Czech pension reform: how to reconcile equivalence with fiscal discipline

Open access


One of the recent changes in the Czech Republic’s pension system was provoked by a petition to the Constitutional Court. The setting of bend points for determining the amount of pensions depending on the insured person’s previous earnings was contested as discrimination against higher income categories. The Constitutional Court granted the petition. The result was an approval and implementation of an amendment to Act No. 155/1995 Coll., on Pension Insurance, that for the purposes of calculating the level of old-age pensions favoured the highest income decile at the expense of most other insured persons, namely those with middle incomes. Simultaneously, the political criterion of fiscal discipline was applied to ensure the financial sustainability of the pension system. In analysing this case, we critically adopt the theory of actor-centred institutionalism and the theory of the policy cycle. From the nature of the analysed case it follows that we pay attention mainly to the legislative process which resulted in the amendment. Our methodology is dominated by analysis of documents (legal norms, court decisions, political programmes, official publications) and political and administrative communication (including debates on legislative drafts in the executive and legislature).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bots P.W.G. (2008) Analyzing actor networks while assuming “frame rationality”. Paper presented at the conference on Networks in Political Science (NIPS). Kennedy School of Governance Harvard University Cambridge. [online] [quoted on June 13-14 2008]. Available from

  • Burns T.R. & T. Baumgartner Ph. Deville. (1985) Man Decisions Society: The Theory of Actor-System Dynamicsfor Social Scientists. New York: Gordon and Breach.

  • Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. (2010) Decision of the Constitutional Court - Pl.ÚS 8/07. [online] [quoted on 23 March 2010]. Available from

  • ČMKOS (2011). Standpoint of ČMKOS. [online] Available from

  • Dopady na lidi budou tvrdé. [Impacts on people will be tough]. (2011). Haló noviny. Interview with the MP for KSČM Miroslav Opálka. 6 May 2011. [online] [quoted on 6 May 2011]. Available from

  • Holub M. (2010). Rozhodnutí Ústavního soudu nemusí nutně znamenat dramatický zásah do důchodového systému. [Decision of the Constitutional Court need not signify a dramatic intervention into the pension system.]. FÓRUM sociální politiky [FORUM of Social Policy] 4 pp. 16-20.

  • Holub M. (2010). Solidarita versus ekvivalence v českém důchodovém pojištění pohledem Ústavního soudu. [Solidarity versus equivalence in the Czech pension insurance from the perspective of the Constitutional Court.]. FÓRUM sociální politiky [FORUM of Social Policy] 3 pp. 19-20.

  • Howlett M. & Ramesh‚M. (1995). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hupe P. L. & M. J. Hill. M. J. (2006). The Three Action Levels of Governance: Re-Framing the Policy Process Beyond the Stages Model. In B. G. Peters J. Pierre. Handbook of Public Policy. (pp. 13-30). London: SAGE Publications.

  • Jaeger C.C. Renn O. Rosa E.A. & Webler T. (2001) Risk Uncertainty and Rational Action. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

  • Klaus V. (2011). Stát není pojišťovna. [The state is not an insurance company]. MF DNES 7 July 2011. [online] [quoted on 7 July 2011]. Available from

  • Korpi W. (2001). Contentious Institutions: An Augmented Rational-Actor Analysis of the Origins and Path Dependency of Welfare State Institutions in the Western Countries. Rationality and Society 13 (2): 235-83.

  • Lasswell H. D. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park Maryland: University of Maryland.

  • Lindblom C. E. (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.

  • Macháček D. Prezident nepodepsal zákon porušil Ústavu? [The President did not sign the act did he violate the Constitution?] Hospodářské noviny 4 May 2004. [online] [quoted on 4 May 2004]. Available online from

  • Mayntz R. & Scharpf F. W. (Hrsg.). (1995). Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt Main: Campus.

  • Maška J. & Rada J. (2011). Závěrečná zpráva Hodnocení dopadů regulace (RIA). [Final Report on Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)]. MPSV ČR.

  • MPSV. (2008). Pojistně matematická zpráva o sociálním pojištění. [Actuarial Report on Social Insurance] [online]. Available from

  • Malá důchodová reforma je nespravedlivá necitlivá a nedomyšlená ČSSD s ní zásadně nesouhlasí. [Small Pension Reform is unfair insensitive and ill-conceived ČSSD strongly disagrees with it]. (2011). Press release by ČSSD. [online] [quoted on 12 May 2011]. Available from nedomyslena-cssd-s-ni-zasadne-nesouhlasi/.

  • OECD (2013). Pensions at a Glance 2013: OECD and G20 Indicators OECD Publishing. [online] Available from

  • Ovseiko P. (2002). The Politics of Health Sector Reform in Eastern Europe: the Actor-Centred Institutionalist Framework for Analysis. Budapest: Center for Policy Studies. IPF Working Paper No. 2002-01.

  • Poradní expertní sbor. Závěrečná zpráva. (2010) [Expert Advisory Committee. Final Report.] [online]. Available from

  • Rahmatian S. & Hiatt C.(1989). Toward an information-based theory of irrational systems behavior. Systems Research 6 (1).

  • Scharpf F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centred Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Škorpík J. & Suchomel M. (2011). The Czech Republic. In Kenichi HIROSE (ed.). Pension reform in Central and Eastern Europe: in times of crisis austerity and beyond. Budapest. ILO. s. 157.[online] [2011]. Dostupné z

  • EXECUTIVE TEAM Bezděk V. (2005). Závěrečná zpráva - Reforma důchodů. [Final Report - Reform of Pensions]. Praha Online

  • Winkler J. (2007). Teorie rozhodování a dynamika sociální politiky. [Decision Theory and Dynamics of Social Policy]. Brno: Masaryk University.

  • Yerkes M.A. (2011). Transforming the Dutch Welfare State. Policy Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.156
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.430

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 214 59 2
PDF Downloads 120 57 2