Mandatory Provident Funds in Hong Kong: Too Little, Too Late
This article examines the history of the establishment of the MPF and its scope to show that the retirement protection it offers is belated and inadequate. In particular, it argues that, on the one hand, the delay and limited scale of the MPF are due in large part to factors such as the reluctance of the government to provide income protection for the elderly, the predominant influence of the vocal business sector, and the absence of a democratically elected and powerful legislature. On the other hand, the democratization of the legislature has been a major factor in bringing forth the MPF, even though this is not the ideal solution preferred by the general public.
Pension Reforms in Hong Kong: Using Residual and Collaborative Strategies to Deal With the Government's Financial Responsibility in Providing Retirement Protection
ABSTRACT In 2000, the Hong Kong government introduced the first compulsory retirement saving scheme intended to protect the entire workforce, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). Prior to the introduction of this scheme, the government's main measure for giving financial protection to retirees was the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) scheme, which is a noncontributory, means-tested financial assistance scheme. This paper studies the government's attempt to introduce the MPF on top of the CSSA scheme as a means to illustrate how governments might address their financial responsibilities in providing pension schemes by adopting both the residual strategy-centered reform approach and the collaborative strategy-centered reform approach. The former approach is concerned with developing noncontributory schemes using residual strategies, and the latter is concerned with developing contributory schemes using collaborative strategies. The paper shows the difficulties involved in carrying out these two reform approaches simultaneously.
Social security and social welfare: a ‘new look’ from Hong Kong
Many things are associated with Hong Kong, but innovation in social security and social welfare is not one of them. Yet recent developments in Hong Kong are perhaps of more than local interest alone, not simply because Hong Kong has the advantage of virtually starting from scratch in developing social security but also because it has, by force of circumstance as well by inclination, had to look for what have been called ‘Hong Kong solutions for Hong Kong problems’. The results of this process might be regarded, if not as models to be copied, at least as alternative approaches to be borne in mind when other countries review the possible choices of development in social security open to them.