Major Issues Facing The Private Pension System

Chile’s pension system came under close scrutiny in recent years. This paper takes stock of the adequacy of the system and highlights its challenges. Chile’s defined contribution system was quite influential when introduced, and was taken as an example by other countries. However, it is now delivering low replacement rates relative to OECD peers, as its parameters did not adapt over time to changing demographics and global returns, while informality persists in the labor market. In the absence of reforms, the system’s inability to deliver adequate outcomes for a large share of participants will continue to magnify, as demographic trends and low global interest rates will continue to reduce replacement rates. In addition, recent legislation allowing for pension savings withdrawals to counter the effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, is projected to further reduce replacement rates and increase fiscal costs. A substantial improvement in replacement rates is feasible, via a reform that raises contribution rates and the retirement age, coupled with policies that increases workers’ contribution density.

This book examines the major economic challenges associated with the sustainability of public pensions, specifically demographic change, labor-market relations, and risk sharing. The issue of public pensions occupies the political and economic agendas of many major governments in the world. International organizations such as the World Bank and the OECD warn that the economic changes driven by an aging society negatively affects the sustainability of pension systems. This book analyzes different global public pension systems to offer policies, methods and tools for sustainable public pensions. Real case studies from France, Sweden, Latin America, Algeria, USA and Mexico are featured.

This review builds on the OECD’s best practices in pension design and provides policy recommendations on how to improve the Portuguese pension system, detailing the Portuguese pension system and its strengths and weaknesses based on cross-country comparisons. The Portuguese pension system ...

This book provides an overview of recent developments in the private pension systems of four OECD countries (Hungary, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States) as well as an analysis of institutional investors in Latin America.

Throughout the developed world, public and private pension schemes face major challenges that are creating irresistible pressures for reform. Major structural changes in Latin America and in Central and Eastern Europe have led to particularly fierce pressure. Two member states of the European Union - Italy and Sweden - have introduced radical reform of their public pensions systems; controversial pension reforms have been proposed in France and Germany; and the British government has been widely criticized over its pension reforms and its 2002 white paper. This exceptional volume examines the challenges faced by pension schemes in the advanced economies and the reforms that have been introduced to tackle these challenges. A team of international contributors provides an up-to-date, invaluable analysis of different aspects of pension problems, prospects and reforms. The book incorporates cross-national chapters as well as a focus on individual countries including Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Sweden, the UK and the USA.

The issue of providing appropriate financial security for retirement is of growing importance for both OECD member and non-member countries, and the approaches adopted to implement the necessary reforms vary depending on each country's economic, social and demographic environment. Increasingly, however, reform programmes involve the establishment or extension of private pension arrangements. This book contains a selection of papers presented at a meeting in April 2001 of the International Network of Pension Regulators and Supervisors (INPRS) and the OECD to discuss the key policy implications arising from the growth of private pension schemes.

