The difference between China's social security system and that of foreign countries

Western developed countries and some developing countries have established their own social security system and different social security models after years of economic development. According to the different social security model and social security system of the western countries and the characteristics of the social security system, as well as the main factors affecting, and combined with the development process of the problem of comparative analysis, China's improvement of the social security system has a reference significance.　I. Types and characteristics of social security models and their influencing factors (a) Social security model emphasizing efficiency Some newly industrialized countries and developing countries have implemented savings fund-type social security system, which is a typical social security model with liberalism as the guiding ideology, emphasizing efficiency. Take Singapore as an example, its Central Provident Fund system requires employers and employees to contribute equal amounts of insurance premiums (Central Provident Fund), which is earmarked for specific purposes. Its characteristics are to emphasize self-protection, emphasize the unity of personal savings rather than scattered personal savings; financing mode to mandatory savings-based; management institutions centralized in the Singapore Central Provident Fund Board.　　(ii) Equity-oriented social security model The social security model with interventionism as its guiding principle emphasizes equity, and is mainly characterized by the developed countries' welfare state-type and self-insurance and public assistance social security models. The former is characterized by the implementation of income redistribution, progressive taxation so that social wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a few people; the latter is characterized by the government to carry out the relevant social security legislation, as the basis for the implementation of social security.　　(C) Influencing factors of social security system model selection The selection of social security system model is subject to a variety of factors, and the main factors are composed of three aspects, firstly, the social conditions and economic development level of each country, secondly, the theoretical and ideological background of each country when choosing the social security system, and thirdly, the different cultural factors of each country.　　Comparison of social security systems in western countries We choose several typical types of social security systems in western countries, with Britain, the United States and Chile as the representative to analyze and compare.　　(I) Analysis of the British social security system After the Second World War, the western economy continued to grow at a high speed, but the British economy is relatively slow, industrial manufacturing from the original world's first to the third place.　　The difficulties faced by the British economy have become more and more obvious, and the social problems in Britain, especially poverty and unemployment, have become more and more serious. This prompted the British government to reform the social security system.　　The social security system of the United Kingdom includes five aspects, namely, national insurance, national health care, personal social welfare, housing and education. Its own characteristics are, firstly, the completeness of the social security program; secondly, the deeper penetration into the family, replacing to a certain extent the traditional family support function. Thus, national insurance assumes to a certain extent the responsibility for the maintenance of the family for the insured. Thirdly, the principle of universality is the basic criterion for the construction of the social security system in post-war Britain. Finally, the government played a leading role in the social security system. The British social security system is operated entirely by government agencies and public *** employees. Although the social security system in many western countries also has the participation of government agencies and public *** employees, but more emphasis on the role of social organizations, such as some of the fund management agencies, trade unions, various associations and so on, in the management of social security plays a greater role. Within the institutionalized security system, social organizations in the United Kingdom play little role. The British national insurance is directly managed by the government, and has become a huge government department.　　(II) Analysis of the social security system in the United States Keynesianism played a decisive role in the establishment of the social security system in the U.S. The world economic crisis of 1929-1933 dealt a severe blow to the U.S. and changed the traditional view of the U.S. people who had long been in control of the U.S. people, i.e., they believed that poverty was caused by laziness. The Social Security Act of 1935 had a profound impact on the establishment of the social security system in the United States. After World War II, the continuous development of the American economy has laid a good material foundation for the improvement and development of the social security system, and the rapid development of the social economy has provided a reliable source of funds for the U.S. government to increase the types of social insurance, expand the scope of protection and raise the standard of payment.　　The U.S. broad security system is composed of "social insurance" and "social welfare", of which the social insurance system mainly consists of "social security programs" in the narrow sense (old age insurance, widowhood insurance and disability insurance). The social insurance system consists mainly of "social security programs" in the narrow sense (old age insurance, widows' and widowers' insurance and disability insurance), "medical insurance system" and "unemployment insurance system". As in Western Europe, employers and employees in the United States must pay a social security tax in order to receive social security payments. Social benefits, on the other hand, rely entirely on public expenditure, and recipients do not have to pay taxes, but applicants must pass the Government's "livelihood review" in order to receive benefits, which is equivalent to "social assistance" in Western Europe.　　