Skip to main content

Abstract

A pension scheme, even if designed primarily to shift income between the working life and retirement period of individuals, is also an instrument for the redistribution of lifetime income among individuals. Discussions of pensions have often paid little attention to the question of intra-generational redistribution to focus on the issues of efficiency and inter-generational redistribution. This largely neglected aspect of social security is all the more important when political considerations are thrown in. The existing literature on the politics of inter-generational transfers shares this idea that the working majority agrees to pay the pensions of the retired population, on the understanding that they will get equivalent or higher transfers from the next working generation1. While this may sound comforting, there is no real assurance that a scheme operated by one generation will be acceptable to subsequent generations, unless they involve a substantial amount of intra-generational redistribution (see Tabellini, 1991). In short, inter-generational transfers need intra-generational redistribution to be politically viable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aaron, H.J. (1977). “Demographic Effects on Equity of Social Security Benefits”, in M. Feldstein and R.P. Inman, eds., The Economics of the Public Services, London, Macmillan, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D., I. Garfinkel and R. Munts, (1982). “Income Testing in Income Support Programs for the Aged”, in I. Garfinkel, ed., Income Tested Programs: The Case For and Against, New York, Academic, 449–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boadway, R and D. Wildasin, (1989). “A Median Voter Model of Social Security”, International Economic Review, 30, 307–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boldrin, M and A. Rustichini, (1994). “Equilibria with Social Security”, CORE DP 9460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, E., (1975). “Why the Social Insurance Budget is too Large in a Democratic Society”, Economic Enquiry, 13, 373–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casamatta, G., H. Cremer and P. Pestieau, (1999). “Political Sustainability and the Design of Social Insurance”, forthcoming in Journal of Public Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Donder, P., J. Hindriks (1998). “The Political Economy of Targeting”, Public Choice, 95, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. (1998). “The Economics of Social Security Reform”, NBER Working Paper 6719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsdtein, M. (1987). “Should Social Security Benefits be means tested?”, Journal of Political Economy, 95, 468–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M and W. Cohen, (1972). “Social Security: Universal or Selective?”, Washington, American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. and M. Smart, (1996). “Majority Voting with Single Crossing Preferences”, Journal of Public Economics, 59, 219–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S.C., (1979). “Social Security, the Supply of Labor and Capital Accumulation”, American Economic Review, 69, 274–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S.C., (1982). “Social Security, Majority Voting Equilibrium and Dynamic Efficiency, International Economic Review, 23, 269–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perotti, R. (1996). “Growth, Income Distribution, and Democracy: What the Data say”, Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 149–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangel, A. and R. Zeckhauser, (1999). “Can Market and Voting Institutions generate Optimal Intergenerational Risk Sharing?”, NBER DP 6949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. (1977). “Voting over Income Tax Schedules”, Journal of Public Economics, 8, 329–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, T. (1977). “Majority Voting on Tax Parameters”, Journal of Public Economics, 7, 127–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoblom, K., (1985). “Voting over Social Security”, Public Choice, 45, 225–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabellini, G., (1991). “The Politics of Intergenerational Redistribution”, Journal of Political Economy, 99, 335–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R., (1986). The Redistributive Roles of Unemployment Insurance and the Dynamics of Voting, Journal of Public Economics, 31, 377–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Donder, P., Hindriks, J. (2002). Voting Over Social Security with Uncertain Lifetimes. In: D’Aspremont, C., Ginsburgh, V., Sneessens, H., Spinnewyn, F. (eds) Institutional and Financial Incentives for Social Insurance. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0783-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0783-3_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5237-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0783-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics