Journal of Financial Services Research

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 1–32 | Cite as

Defined Contribution Pension Plans: Determinants of Participation and Contributions Rates

  • Gur Huberman
  • Sheena S. Iyengar
  • Wei JiangEmail author


Records of 793,794 employees eligible to participate in 647 defined contribution pension plans are studied. About 71% of them choose to participate in the plans, and of the participants, 12% choose to contribute the maximum allowed, $10,500. The main findings are (other things equal) (1) participation rates, contributions and (most remarkably) savings rates increase with compensation; on average, a $10,000 increase in compensation is associated with a 3.7% higher participation probability and $900 higher contribution; (2) women’s participation probability is 6.5% higher than men’s and they contribute almost $500 more than men; (3) participation probabilities are similar for employees covered and not covered by DB plans, but those covered by DB plans contribute more to the DC plans; (4) the availability of a match by the employer increases employees’ participation and contributions; the effect is strongest for low-income employees; (v) participation rates, especially among low-income employees, are higher when company stock is an investable fund.


401(k) plans defined contribution 



The authors are grateful to Steve Utkus and Gary Mottola from Vanguard® Center for Retirement Research. They made the data available and provided us with constructive comments throughout the process. We also thank Pierre Azoulay, Geert Bakeart, Charlie Calomiris, Sarah Holden, Brigitte Madrian, Jim Powell, Thomas Steinberger, Ed Vytlacil, Elke Weber, Steve Zeldes, an anonymous referee, and seminar participants at Columbia, Rice, Wharton Pension Research Council, New York Federal Reserve Bank, CEPR workshop on Financing Retirement in Europe, and Wharton Workshop on Household Portfolio Choice and Financial Decision Making for their helpful comments.


