The Life Course and the System of Social Security: Rethinking Incentives,Solidarity and Risks

Abstract

The life course has become an important frame of reference in the debate about modernising social security. There is a general feeling that the current structure of social security is not adequately adapted to the altered life courses of men and women, nor is the current design adequate given the changing economic circumstances. This article describes the challenges the life-course perspective poses with regard to the system of social security and the trade-offs that are involved. The main argument of the article is that a life-course-conscious system of social security forces us to rethink the incentive structure of the current system of social security, the notion of solidarity and the concept of risk.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Applebaum

(2001), Transformation of work and employment and new insecurities. Conference on the Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection, Annecy, January 18–19, 2001.

Barr

(1992), ‘Economic Theory and the Welfare State. A Survey and Interpretation’. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. XXX, pp. 741–803.

Bovenberg

A.L.

(2001), ‘Een belaste levensloop’. Economisch Statistische Berichten, 23 februari, 171.

Bovenberg

A.L.

(2003), ‘De levensloopbenadering’ in Kuné

J.B.

(ed.). Leven in een ouder wordende samenleving (pp. 151–177). Den Haag: SDU-uitgevers.

Bovenberg

(2005), Balancing work and family life during the life course. Revised draft of a paper prepared for high-level expert conference on the Social Policy Agenda for the European Union on October 28 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Drèze

J.H.

Malinvaud

(1994), ‘Growth and Employment. The Scope of a European Initiative’ European Economy, no1, pp. 77–106.

Esping-Andersen

(with Gallie

Hemerijck

Myles

) (2002), Why we need a New Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Facingthe Challenge (2004), The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fölster

(2001), ‘An evaluation of social insurance savings account’ Public Finance and Management, 1(4), pp. 420–448.

10.

Goudswaard

K.P.

Riemens

T.D.

(2004), ‘Levensloopbeleid: Hype of noodzaak’ Economisch Statistische Berichten, Dossier levensloop, D3–D6.

11.

Goudswaard

(2005), ‘Grenzen aan solidariteit’ in De Beer

Bussemaker

Kalma

Keuzen in de sociale zekerheid. De Burcht / Wiarda Beckman Stichting.

12.

Giullari

Lewis

(2005), ‘The Adult Worker Model Family, Gender Equality and Care: The Search for New Policy Principles and the Possibilities and Problems of a Capabilities Approach’, Economy and Society, vol. 34(1), pp. 76–104.

13.

Janswijer

(2004), ‘Te mooi om waar te zijn’ Economisch Statistische Berichten, Dossier levensloop, D25.

14.

Leijnse

Goudswaard

Plantenga

van den Toren

J.P.

(2002), Anders denken over zekerheid: Levenslopen, risico en verantwoordelijkheid. Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, Directie Coördinatie Emancipatiebeleid.

15.

Liefbroer

A.C.

Dijkstra

P.A.

(2000), Levenslopen in verandering. Een studie naar ontwikkelingen in de levenlopen van Nederlanders geboren tussen 1900 en 1970. Voorstudies en achtergrond V 107. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.

16.

Plantenga

(2005), ‘Dutch Debates. Modernising social security by introducing the life course as a frame of reference’ in de Gijsel

Schenk

Multidisciplinary economics, The Birth of a New Economics Faculty in the Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 53–64.

17.

Teeuwes

(2004), ‘Tegen de storm’ in Economisch Statistische Berichten, Dossier levensloop, D22–D24.