The Research On Government Role Of China’s House-for-pension Scheme

In recent years, with the development of economy and medical treatment, life expectancy of Chinese people has been continuously extended.Besides, our society is moving towards an old-aging society inevitably. Pension has become a big problem for our states, families and individuals.However, the change of family structure makes the traditional family pension mode unsustainable; the social insurance only covers labor groups and guarantees their basic living needs, and the commercial insurance only guarantees higher income groups.Under this circumstance, house-for-pension scheme provides a new way to resolve the problem.Referring the implements of house-for-pension scheme in other countries, the responsibility of government in house-for-pension scheme is very important. However, the practice of this pattern in our country only goes through for a short period and the responsibility of our government is not clear.The unclear orientation of the government’s responsibility is not conducive to establish a sound external environment of house-for-pension scheme.This paper uses literature research, comparative analysis and interdisciplinary study to analyses the government’s role in the implements of the house-for-pension pattern.First of all, we must clarify the meaning of house-for-pension scheme and government role before the study of government role in the development of the house-for-pension scheme.Secondly,among the several countries in the world which practice house-for-pension scheme, the United States achieved success. While the British government had made neither formulate relevant policies nor effective regulations, which made a relatively lower participating enthusiasm of the elderly people. According to the implements of United States and Britain,this paper makes comparison between the two countries from the perspective of government role. The United States government undertook the system support, the legislation safeguard, risk sharing and regulatory responsibilities. However, the British government failed to do these, which lead to the failure of house-for-pension scheme.Third, our country has three advantages in the development of house-for-pension scheme:the base of implements, market conditions and technical supports. The preliminary policy support of government, such as practices, is not enough in our country. To be specific, the failure of government role mainly has four aspects:the absence of legislation, absence of risk sharing, absence of related system and absence of propaganda.Finally, combined with the actual situation in our country, the government should play a leading and service role in house-for-pension scheme, specifically, to be guiders, supporters and supervisors.Governments should create a favorable environment for the development of house-for-pension scheme.