The main features of the United States social security system are, first, the inherent tendency towards marketization and socialization. While continuing to implement the traditional social security policy, it has substantially changed the way in which the original social security is provided. It not only inhibits the federal government increasingly assume more responsibility for social security historical tendency, but also opened up the social security system to the market-oriented, socialized direction of the transformation of the road, and then formed a distinctive "market-oriented, socialized social security model". Secondly, there is a pluralistic system of social security management and operation. There is a balance between public and private, between federal, state and local governments, and between non-profit and for-profit organizations. Again, the United States social security program of multi-level. This multi-level nature is mainly manifested in the structure, form and type of programs. Finally, the social security funding method of multi-channel. This is centrally manifested in: the federal government to provide the funding played the role of the main channel; the government levies the employer's taxes and business owners for employees to provide welfare funds become an important source of funding for social security programs; a variety of community and various social welfare organizations also for different interest groups to provide part of the funding of social security; private through the payment of insurance taxes and for a specific insurance program to provide social security funds, in addition to In addition, charitable donations from some individuals have also played a significant role.　　(iii) Analysis of the Chilean social security system The privatization reform of the Chilean social security system in the 1970s was strongly influenced by neo-liberal theories. In terms of social policy, it advocated the transfer of marketable social welfare services to the private sector, instead of having the state organize all social welfare services. In addition, the Chilean reforms were strongly influenced by American conservatism, as the Pinochet military government came to power at the end of 1973 and began to implement liberalized economic reforms. The Pinochet government basically represented the interests of the middle class in politics and advocated privatization in the economy. From the end of the 1970s, the Pinochet military government began to implement a comprehensive policy of liberal economic reform, and the privatization of the social security system was one of the main elements of this radical reform. 1971-1973, the Allende government, due to the implementation of the nationalization measures, seriously undermined the political and economic interests of the Chilean middle class, and caused a series of political contradictions, as well as a series of economic conflicts. Political contradictions also led to a sharp decline in the efficiency of economic operation: in 1971-1973, the average annual inflation rate in Chile was as high as 295.9%, the average annual economic growth rate dropped to 1.2%, the fiscal deficit rose to 11.5% of GDP, and the economic situation deteriorated seriously.　　The Chilean social security system consists of three parts: the social welfare program, the health insurance system and the pension system, of which the pension system (including disability and survivor's social insurance) and the health insurance system were established after a major reform of the old system. The old-age pension system, for example, is characterized by, first, the capitalization of personal old-age savings. Individuals deposit a certain percentage of their monthly salary into their personal accounts during their working life as capital, which is invested by the pension fund management organization to increase the value of the fund. The amount of the personal pension depends on the savings made by the individual during his or her working life. Secondly, pension funds are managed by private organizations. Thirdly, competition was introduced into the social security sector. Pension fund management companies attract more insured persons by increasing the profitability of their investments and the level of their services. The current eight management companies were formed through reorganization and merger of more than 20 companies, and nearly 70% of the insured have chosen three of the major companies. We synthesize the above analysis and summarize it in Table 1 (see Table 1).　　Table 1 Comparison of social security systems among countries Theoretical system Model Suitable conditions Characteristics Defects Representative countries Liberalism Savings Fund-type Emerging industrialized and developing countries Emphasis on self-protection, with financing based on mandatory savings, and standardized and institutionalized management Heavy government financial burden, reducing competitiveness Singapore, Chile Interventionism Welfare State-type Economically developed, with improved material living standards in society Comprehensive Social security Heavy financial burden on the government, not conducive to the sustainable development of the economy Britain and the Nordic countries Self-insurance Public assistance Industrialized countries or countries with a strong economic base The state provides basic economic security for members of the community Enterprise results High costs, not conducive to competition Germany, Western Europe, the United States, Japan Third, the western social security system for China's inspiration Different social security models have advantages and disadvantages, our country should be based on the current economic and social environment, choose the appropriate social security system for China, According to the current economic and social environment, China should choose a social security model that suits China's national conditions, so as to satisfy the basic needs of nationals, guarantee social stability and promote long-term sustainable economic development.　　