English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49645/84944 (58%)
Visitors : 7699421      Online Users : 76
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/51342


    Title: 俄羅斯退休金制度改革與中東歐國家之比較分析
    Other Titles: A comparative analysis between Russia’s pension system reform and those in Central and Eastern European countries
    Authors: 施玉婕;Shih, Yu-chieh
    Contributors: 淡江大學俄羅斯研究所碩士班
    魏百谷
    Keywords: 退休金制度;俄羅斯;中東歐國家;Pension System;Russia;Central and Eastern European Countries
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2010-09-23 15:03:33 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 20世紀90年代,俄羅斯與中東歐國家的捷克、匈牙利以及波蘭,皆歷經政治與經濟變革,由於受到經濟改革與人口結構之影響,使得原先社會保障制度已無法適應的社經變化,為延續退休金制度的永續發展,俄羅斯與捷克、匈牙利以及波蘭先後進行退休金制度改革。

    在俄羅斯與捷、匈、波類似的政經改革背景之下,本研究除探究各國制度之沿革、內容與缺失,並試圖比較分析改革後之新制度有何異同?藉由比較研究,本研究可歸結以下主要結果。(一)制度改革方向皆自單支柱改革為多支柱,且採用新、舊制度並行的雙重型結構。(二)俄羅斯、捷克以及波蘭皆以年齡界定參與對象,而匈牙利係以投入勞動市場之時間,做為界定標準。(三)監管單位同樣設置為兩個層級,其一是負責制度統籌監管;其二是專責基金公司之監管業務。(四)捷克、匈牙利以及波蘭皆曾調整法定退休年齡;然而,俄羅斯則尚未調整。此外,性別間法定退休年齡之差距,係以俄羅斯和波蘭最大,其次是捷克,匈牙利對此則無差距。(五)俄羅斯與匈牙利均面臨基金公司的投資過於集中之問題。(六)為鼓勵勞工參與自願退休保險計劃,該四國皆提供稅收優惠或津貼的相關方案。
    In the 1990s, Russia and Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, three countries in Central and Eastern Europe, experienced economic and political changes. As their original social security systems couldn’t meet socio-economic changes due to the impact from economic reforms and population structures, and in order to continue the sustainable development of pension systems, these four countries had successively made pension system reforms.

    Under the background that Russia has similar political and economic reforms with Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, this study didn’t only explore the historical development, contents and lacks in each country’s system, but also tried to know the similarities and differences of the new systems after reform with the old ones through comparative analyses. By means of comparative analyses, this study reached the following main conclusions: (1) All of the system reforms were turned into multi-pillar from single-pillar, and adopted the dual-structure paralleling old and new systems; (2) Russia, Czech and Poland defined the participants based on age, while Hungary defined the standard based on the time of entering labor market; (3) The supervision authority was structured into two levels, with one in charge of system planning and supervision, and the other specially in charge of the supervision operations of fund companies; (4) Except Russia, Czech, Hungary and Poland had adjusted their statutory retirement age. Besides, Russia and Poland have greatest differences in statutory retirement age defined by gender, followed by Czech Republic. But Hungary has no difference in it; (5) Russia and Hungary are confronted with the issue of over-concentrated investment from fund companies; (6) In order to encourage laborers to participate in voluntary retirement insurance planning, these four countries provide relevant schemes on tax preference or subsidies.
    Appears in Collections:[俄羅斯研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML258View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback