1 ANALYSING THE LINK BETWEEN LIFE COURSES AND PENSION SYSTEMS

Life course trajectories have become increasingly important for retirement and pensions as recent reforms have strengthened the link between lifetime employment and benefits, introduced measures to lengthen working lives and increased the role of private supplementary pensions. At the same time, life courses are increasingly fragmented due to diversified and discontinuous employment, family dynamics and migration. These developments raise concerns about the adequacy of pensions as well as socioeconomic and gender inequalities in old‐age income, not only for current but also for future retirees. This Special Issue focuses on inequalities in pensions and retirement from a life course and intergenerational perspective.

The interrelation of individuals' life courses and pension systems is essential for understanding the living conditions and financial well‐being of older individuals. Pension benefits are the main income source of retirees in mature welfare states. While there is some variation in the degree of privatization of pension systems as well as in the relevance of occupational pension plans, statutory systems remain the main provider of income for the current generation of retirees in OECD countries (OECD, 2019). Therefore, governmental decisions on the design of pension systems directly impact the living standard of current and future elderly.

In the pension systems of developed welfare states, the level of pension benefits is mostly in some way linked to the previous employment history and/or other aspects of the individual life course. However, variation exists in how this link between old‐age benefits and previous life courses is designed. Two basic options can be differentiated. According to the Bismarckian social insurance principle, pension benefits are based on contributions during working life and are thereby strongly linked to previous earnings. In contrast, Beveridge‐style basic pensions are more‐or‐less independent from achievements during working life and provide a certain minimum standard of living for every pensioner. In most countries, pension systems are de facto a mix of both ideal types (Hinrichs & Lynch, 2010; Kuitto & Kuivalainen, 2020). Pension systems also differ with respect to the relevance of private provision which also relies on deposits during working life or, in the case of occupational pensions, is restricted to specific employees and requires steady careers. Therefore, the link between life course and later life income is the stronger the more pronounced the Bismarckian elements are and the more privatized a pension system is.

Social policies, as especially the pension system, operate on basis of an institutionalized “normal life course” which defines what is “standard” and what as “atypical” in terms of calculating and granting benefits (Kohli, 1985; Leisering, 2003). This “normal life course” is in many societies highly gendered as it is oriented upon a male‐dominated biography of continuous full‐time employment. Accordingly, eligibility criteria and level of public pension receipt are usually linked to paid employment, while informal care work or periods of unemployment are much less or not at all considered in some countries (Leitner, 2001). In the shift from industrial to service society, however, this normative orientation on continuous standard employment faces turmoil. As challenges arise from rising global competition, digitalization and automatization and volatile work histories, precarious and non‐standard employment have become increasingly frequent for larger parts of the working population and are no longer a phenomenon solely restricted to women with care responsibilities (Buchholz et al., 2009).

The relationship of life courses and pension systems has been in the spotlight of empirical sociological and social policy research for a long time. This is because the relationship is of relevance for researchers from different areas: sociologists focus more on micro‐level relationships within individuals' life courses while social policy and political science researchers examine how pension systems impact social inequality from a macro perspective. With respect to the first line of research, country‐specific and comparative studies examine life course determinants of income and living standard of the current generation of elderly. Previous studies in this tradition reveal among others that atypical work histories and family trajectories seem detrimental with regard to household income of older men and women. However, for older women's personal incomes, long‐term marriages are rather unfavourable (e.g., Fasang, Aisenbrey, & Schomann, 2013; Sefton, Evandrou, Falkingham, & Vlachantoni, 2011). The welfare state is an important mechanism of stratification for old‐age incomes (Dewilde, 2012). When accounting for life course factors, pension system characteristics prove to be especially relevant for women's old‐age income and reproduce inequality (Möhring, 2015). Most studies in this line of research include older birth cohorts that have entered retirement already in the 2000s and, therefore, can only give clues about the situation of future retirees. One of the few studies delivering a more prospective picture by Meyer, Bridgen, and Riedmüller (2007) uses hypothetical “risk biographies” to examine likely distributional outcomes of pension system privatization on the financial resources of the elderly.