Looking at the development history of social security systems in countries all over the world, they all attached great importance to the legalization of social security systems in the early stage of development. The smooth implementation of social security measures can only be ensured under the protection of a strict legal system, which not only improves the stability of the system, but also helps to restrain the behavior of all parties. Although China has introduced a series of measures, rules and decisions in the process of reforming the social security system, there is no complete legislation on social security, which makes it impossible to find a legal basis for solving many problems in actual operation, which is a weak point in the reform of China's social security system. This is a weakness in the reform of China's social security system. In order to address this problem, we can gradually build up legislation on specific regulations and, when conditions are ripe, establish a basic law on social security. At the same time, we should also ensure that the relevant laws and regulations can be effectively implemented.　　First of all, the existence of the social security system is based on the potential conflict between the goals of efficiency and equity and market failure. The establishment of social security system is to meet the public's needs for social and economic development in various aspects, not only to protect the marginalized groups; the scope of welfare is far beyond the economic growth and material benefits, it is a combination of various interests of human beings including material interests; due to the existence of various market failures, it is difficult to achieve the goal of efficiency in the non-intervention market system, not to mention the goal of social equity and other human concerns. Social equity and other goals of human concern, so the government intervention is essential, through intervention to correct the market is difficult to achieve the social functions and goals. Equity and efficiency are two distinct and related goals in the design of social security systems. Here, equity is not only the fairness of income distribution, but also the fairness of the opportunity to share the fruits of social progress, the fairness between genders, the fairness between the strong and the weak, and the fairness between generations; while efficiency refers not only to the motivation to stimulate people to work hard and innovate, and the motivation of enterprises to continuously improve the efficiency of operation, but also refers to the effective allocation of social resources and the efficient operation of the whole economy. The degree of equity and efficiency may vary in different countries or at different periods of development of the same country. When the lack of efficiency becomes the main factor constraining economic development, the pursuit of efficiency growth should be the main goal; when the imbalance of equity forms a constraint hindering economic growth, the regulation of equity relations should be the main goal of promoting growth.　　Through the development of social security thinking, we can find that those who attach importance to economic efficiency emphasize liberalism and reliance on market forces, while those who attach importance to social equity advocate expanding government intervention and correcting the deviation from the goal of equity through redistribution.　　Secondly, the choice of social security model is constrained by values and the level of economic development. Values depend mainly on the government's judgment of the importance of different development goals and its analysis of the content of social welfare, and they are also influenced by a country's socio-cultural factors. The level of economic development, on the other hand, determines the level and scope of a country's realization of public welfare goals.　　Thirdly, the design of a social security system should well define the sharing of responsibility for the various levels of social security objectives. Because of the different nature of the social security objectives (social security services) at different levels, different types of social security programs, the division of responsibilities and powers of their bearers will also be different. Some can be introduced into the market mechanism (e.g., medical care, old-age security, etc.), while others can only rely on the government to provide (e.g., social relief security services); for example, old-age security to maintain an ordinary standard of living and old-age security for the pursuit of a higher quality of life, and so on. The government's responsibility for social security is very important, but if the design of the system does not emphasize the corresponding obligations or responsibilities of enterprises and individuals, even the social security programs of economically developed countries will collapse. since the 1970s, the rise of the multi-pillar model is a kind of correction of the previous system design errors. An effective social security system was not only one that met the objectives of equity and efficiency, but also one that was viable.　　Fourthly, in the area of old-age security, while the shift from a pay-as-you-go system to a partial accumulation system is in line with the principle of efficiency, there are obvious costs of the transition, and it will bring different benefits to different groups. China is currently moving from a pay-as-you-go system to a multi-pillar model, but there are still many problems that need to be solved. These include the problem of empty personal accounts, the problem of standardization and institutionalization of the social security system, etc. The government will play an important role in solving these hidden problems.