Rome – “If we want to introduce flexible retirement we have to change the Stability Pact in Europe.” Tito Boeri, an economist, Bocconi, with a long international experience, as a consultant to the OECD and the IMF, is a year the president of INPS, the largest institution of European security. Boers did Flexible output from work the center of his proposal to reform ( “one last time”) foresight. The raises explaining, however, that the real game is played in the rooms of the Brussels Commission. It will also serve to remove the “cap” which in recent years has blocked the recruitment of young people. Of course, the Jobs Act has “given a very strong change” in the composition of the labor market by stopping “the vicious circle of insecurity,” but not enough. As for the government plan on Boeri he says that survivors ‘pensions in the INPS proposals there is nothing about survivors’ pensions. And is already an answer.
Boeri, because it says that the match for flexible retirement to play in Europe?
“Because the introduction of greater flexibility in output worsens immediately the deficit, while over time along the spending is reduced because with the early retirement of the amount of the check will be lower although paid for several years. But the current EU rules do not take all of this into account. they look at debt past, not the future debt, however that is what will become decisive because of the growth of social expenditure that will weigh on all European budgets due to aging of the population. it is an important aspect that should be considered by those who have to heart fiscal sustainability.
For a country in debt like Italy this would be an advantage?
” Italy has a high public debt accumulated but it is one of the countries that made a pension reform that can control the dynamics of spending. This is not to seek exemptions from the Covenant, to wrest some flexibility. It will introduce more stringent constraints, but constraints other than the current ones. Italy has a debt level of the pension entirely sustainable and should be rewarded for that. “
If this is so, because the government says it wants to introduce flexible retirement this year did not asked to change this, the Stability Pact?
“Because he wanted to pursue other avenues. Too bad because the flexible retirement is important now, in 2016, not in two or three years. It would be too late. “
Too late, why?
” Why the sudden rise their age for retirement in these years of economic crisis has created a cap the recruitment of young people. We here INPS, the have seen companies that have had employees blocked by the reform of 2011 did not take young people, as they assumed those companies that have not had blocked employees. Before the crisis, the rate of employment of young people (15-24 years) was substantially equal to that of those over 55. Today the employment rate for adult workers is at 45 percent and those of young people at 12 percent. This has happened. Along with the hiring freeze in the public sector has led to an intellectual employment devastating situation of our country. “
Are you against the hiring freeze in the civil service?
“It lasts for 15 years and has had adverse effects on the public administration machine. And – I say this after a year of work in the public administration – the real reforms to be done is that of the public administration machine. Without an efficient machine you can not walk. There is a lapse guilty on this issue. The sudden policy to search for consensus, the techno-structure has the knowledge to operate the machine but does not transfer so he can keep his positions of income. As for the recruitment, I asked for more autonomy in hiring and INPS in budget management to ensure operational cost savings greater than those required (300 million that will be added to the 700 that we have already achieved). I was given. And when the Institute will demonstrate again will have to take the former workers of the provinces and the tail of the 2012 competition winners not that we need. “
About more resistant to changes : politics or bureaucracy?
“Both. As soon as I took office I asked for it to be reformed the current governance monocratic INPS to reintroduce the board of directors and streamline the organs. I was told that there was no legal vehicle. It would be enough to put it in one of the decrees of Madia law. We asked to be able to use the budget resources to send to all workers the “orange envelope” with their pension data. We were told that they could not use not specifically allocated resources. Parliament did not change the rule allowing us to pay us sending. But, in any case, this year will send 10 million workers that do not access online services INPS the orange envelope.
Do you think that he made more efficient by INPS? How?
Together with general manager Cioffi, who are happy to have called the Institute, we have just presented INPS reorganization. Due to the merger with the Inpdap and Enpals, which took place on paper but not in fact, we were 48 central managers (the sum of the leaders of the various institutions). Now we want to complete this merger both in structure and in procedures. On the side of the reorganization we have reduced the number of executives who report directly to the Director General to 10, to make the most streamlined and efficient structure. On the side of the procedures, the delays there are, for example in pension payments for civil servants, are due also resistance of governments to provide the contribution data promptly on their employees: it is uncivilized that to happen. “
What do you think of the project of the government to rationalize certain benefits including survivors’ benefits anchoring ISEE?
“in the INPS’s proposal for the reform of the social security system there was nothing on pensions survivor. For two reasons: there is a sustainability problem because in the calculation of the amount it already takes account of the surviving life expectancy, and it has already been made the reform linked to the income of the surviving situation. There is more to change: it seems highly questionable whether five billion of welfare benefits go to the richest 30 percent of the population. “
The first year of his presidency coincides with the first INPS year Jobs Act. it was worth spending so many billions to increase permanent contracts but not employment?
“our data on new hires and terminations say that the change has been very strong. We’ve gone from an intake on four standard contract to one in three. The cost should not be very far from the half billion allocated by law Stability 2015. Was it worth it? Certainly he had to get out of the vicious circle created by the precarious, with damage for the workers and for the productive system. This change there was. Although one might expect at the beginning of 2016 a physiological drop in permanent hiring. “
The Civ approved the budget of INPS, we talk of the risk that the assets can be cleared in 2017
“It ‘an accounting issue because as part of the transparency of the accounts of INPS we are doing we have set aside in the budget 7 billion to the allowance for doubtful accounts. We are doing a similar operation on the side of the debts of the Institute toward Pa. “
No comments:
Post a Comment