The other line of research that this Special Issue addresses are macro level studies on the relationship of pension systems, pension reforms and well‐being in old age. Previous research in this field focuses on the effects of pension reforms on old‐age poverty and inequality (e.g., Grech, 2015; Zaidi et al., 2006). In particular, the privatization of pensions is seen as accelerating old‐age poverty and income inequalities of retirees (e.g., Anderson 2019; Been, Caminada, Goudsward, & van Vliet, 2017; Ebbinghaus, 2011). Further studies analyse how pension system characteristics reproduce or cushion gender differences in pensions (e.g., Betti et al. 2015; Leitner, 2001) or facilitate later retirement (e.g., Ebbinghaus, 2006; Ebbinghaus & Hofäcker, 2013).

Despite the broad range of previous research in the field, some important blind spots remain. This applies especially to the consequences of atypical life courses for well‐being in later life. For example, how do unemployment and low pay impact old‐age income and wealth? Does divorce or single parenthood always translate in a higher old‐age poverty risk? What are the consequences of informal caregiving for example for children or fragile family members for the caregiver's pension income? These gaps partly emerge from data restrictions in empirical studies: as we are unable to observe complete life histories for younger cohorts, we are also unable to address these questions empirically.

Nevertheless, as social and economic change modifies individuals' work histories in the direction of greater volatility and a higher prevalence of atypical employment, it remains important for social scientists to address these questions – both from a micro level as well as a policy perspective. Standard employment and marital biographies that were the default assumptions underlying most of the pension systems at their outset are increasingly vanishing. Employment histories become more de‐standardized in the transition from industrial to service society and are moving away from the lifelong standard employment relationship in favour of fixed‐term contracts and volatile careers. Because life expectancy increases, older people need more care which, in turn, is often divided unequally between men and women. With increasing international mobility and migration, a rising number of people also accrue their pension rights in more than one pension system, and migrants often have weaker labour market positions compared to the non‐migrant population (Bridgen, Meyer & Davison, 2021; Heisig, Lancee & Radl, 2018). Lastly, we are just at the brink of seeing the consequences of a long‐term dismantling of public pension systems within the OECD as, in most countries, this will not affect current retirees.

中文翻译：

---

从人生历程角度看退休金和退休金的不平等：简介

1分析生活课程与养老金制度之间的联系

随着最近的改革加强了终生就业与福利之间的联系，出台了延长工作寿命的措施，并增加了私人补充养老金的作用，生命历程的轨迹对于退休和养老金变得越来越重要。同时，由于多样化和不连续的就业，家庭动态和移民，生活过程越来越分散。这些事态发展引起了人们对养老金是否充足以及养老金的社会经济和性别不平等的担忧，这不仅是针对目前的退休人员，还包括未来的退休人员。本期特刊着眼于人生历程和世代相传，着眼于养老金和退休金的不平等。

个人生活历程与养老金制度之间的相互关系对于理解老年人的生活条件和财务状况至关重要。养老金是成熟福利国家退休人员的主要收入来源。尽管养老金制度的私有化程度以及职业养老金计划的相关性存在一些差异，但法定制度仍然是OECD国家当前这一代退休人员的主要收入提供者（OECD，2019年）。因此，政府关于养老金制度设计的决定直接影响当前和未来老年人的生活水平。

在发达福利国家的养老金体系中，养老金的水平主要以某种方式与以前的工作经历和/或个人生活历程的其他方面相关。但是，养老金和以前的生活历程之间的这种联系的设计方式存在差异。可以区分两个基本选项。根据the斯麦的社会保险原则，养老金是基于工作期间的供款，因此与以前的收入紧密相关。相比之下，贝弗里奇式的基本养老金或多或少与工作期间的成就无关，并为每个养老金领取者提供一定的最低生活水准。在大多数国家，养老金制度实际上是两种理想类型的结合（Hinrichs＆Lynch，2010; Kuitto＆Kuivalainen，2020）。养老金制度在私人准备金的相关性方面也有所不同，私人养老金也依赖于工作期间的存款，或者在职业养老金的情况下，养老金制度仅限于特定雇员并且需要稳定的职业。因此，life斯麦主义要素越明显，养老金制度越私有化，生活历程与晚年收入之间的联系就越牢固。

社会政策，特别是养老金制度，是在制度化的“正常生活过程”的基础上运作的，该过程定义了在计算和发放福利方面什么是“标准”和什么是“非典型”（Kohli，1985； Leisering，2003）。在许多社会中，这种“正常的生活历程”具有很高的性别，因为它以男性占主导地位的连续全职工作传记为基础。因此，资格标准和公共养老金领取水平通常与有偿就业相关，而在一些国家中，非正式护理工作或失业期则少得多或根本没有考虑（Leitner，2001年）。）。但是，在从工业社会向服务社会的转变中，这种关于连续标准就业的规范性取向面临动荡。随着全球竞争，数字化和自动化以及不断变化的工作历史带来的挑战，不稳定的和非标准的就业在越来越多的劳动人口中变得越来越频繁，不再仅仅局限于承担护理责任的女性的现象（Buchholz等人）。 。，2009）。

长期以来，生命历程与养老金制度之间的关系一直是经验社会学和社会政策研究的焦点。这是因为这种关系对于来自不同领域的研究人员而言是相关的：社会学家更多地关注个人生活过程中的微观关系，而社会政策和政治学研究人员则从宏观角度考察养老金制度如何影响社会不平等。关于一线研究，针对特定国家和比较的研究检查了当代一代老年人的收入和生活水平的生命周期决定因素。以前在这一传统中的研究表明，非典型的工作历史和家庭轨迹对于家庭而言似乎是有害的。老年人的收入。但是，对于年长妇女的个人收入而言，长期婚姻是相当不利的（例如，Fasang，Aisenbrey和Schomann，2013年； Sefton，Evandrou，Falkingham和Vlachantoni，2011年）。福利国家是老年收入分层的重要机制（Dewilde，2012）。在考虑生活历程因素时，养老金制度特征被证明与妇女的老年收入和再生产不平等特别相关（Möhring，2015年））。该研究领域中的大多数研究都包括在2000年代就已经退休的较老的出生队列，因此只能提供有关未来退休者情况的线索。Meyer，Bridgen和Riedmüller（2007）提出的更具前瞻性前景的为数不多的研究之一使用假设的“风险传记”来考察养老金系统私有化对老年人财务资源的可能分配结果。

本期特刊涉及的另一项研究是关于养老金制度，养老金改革与老年福利之间关系的宏观研究。该领域以前的研究集中在养老金改革对老年贫困和不平等的影响上（例如，Grech，2015年； Zaidi等，2006年）。尤其是，养老金私有化被视为加剧了退休人员的老年贫困和收入不平等（例如，安德森（Anderson）2019;拜恩（Ben），卡米纳达（Caminada），古德沃德（Goudsward）和范弗利特（van Vliet），2017 ;埃宾豪斯（Ebbinghaus），2011）。进一步的研究分析了养老金制度的特征如何重现或缓解养老金中的性别差异（例如Betti等，2015年；莱特纳，2001年）或促进以后的退休（例如，埃宾豪斯（Ebbinghaus）2006年; Ebbinghaus和Hofäcker，2013年）。

尽管该领域以前的研究范围广泛，但仍然存在一些重要的盲点。这尤其适用于非典型生活过程对晚年幸福感的影响。例如，失业和低薪如何影响老年人的收入和财富？离婚或单身父母总是带来更高的老年贫困风险吗？例如，对孩子或脆弱的家庭成员的非正式照料会给照料者的养老金收入带来什么后果？这些差距部分是由于实证研究中的数据限制所致：由于我们无法观察到年轻一代的完整生活史，因此我们也无法凭经验解决这些问题。

然而，随着社会和经济变化朝着更大的波动性和非典型就业率的方向改变个人的工作历史，对于社会科学家来说，从微观层面和政策角度来解决这些问题仍然很重要。标准就业和婚姻传记，一开始是大多数养老金体系所依据的默认假设，但这种情况正在逐渐消失。在从工业社会转变为服务型社会的过程中，就业历史变得越来越不规范，并且正朝着终身固定的雇佣关系转变，转向固定期限合同和不稳定的职业。由于预期寿命增加，老年人需要更多的照料，而照料者往往在男女之间分配不均。随着国际流动性和移民人数的增加，越来越多的人在一个以上的养老金体系中获得了养老金的权利，与非移民人口相比，移民的劳动力市场地位通常较弱（Bridgen，Meyer和Davison，2021年； Heisig， Lancee＆Radl，2018）。最后，我们濒临经合组织内部长期拆除公共养老金制度的后果，因为在大多数国家，这不会影响目前的退休人员。