Table 6: Evolution of selected budgetary during structural pension reforms in the EU, 1986-1999
|
Pension |
Change in |
Change in social |
Change in social |
|
Germany 1992 |
1.7 |
1 |
1.4 |
|
Spain 1997 |
-0.1 |
0 |
-0.9 |
|
Italy 1992 |
1.1 |
-0.1 |
0.8 |
|
Italy 1995 |
3.1 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
|
Netherlands |
-1.4 |
-0.2 |
-1.8 |
|
1996 | |||
|
Portugal 1993 |
1.3 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
|
Finland 1997 |
0.8 |
-0.2 |
-1.7 |
|
Sweden 1998 |
-0.5 |
0.6 |
-1.2 |
|
UK 1987 |
0.4 |
-0.4 |
-1.8 |
Note: Including only structural reforms decreasing the generosity of the pension system as reported in the FRDB
database. Social benefit figures refer to the “social benefits other than in kind” category in the ESA95 government
accounts.
Source: authors’ computations on FRDB and AMECO databases
124
More intriguing information
1. Valuing Farm Financial Information2. Evidence-Based Professional Development of Science Teachers in Two Countries
3. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies
4. Two-Part Tax Controls for Forest Density and Rotation Time
5. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
6. Demographic Features, Beliefs And Socio-Psychological Impact Of Acne Vulgaris Among Its Sufferers In Two Towns In Nigeria
7. The value-added of primary schools: what is it really measuring?
8. Linking Indigenous Social Capital to a Global Economy
9. Can we design a market for competitive health insurance? CHERE Discussion Paper No 53
10. The name is absent