【作者】 王一；

【导师】 宋宝安；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 社会保障， 2015， 博士

【摘要】 社会保障是一个充满价值判断和道德理想的研究领域，既包含着关于如何使人们的生活更幸福的理性思辨，也包含着对实然社会中具体问题的工具性或实用性解决方案的考虑。面对这样一个综合性的研究范畴，为摆脱实证主义影响下的片面实务倾向，本文在权利理论框架下重新审视我国的社会保障制度。从历史发展角度来看，人们对于权利的认识从以人性论为基础的自然权利观发展到更为全面的公民权利观，权利成为人类表达社会公正理想的有效方式，对福利权利的认识也从人道主义的“施舍救济”提升为“人人普享”的社会权利，社会权利的实现情况成为衡量社会福利制度的有效手段，社会权利“去商品化”程度的差异也使得社会福利制度本身成为一个社会分层系统，福利制度作为塑造阶级与社会秩序的关键制度，其组织特征帮助决定了社会团结、阶级分隔以及地位差异的表现。回到具体的社会保障实践当中，我国从建国初期就十分重视社会保障工作，建立了适应计划经济体制要求的社会保障制度，改革开放以后又对原有体制进行改革，逐步建立起与市场经济体制相适应的社会化的社会保障基本框架，在制度层面上基本实现了社会保障全覆盖。但如果从权利视角出发，这一过程事实上进行了“福利身份化”的生产与固化。计划经济时期我国形成了以“单位”或“集体”为基础的社会保障制度，从属于不同性质“单位”的社会成员被按照“身份”划分为不同的簇群，按照差异化的制度规则享受不同的社会保障待遇，这一过程事实上进行了“福利身份化”的生产。改革开放以来，社会保障制度改革取得了显著成就，但在改革过程中所采取的城乡分割与分区操作的推进方式并没有破解“福利身份化”问题，而是固化了“身份化”特征，不同身份群体之间仍存在着明显的福利差距。经历了“福利身份化”的生产与固化之后，我国的社会保障制度具备了法团主义以保险制度为核心、以劳资群体为主体、以贡献和业绩为基础、强调权利义务相对等、层级制度鲜明的特征。虽然我国正在弥合由“职业身份”和“地域身份”差异造成的福利层级化问题，但这种转变是为了体现国民收入再分配更加注重公平的要求，社会保障待遇的获得仍然取决于“职业身份”。可以说，我国社会保障制度的主体部分与法团主义福利模式相类似，存在一些自由主义福利模式或社会民主主义福利模式的倾向，可以被称之为“类法团主义模式”。通过数据分析可以看出，这种“类法团主义模式”的社会保障制度不仅进一步强化了初次分配形成的社会分层，同时制约了社会权利的实现。在养老保险和医疗保险这两个社会保障制度的关键性领域，“去商品化”程度从高到低依次为机关事业单位工作人员、城镇企业职工、农村居民、城镇居民，也就是说，机关事业单位工作人员和城镇企业职工这两类具有职业身份的群体，其所获得的独立于市场的地位要显著高于城乡居民，说明我国的社会保障制度是高度依赖于“职业身份”的，体现了权利与义务相对等的原则，形成了与职业身份高度相关的社会权利实现模式，是社会权利的有限度的实现。在与社会分层的关系当中，这种以“职业身份”为基础的社会保障制度与社会分层之间存在着正相关关系，也就是说，在社会分层中处于优势地位的群体，在社会保障中也处于优势地位，社会保障制度没能修正社会分层所造成的社会不平等，而是使社会分层的结果进一步恶化。面对我国社会保障制度中存在的“福利身份化”问题，我们需要思考的是，如何实现社会权利能够满足社会成员的合理需求，同时修正社会分层所带来的不平等，也就是需要解决“怎样分配权利和义务才算是对等与合理”这一问题，这事实上涉及到“分配正义”领域，社会权利的实现程度最终取决于我们选择怎样的社会正义观。本文通过对分配正义原则的考察提出了社会保障制度的价值选择，为实现“去身份化”提供价值判断依据。通过对分配正义原则的分析可以看出，个人自由与社会平等作为正义原则的两端，如何平衡二者之间的关系构成了关于社会正义的价值选择。具体到我国社会保障领域，应该通过需要原则体现社会平等，通过贡献原则体现个人自由。社会保障领域的需要是独立于个人偏好的客观性需要，以当时的生产力发展水平和物质经济基础为条件按照社会必需进行分配，以满足全体社会成员基本的生存和发展需求，并达到对不利地位进行矫正和调节的作用。贡献原则是按照个人通过劳动所作出的贡献来分配福利资源，体现了权利与义务相对等的关系，是与自由的正义观相对应的价值规范。在此基础上，本文提出了公民权利视角下社会保障制度建构的初步思路。从中国社会保障实践出发，需要原则指导下的社会保障制度是通过统一的制度安排覆盖全体社会成员，满足其基本生存发展需要，并由政府负担经费来源的基本保障制度；贡献原则指导下的社会保障制度是通过差别化的制度安排覆盖劳动者，满足其较高水平的保障需求，由个人和雇主共同缴费的补充保障制度。从基本原则出发，形成以社会保险为核心，以社会救助、社会福利为重要内容的社会保障制度框架，推动社会保险实现从以职业身份为基础到普遍的社会权利的转变，社会救助实现从贫困的个体性到社会性的转变，社会福利实现从补缺到普惠的转变。在此基础上落实养老保险和医疗保险的制度框架和具体路径，提出建立基本养老保险与补充养老保险相结合的养老保险制度，以及缴费型医疗与补助型医疗相结合的医疗保险制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 The study of social security is filled with both value judgments and moral ideal,encompassing not only the rational thinking of how to increase people’s living qualitybut also possible solutions to some certain social problems. Facing such acomprehensive subject and in order to avoid the influence of partial positivist practice,this essay is going to analyze the social security system in our country under theframework of civil rights. From the perspective of historical development, rights inpeople’s views have developed from human-nature-based natural rights to morecomprehensive economic, politic and social rights. Rights have become an effectiveway for people to pursue their social justice. The understanding of rights has alsoevolved from original concept of “remedy” to social rights “deserved by everyone”,and the realism of social rights has become an effective way to evaluate social welfaresystems. Variations in the “de-commodification” degree of social rights make socialwelfare system into a stratifying mechanism. As the key system to shape social classesand social order, a social security system’s characters help decide the performance ofshared solidarity, class segmentation and the discrepancy of status.Back into social security practice, our country has been focusing on such practicesince the early years of the PRC and has built a social security system fit for thedemands of planned economy. After the reform and opening-up, the previous systemwas also reformed into a framework which fits the market economy and all citizensare covered by it in name. However, from the perspective of right itself, this processactually gave rise to and deepened “identity-biased welfare”. From the planned economy period, our country has formed a “working place” or “community”-basedsocial security system. People were classified into groups and given different socialwelfare treatments based on their “positions” in their “working places”. This isactually the birth of “identity-biased welfare”. Since the reform and opening-up,China has reached certain achievements in the reform of social security system.Compared to the traditional social security system, the new system has made laudablebreakthroughs in its coverage, welfare level and system completeness. However,instead of providing a solution to “identity-biased welfare”, the urban/suburbandichotomy aggravated this situation and obvious welfare gaps still exist betweendifferent groups.After the emergence and aggravation of “identity-biased welfare”, the socialsecurity system of China started to possess corporatist features: taking security