Since pension schemes-along with health care and education-absorb the largest amount of social expenditure in all countries, their reform has a potentially major impact both on the fiscal situation of the state and on the life chances of citizens who stand to win or lose from new arrangements. This makes pension reform a highly controversial issue; and, except for the addition of new programmes and benefits, major restructuring of existing pension systems has been extremely rare in advanced industrial democracies. It was also rare in Latin America before the 1980s and 1990s. But there has been a great deal of experimentation within the region during the past decade. This paper examines the larger economic, social and political context of Latin American pension reform and compares experiences in different countries of the region with options available in Western European societies during the same period. The authors argue that the type of pension reform undertaken in Latin America has been an integral part of the structural adjustment programmes pursued by Latin American governments, under the guidance of international financial institutions (IFIs). Although there was a range of possible remedies to the problems of pension systems in different Latin American countries, neo-liberal reformers and the international financial institutions preferred privatization over all others. They claimed that privatization would be superior to other kinds of reform in ensuring the financial viability of pension systems, making them more efficient, establishing a closer link between contributions and benefits and promoting the development of capital markets-thus increasing savings and investment. And they were able to push through some of their suggestions for reform in spite of considerable opposition from pensioners, trade unions and opposition political parties. Interestingly enough, their pressure proved least effective in the more democratic countries of the region. In Costa Rica, for example, citizens preferred to reform the public system-eliminating the last pockets of privilege for public sector workers and ensuring that new levels of contribution would be adequate to provide minimum benefits for the aged and infirm. In Uruguay, citizens forced a public referendum, through which they rejected a proposal for privatization. At a later stage, they did permit the introduction of private investment accounts, but not at the cost of eliminating the public programme. In Argentina and Peru, after the legislature refused to authorize partial privatization, this was eventually pushed through by presidential decree. Only in Chile and Mexico has there been a complete shift to private pension funds-but, in both cases, influential sectors of the elite, including the military, have been allowed to keep their previous, publicly managed group funds. Looking at the only privatized pension system in existence long enough to allow for some assessment of its consequences-that of Chile-the authors find that many of the claims made by supporters of privatization are not substantiated by the evidence. The first discrepancy between neo-liberal predictions and the reality of Chilean pension reform has to do with efficiency. All previous claims to the contrary, private individual accounts have proven more expensive to manage than collective claims. In fact, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, by the mid-1990s administration of the Chilean system was the most expensive in Latin America. The second disproved claim involves yield. When administrative costs are discounted, privately held and administered pension funds in Chile show an average annual real return of 5.1 per cent between 1982 and 1998. Furthermore high fees and commissions-charged at a flat rate on all accounts-have proven highly regressive. When levied against a relatively modest retirement account, for example, these standard fees reduced the amount available to the account holder by approximately 18 per cent. When applied to the deposit of an individual investing 10 times more, the reduction was slightly less than 1 per cent. The third discrepancy involves competition. Although it was assumed that efficiency within the private pension fund industry would be associated with renewed competitiveness-while the public pension system represented monopoly-the private sector has in fact become highly concentrated. The three largest pension fund administrators in Chile handle 70 per cent of the insured. And to reduce advertising costs, public regulators are limiting the number of transfers among companies that any individual can make. A fourth unfulfilled promise of privatization in Chile has to do with expansion of coverage. It was assumed that the existence of private accounts would increase incentives for people to take part in the pension sc heme, but in fact this has not happened. Coverage and compliance rates have remained virtually constant. A fifth major claim was that the conversion of the public pension system into privately held and administered accounts would strengthen capital markets, savings and investment. But a number of studies have recently concluded that, at best, this effect has been marginal. And finally, the dimension of gender equity within a fully privatized pension scheme is being subjected to increasing scrutiny. Women typically earn less money and work fewer years than men. Therefore, since pension benefits in private systems are strictly determined by the overall amount of money contributed to them, women are likely to receive considerably lower benefits. Public pension systems, in contrast, have the possibility of introducing credits for childcare that reduce this disadvantage. Sweden is an example of countries that have embarked on this course. In the latter part of the paper, Huber and Stephens widen their comparative framework to include recent pension reforms in advanced industrial countries. There, where economic crisis was not as severe and where pressure from international financial institutions was not significant, much broader options for reform were available. In fact, although long-established systems were under stress, no developed country opted for complete privatization. Complex measures were taken to strengthen the funding base of national pension systems, including changes in investment procedures and changes in rules for calculating pension benefits. Reforms also increased retirement age, as well as the number of years required to qualify for a full pension. But even the most thoroughgoing reforms retained a central role for public schemes in ensuring old-age benefits. In conclusion, the authors consider steps that can be taken to craft pension reforms with more desirable results than those obtained to date in Latin America. They recommend measures that address the problem of an aging population by increasing the ability of each generation to pay for its own pensions-rather than relying primarily on the contributions of preceding generations of insured workers. Pension payments should be invested in a variety of financial instruments and benefits must ultimately be related to the yields obtained. Such a strategy does not require introduction of privately managed, individually held, investment funds. On the contrary, risk is lessened by relying instead on collectively managed funds, in which accounts can either be identified with individuals or-more equitably-with generations of contributors. Reformed public pension systems should also contain minimum "citizenship pensions" that guarantee subsistence income in old age to all individuals as a matter of right. Such a measure, financed from general tax revenue rather than from personal contributions, is not beyond the means of medium income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In fact, some Nordic countries introduced citizenship pensions when their GNP per capita was lower than that of most Latin American countries today.

The individual account-based but unfunded approach to mandated public pension systems is a reform benchmark for all pension schemes, promising fair and financially sustainable benefits. Nonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) pension schemes originated in Italy and Sweden in the 1990s, were then adopted by Latvia, Norway, and Poland, envisaged but not implemented in various other countries, such as Egypt and Russia, and remain under discussion in many nations around the world, such as China and France. In its complete form, the approach also comprises budget-financed basic income provisions and mandated or voluntary funded provisions. Volume 1 of this book offers an assessment of countries that were early adopters before addressing key aspects of policy implementation and design review, including how best to combine basic income provisions with an NDC scheme, how to deal with heterogeneity in longevity, and how to adjust NDC scheme design and labor market policies to deliver on reform expectations. Volume 2 addresses a second set of issues, including the gender pension gap and what family policies can do about it within the NDC framework, labor market issues and administrative challenges of NDC schemes and how countries are coping, the role of communication in these pension schemes, the complexity of cross-border pension taxation, and much more. Progress and Challenges of Nonfinancial Defined Contribution Pension Schemes is the third in a series of books analyzing the progress, challenges, and adjustment options of this reform revolution for mandated public pension systems. 'Pension reform is a major issue in many countries. The development of the nonfinancial defined contribution pension plan in the 90's was a major advance in pension design. By reporting actual country experiences and exploring properties of plan designs, this latest collection of essays is a valuable contribution, well worth reading.' Peter Diamond Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2010 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 'A highly stimulating publication for policy makers and researchers alike. It pushes the analytical frontier for policy challenges that all public pension schemes are confronted with but that the nonfinancial defined contribution approach promises to handle best.' Noriyuki Takayama President, Research Institute for Policies on Pension and Aging, Tokyo, and professor emeritus, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo 'In a changing world where pensions are more than ever linked to labor markets, communication tools, and flexibility considerations, this anthology provides a unique up-to-date analysis of nonfinancial defined contribution pension schemes. By mixing international experiences and theoretical studies, it demonstrates the high adaptability of such pension schemes to changing social challenges.' Pierre Devolder Professor of Finance and Actuarial Sciences, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium