalism and Federal Deficit Reduction’, National Tax Journal, 11(3).

18.

Holahan

(1998), Health Policy for the Low-Income Population: Major Findings from the Assessing the New Federalism Case Studies, Vancouver, Ed. Assessing the New Federalism.

19.

Human Resources Development Canada (2001), ‘Canada's Retirement Income System’, Electronic brochure available at http://www.hrdcdrhc.gc.ca/isp

20.

Human Resources Development Canada (2002), ‘Annual Report of the Canada Pension Plan 2001–2002’, Report available at http://www.hrdcdrhc.gc.ca/isp

21.

Human Resources Development Canada (2003), ‘Statistical Bulletin. Canada Pension Plan June 2003’, Report available at http://www.hrdcdrhc.gc.ca/isp

22.

Inman

R. P.

Rubinfeld

D. L.

(1991), ‘Fiscal Federalism in Europe: Lessons from the United States Experience’, National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 3941.

23.

Inman

R. P.

Rubinfeld

D. L.

(1998), ‘Subsidiarity and the European Union’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 6556

24.

Ladd

Doolittle

(1982), ‘Which level of government should assist the poor?’, National Tax Journal, XXXV(3), pp. 323–336.

25.

Lieberman

Shaw

(2000), ‘Looking Inward, Looking Outward: The Politics of State Welfare Innovation under Devolution’, Political Research Quarterly, 53 (2), pp. 215–240.

26.

Missoc (2002), ‘Social Protection in the Member States in the EU Member States and the European Economic Area. Situation on January 1st 2001 and Evolution’, http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2001/index_en.htm

27.

Moreno

(2001), The Federalisation of Spain. London: Frank Cass.

28.

Musgrave

(1959), The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

29.

Oates

W.E.

(1999), ‘An Essay on Fiscal Federalism’, Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (3), September, pp. 1120–1149.

30.

Oates

W.E.

(2003), ‘Segunda generación de Teorías de Federalismo Fiscal’. Inaugural conference of the 'XI Conferencia de Economía Pública’, Barcelona.

31.

Oecd (1996), ‘Social Assistance in OECD Countries: Country Reports’, Department of Social Security Research Report 47, October.

32.

Balda

Palomo

(2003), ‘Descentralización de la Protección Social en España: Pensiones y Prestaciones de Desempleo’, Foro de la Seguridad Social, April.

33.

Piñar

Perez

(2003), C'omplementos Autonómicos a Pensiones Estatales y sus Posibles Efectos Perturbadores’, Foro de la Seguridad Social, April.

34.

Peterson

P. E.

Rom

(1989), ‘American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices’, The American Political Science Review, 83 (3), September, pp. 711–728

35.

Pieters

(2003), ‘Hacia un concepto europeo de federalismo social’. Foro de la Seguridad Social, April.

36.

Pieters

(2004), Social Security in the Member States of the European Union, Antwerp: Intersentia.

37.

Poirier

(1999), ‘The Social Union: Solution or Challenge for Canadian Federalism?’ in Vansteenkiste Taeymans (eds.) (1999), Sociaal Beleid en Federalisme. Staatsrechtconferentie 1998, Brussels Ed.Vlaamse Juristen Verenging.

38.

Puljiz

(2003), ‘The Welfare State and Decentralisation’, I.U.C Journal of Social Work Theory and Practice.

39.

Rosen

(2004), Public Finance, New York: McGraw Hill.

40.

Ruiz-Huerta

Ayala

Díaz-Pulido

(2002), ‘La Descentralización de las políticas de garantía de rentas’, in VVAA: Informe España 2002. Una interpretación de la realidad social. Madrid: Fundación Encuentro.

41.

Schwager

(1997), ‘Redistribution and Administrative Federalism’, The Canadian Journal of Economics. 30 (4b), November, pp. 1161–1183.

42.

Seabright

(1996), ‘Accountability and decentralization in government: An incomplete contracts model’, European Economic Review, 40, pp. 61–89

43.

Shleifer

(1985), ‘A Theory of Yardstick Competition’, Rand Journal of Economics, 16 (3), pp. 319–327.

44.

Shroder

(1995), ‘Games the States Don't Play: Welfare Benefits and the Theory of Fiscal Federalism’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77 (1), February, pp. 183–191.

45.

Stiglitz

(1996), Economics of the Public Sector, New York: WW Norton

46.

Strumpf

(1999), ‘Does Government Decentralization Increase Policy Innovation?’, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Mimeo

47.

Tanzi

(2001), ‘Globalization and the work of fiscal termites’. Finance and Development. 38 (1), March.

48.

Tiebout

Ch. M.

(1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure’, Journal of Political Economy, 64 (5), October, pp. 416–424

49.

Treisman

(1999), ‘Political Decentralization and economic reform’, American Journal of Political Science, 43 (2), pp. 488–517.

50.

Tobin

(1970), ‘On limiting the domain of inequality’, Journal of Law and Economics, 13, pp. 263–277.

51.

Tresch

(2002), Public finance: A normative theory, Amsterdam: Academic Press.

52.

Vansteenkiste

(1998), ‘Social Security in the European Community: Towards a Federal Style Division of Competences’, in Pieters

(ed.) (1998), Social Security in the European Community, Antwerp: Intersentia.

53.

Vansteenkiste

(2003), ‘Descentralización de la Protección Social: Seguros de Desempleo y Pensiones de Vejez en los Estados Federales’, Foro de la Seguridad Social, April.

54.

Volden

(2002), ‘The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits?’ American Journal of Political Science, 46 (2), April, pp. 352–363.