Contemporary Problems of Social Work Современные проблемы социальной работы academic journal

18
CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL WORK
20.  Vinar, A.A., Ivanchenko, L.A. (2014). The Need for the Use of Public-Private Partnership in the 
Social Sphere. Current Problems Aviation and Cosmonautics. No. 2 (10). P. 298–299.
21. Yescombe, E.R. (2013). Public–Private Partnerships: Principles of Policy and Finance, 2nd 
edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
REFERENCE TO ARTICLE
 
Bagmet, K.V & Andikaeva, K.A. (2016) SRI As a Public Private Partnership Instrument in 
Social Services Sphere, Contemporary Problems of Social Work. Vol. 2. No. 1 (5). P. 7–18. DOI: 
10.17922/2412-5466-2016-2-1-7-18 (International bibliographic description).

---

19
VOLUME 2, No. 1, 2016
Bataev V.V.,
adviser of the association of Rail Transport Employers, 
Department of finance and credit, Russian State Social University, 
Moscow.
E-mail: [e-mail]
Pochinok N.B.,
doctor of economic sciences, associate professor, rector of the Russian State
Social University, Moscow.
E-mail: [e-mail]
Author ID (Scopus): 56465940500
 
UDC 330; 368
 DOI: 
10.17922/2412-5466-2016-2-1-19-27
Some Issues of the 
Early Pension Insurance System Transformation
Receiving date:
11.01.2016
Preprint date:
25.02.2016
Taking to print date:
28.03.2016
Annotation: the necessity and possibility of early retirement institute transformation are explored. 
Constitutional court position concerning professional pension systems draft law is analyzed. Intergovernmental 
transfers and additional premiums cash flows are proportionated. Limitations of early retirement solidary 
principle are pointed. Carrying out an early retirement system reform is proposed on the non-state pension 
funds base considering OECD experience. The proposed model advantages for Russian pension system are 
resumed.
Key words: early retirement, non-state pension funds, professional pension systems, harmful or dangerous 
working conditions.
Wide practice of early retirement was strongly associated with lack of a separate source of 
these additional pension rights financing and provision of such pensions in the framework of 
social tax rate similar for all employers. This approach resulted in decreasing the general level 
of pension coverage and involving pension scheme funds to the compensation of unfavorable 
working conditions, responsibility for which should have been born by the employer.
The existing situation did not make employers interested in improving working conditions 
and labor safety as well as in developing a system of industrial accidents and occupational 
diseases prevention and thus increasing life span of employees in specific working conditions. 
The right to receive these pensions was given without reference to the life expectancy, health 
indicators and working ability preservation of such occupational groups. Moreover, financing of 
early retirement at the expense of common insurance contributions depressed the opportunity 
of pension valorization for other retiree categories. As a result, expenses to be incurred by 
employers in order to enforce the rights of their employees to early retirement were, in fact, 
incurred by all insuring parties. The main problem in the early retirement system functioning 
was lack of economic responsibility for adverse working conditions [16].
A further step in reforming the early retirement system was made at the end of 2001. In 
accordance with the Federal Law (hereinafter – FL) of the Russian Federation Nо. 173-FL of 
17 December 2001 “On Retirement Pensions in the Russian Federation”, Article 27, paragraph 

---

20
CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL WORK
3, as in force until 31 December 2008 [5], only employees who worked at least half of a special 
employment period in harmful and dangerous working conditions as of 1 January 2003 have the 
right to the early grant of an old-age retirement pension.
It was planned to create professional pension systems (herein after – PPS) with financing 
provided through additional compulsory insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the 
Russian Federation (hereinafter – RF Pension Fund), paid by the employer as per rates determined 
by the FL “On Insurance Contributions for PPS Financing” [1; 6], or pension contributions to 
authorized non-state pension funds (hereinafter – NSPF) in terms of the rate of compulsory 
insurance contributions to the RF Pension Fund.
The Bill prescribed the rates of additional compulsory insurance (pension) contributions 
to PPS in order to provide payments from PPS relevant to the average pension under current 
legislation.
To solve this problem it was offered to provide a clear demarcation of the sources of financing 
early retirement (preferential) pensions and retirement pensions on a non-preferential basis 
with subsequent inclusion of all types of early and preferential pension provision into the 
system of occupational pensions to be funded through own insurance sources – additional 
insurance contributions [22].
The project stipulated a contribution of 6.0 per cent to the salary of employees occupied 
in special working conditions, except subsurface mining, harmful and dangerous working 
conditions and hot shops, and 14.2 per cent to the salary of employees occupied in subsurface 
mining, harmful and dangerous working conditions and in hot shops.
According to V.D. Roick, the pension issue is a constant “headache” for politicians. “As 
when pensions are low, a large proportion of population consisting of 40 mil retired people is 
considered the most concerned electorate, the government being responsible for their financial 
security. Moreover, the government is also liable for “freezing” the legislative solution of early 
retirement problem. The law on this issue was to have been adopted in 2002 but the problem 
has not been solved yet” [15].
The FL on PPS that was supposed to be adopted by 1 January, 2003 was never adopted. This 
is largely responsible for the impairment of people’s rights and initiation of legal action in the 
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – CC).
Historical and legal analysis of initiation and progression of the long-service pension 
institution later transformed into early granted old-age retirement pensions, study of their 
granting conditions prove that “throughout the XXth century there was formed a compromise 
type of the state-individual interests alignment based on their union and interdependence. 
However, it should be noted that in the last five years state interests in pension provision of the 
mentioned employees’ categories prevail over the individual interests [11; 14].
As a result of the CC legal view on this issue, creation of PPS was postponed for an indefinite 
period, and the right to the early grant of old-age retirement pensions was reserved for all 
employees’ categories for the work in special working conditions and otherwise who used to 
have it previously [2].
Currently, in accordance with the FL Nо. 173-FL of 17 December 2001, periods of work 
stipulated by sub-paragraphs 1-18, paragraph 1, Article 30, and still in process after 1 January 
2013 are included into the length of service at corresponding types of work, giving the right to 
the early grant of old-age retirement pensions if the insuring party accounts and pays insurance 
contributions according to special rates. But conditions of granting old-age retirement pensions 
are used only if working conditions are considered harmful and (or) dangerous according to 
the results of a special evaluation study of working conditions (hereinafter – SESWC). It is 
worth mentioning that introduction of additional rates of insurance contributions, depending 
on a special workplaces assessment conducted by the employer, does not solve the problem of 
raising the effectiveness of the early retirement institution, creating incentives for employees 

---