La retraite par répartition au crible de la pensée multi-solidaire

The debate sparked by the proposed reform of the French pension system, although initially fairly well received, has above all revealed the extent of the disagreements concerning both the weaknesses of the current system and the goals of the reform, as well as the relevance of the proposed universal system. This study seeks to better understand this obvious discord by going back to the source of the disagreements. The discord is ideological in nature, opposing the a priori visions of the social world put forward by three different approaches to the social, based on the free agent, the equality of citizens, and multi-solidarity. Any discourse about the social corresponds, roughly speaking, to some point inside this ideological triangle. The cleavages between these three modes of thought, which are rooted in the role attributed to the family and the vision of the links and transfers between generations, lead to very different architectures for social transfers (the overall volume, age-based priorities, etc.) and to very different pension systems. The current French system is inspired primarily by multi-solidarity thinking, while the reform project, or at least its initial version, has been inspired by equality between citizens. Existing pension systems increasingly seem to be seeking a compromise between the free-agent and equal-citizen approaches, treating the pay-as-you-go pension as a financial mechanism that is subject to individual choice. The function of pensions to provide social insurance and intergenerational solidarity is fading. The rest of the study shows how proposals for innovative reform inspired by multi-solidarity thinking could make it possible to restore these functions to some current form of pay-as-you-go.