ABSTRACT German pension policy experienced a shift in the early 2000s, when public pensions were cut back, the retirement age raised, and private, publicly subsidized pension provision stipulated. Within a coherent reform narrative, those reforms were grounded on arguments of a ‘demographic time bomb’, a no-longer-affordable public pension scheme, and the return potential of private pension funds. Yet this narrative was delegitimized quickly with zero-rate-policy, and increasing old-age poverty in a lean public pension scheme. In such a situation, it can be expected difficult to either adapt the old narrative or construct new ones. This makes an interesting case for this article to study reform narratives and argumentative coupling in recent German pension policy through two contrasting cases: A failed attempt at establishing a minimum-pension scheme; and a ‘successful’ reform package combining a ‘mothers’ pension’ and exceptions for a full pension at age 63. Findings illuminate how the contrasting success of those reform proposals can be understood in terms of narrative stories: The reform which – political-strategically – could build on the ‘deservingness’ of the target groups could be agreed upon comparatively easily. Possible beneficiaries of a minimum pension are of varying ‘deservingness’, though, and narrating a more ‘problem-solving’ story has proven difficult.

中文翻译：

---

改革德国养老金政策的叙述和论据耦合：构建“应得的退休人员”

摘要德国的养老金政策在2000年代初发生了转变，当时公共养老金被削减，退休年龄提高，并规定了私人的，公共补贴的养老金规定。在连贯的改革叙述中，这些改革是基于“人口定时炸弹”，负担不起的公共养老金计划以及私人养老基金的回报潜力的论据。然而，由于采用了零利率政策，并且在精简的公共养老金计划中增加了老年贫困，这种叙述很快就被合法化了。在这种情况下，很难适应旧的叙述或构造新的叙述。这为本文通过两个相反的案例研究德国最近的养老金政策中的改革叙事和论证耦合提供了一个有趣的案例：建立最低养老金计划的失败尝试；以及“成功”的改革方案，其中包括“母亲的养老金”和63岁时全额养老金的例外。调查结果阐明了如何从叙述故事的角度来理解这些改革方案的不同成功：这项改革-从政治上讲是政治上的–可以相对容易地商定目标群体的“应得性”。不过，最低养老金的可能受益人的“应得性”各不相同，而叙述一个“解决问题”的故事被证明是困难的。在政治战略上可以建立在目标群体的“应得”基础上的改革，可以相对容易地达成一致。不过，最低养老金的可能受益人的“应得性”各不相同，而叙述一个“解决问题”的故事被证明是困难的。在政治战略上可以建立在目标群体的“应得”基础上的改革，可以相对容易地达成一致。不过，最低养老金的可能受益人的“应得性”各不相同，而叙述一个“解决问题”的故事被证明是困难的。