systemas the core, labor group as the main body, contribution and performance as the basis,and emphasizing the balance of rights and obligations, and classifying differentgroups. Although the government is trying to solve the welfare stratification problemcaused by “occupational” and “regional” differences, the effort is made mainly toemphasize equality in the distribution of national income. The welfare of socialmembers still depends on their “occupation identity”. It can be said that, the mainbody of our social security system is similar to the welfare system of corporatism.Due to the tendency of liberalism and socialism in it as well as the diminishing classdisparities, it can be called a “quasi-corporatist pattern”. Data analysis shows thatsuch “quasi-corporatist” social security system has not only intensified the socialstratification that took shape in the first-round allocation but also restricted therealization of social rights. As two key areas of the social security system, the degreeof “de-commodification” in endowment insurance and medical insurance is ranked asfollows in descending order: retired employees in public institutions, employees inurban enterprises, countryside residents, and urban residents. It means that, after retirement, employees from public institutions and urban enterprises normally obtainpositions much more independent of the market than ordinary urban and countrysideresidents do. Therefore, the social security system of our country still highly replieson the “occupation identity” of each citizen. Moreover, with social rights beingextended to occupational area, a social security pattern that is highly related tooccupation identities took shape. The current social security system also reflects theprinciple that rights should be weighted equally to obligations, thus partly realizingsocial rights. The occupation-based social security system is positively correlated tothe classifications of the society. It means that, the group which has the dominantposition in the social security system still stays in the dominant position in socialclassification. The social security system is not amending the imparity caused bysocial stratification but worsening the situation.Facing “identity-biased welfare” in our social security system, we have toconsider how to satisfy the necessary demands of social members and at the sametime amend the imparity caused by social stratification. That is to say, we need toconsider “how to balance rights and obligations to reach a certain equal andreasonable outcome”. This is actually related to distributive justice as the realizationof social rights depends on what we think of distributive justice. This essay putsforward the value choice for social security system based on the principle ofdistributive justice, providing grounds for eliminating “identity-biased welfare”. Fromthe analysis of distributive justice principle, it can be seen that personal freedom andsocial equality form two opposite sides. The value choice of social justice iscompletely concerned with balancing these two elements. In the practice of our socialsecurity system, the “need” principle should be adopted to reflect social equality whilethe “contribution” principle should be used to reflect personal freedom. Social welfareis independent of personal preference and is distributed based on the social needs aswell as the social productivity level and the material basis. By distributing social welfare, social security system meets the demands of survival and development of allsocial members and finally adjusts social inequality. In contrast, contribution-basedsocial security system requires social welfare to be allocated in terms of thecontribution of each member. As the value reflection of free distributive justice, thissystem reflects the balance of rights and obligations, and is much concerned withefficiency and freedom. Considering that social security system needs to adjustincome disparities, contribution-based social security system needs to be limited bysetting a definite quota.Based on the above-mentioned matters, this essay also provides a preliminaryidea for the construction of social security system from the perspective of civil rights.From the practice of the social security system in China, need-based social securitysystem is fully sponsored by the treasury and usually covers all citizens through auniform system to meet their basic needs for survival; contribution-based socialsecurity system which is sponsored by individuals and employers, however, coversworkers through a differentiated system so as to meet the security demands of muchhigher level. Speaking of specific social security projects, China needs to build apension insurance system including basic and supplementary insurances, as well as amedical insurance system combining contribution medical insurance and free medicalinsurance.更多还原