  1. Agnew J, Balduzzi P, Sunden A (2003) Portfolio choice and trading in a large 401(k) plan. Am Econ Rev 93(1):193–215 (March)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ameriks J, Zeldes SP (2004) How do household portfolio shares vary with age? Working Paper, Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Bajtelsmit, VL, Bernasek, A (1999) Why do women invest differently than men? Financ Couns Plan 7:294–305Google Scholar
  4. Barber B, Odean T (2001) Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investments. Q J Econ 116(1):261–292 (February)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benartzi S (2001) Excessive extrapolation and the allocation of 401(k) accounts to company stock? Journal of Finance 56(5):1747–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernartzi S, Thaler R (2004). Save more tomorrow: using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. J Polit Econ 112(1):S164–S187 (February)Google Scholar
  7. Chamberlain G. Heterogeneity, omitted variables biases, and duration dependence. In: Heckman JJ, Singer B (eds) Longitudinal analysis of labor market data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–38Google Scholar
  8. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A (2002) Defined contribution pensions: plan rules, participation decisions, and the path of lease resistance. In Poterba J (ed) Tax policy and the economy. MIT, pp 67–113Google Scholar
  9. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A (2004a) For better and for worse: default effects and 401(k) savings behavior. Perspectives on the Economics of Aging, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A (2004b) Employees’ investment decisions about company stock. In: Mitchell OS, Utkus SP (eds) Pension design and decision-making under uncertainty. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B (2004c) Plan design and 401(k) savings outcomes. Natl Tax J 57:275–298, JuneGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B (2005) $100 bills on the sidewalk: suboptimal saving in 401(k) Plans, working paper, Yale School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark RL, Schieber SJ (1998) Factors affecting participation rates and contribution levels in 401 (k) plans. In: Mitchell O, Schieber S (ed) Living with defined contribution pensions: remaking responsibility for retirement. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 69–97Google Scholar
  14. Cunningham CR, Engelhardt GV (2002) Federal tax policy, employer matching, and 401(k) saving: evidence from HRS W-2 records. Natl Tax J 55:617–645(September)Google Scholar
  15. Duflo E, Saez E (2003) The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: evidence from a randomized experiment. Q J Econ 118:815–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duflo E, Gale W, Liebman J, Orszag P, Saez E (2006) Saving incentives for low- and middle-income families: evidence from a field experiment with H&R block. Q J Econ 121(4):1311–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dynan KE, Skinner J, Zeldes SP (2004) Do the rich save more? J Polit Econ 112(2):397–444 (April)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engelhardt G, Kumar A (2003) Employer matching and 401(k) saving: evidence from the health and retirement study, working paper, Syracuse UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Engen EM, Gale, WG (2000) The Effect of 401(k) Plans on Household Wealth: Differences Across Earnings Groups, NBER Working Paper 8032, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  20. Engen E, Gale W, Scholz JK (1996) The illusory effects of savings incentives on saving. J Econ Perspect 10(4):113–138 (Autumn)Google Scholar
  21. Even WE, Macpherson D (2003) Employee participation in 401(K) plans, Working paper, Miami University and Florida State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. Freedman DA (2001) Ecological inference and the ecological fallacy. International Encyclopedia for the Social and Behavioral Sciences 6:4027–4030Google Scholar
  23. Friedman M (1957) A theory of the consumption function. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrett TA (2003) Aggregated vs. disaggregated data in regression analysis: implications for inference. Econ Lett 81(1):61–65 (October)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holden S, VanDerhei J (2001) Contribution behavior of 401(k) plan participants. Investment Company Institute Perspective7(4) (October)Google Scholar
  26. Holden S, VanDerhei J (2003) 401(k) plan asset allocation, account balances, and loan activity in 2001. Investment Company Institute Perspective 9(2) (March)Google Scholar
  27. Honore B, Kyriazido E, Udry C (1997) Estimation of type 3 Tobit models using symmetric trimming and pairwise comparisons. J Econom 76:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huberman G (2001) Familiarity breeds investment. Rev Financ Stud 14(3):161–178, FallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huberman G, Jiang, W (2006) Offering vs. choices in 401(k) plans: equity exposure and number of funds. Journal of Finance XLI(2):763–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huberman G, Sengmuller P (2004) Performance predicts asset allocation: company stock in 401(k) plans. Review of Finance 8(3):403–443 (September)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iyengar S, Kamenica E. (2006) Choice overload and asset allocation: evidence from 401(k) plans, working paper, Columbia Business School and GSB University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Iyengar S, Huberman G, Jiang W (2004) How much choice is too much?: contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. In: Mitchell Utkus S (ed) Pension design and structure: new lessons from behavioral finance. Oxford University Press, pp 83–96Google Scholar
  33. Kusko AL, Poterba JM, Wilcox DM (1998) Employee decisions with respect to 401 (k) plans: evidence from individual-level data. In: Mitchell O, Schieber S (eds) Living with defined contribution pensions: remaking responsibility for retirement. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  34. Liang N, Weisbenner S (2002) Investor behavior and the purchase of company stock in 401 (k) plans—the importance of plan design, NBER Working paper 9131 (August)Google Scholar
  35. Madrian B, Shea D (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ CXVI(4):1149–1187 (November)Google Scholar
  36. Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60:531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meulbroek LK (2002) Company stock in pension plans: how costly is it? Working paper, Harvard Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell OS, Utkus SP (2003) The role of company stock in defined contribution plans. In: Mitchell OS, Smetters K (eds) The pension challenge: risk transfers and retirement income security. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK pp 33–70Google Scholar
  39. Mitchell OS, Utkus SP, Yang, Tongxuan (Stella) (2005) Turning workers into savers? Incentives, liquidity and choice in 401(k) plan design. NBER Working Paper 11726 and Wharton Pension Research Council Working Paper 2005–18Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell OS, Utkus SP, Yang, Tongxuan (Stella) (2006) Dimensions of 401(k) plan design. In: Blitzstein D, Mitchell OS, Utkus SP (eds) Restructuring retirement risks. Oxford University Press, UK, pp 186–203Google Scholar
  41. Munnell AH, Sunden A, Taylor C (2001) What determines 401(K) participation and contribution? Working paper, Center for Retirement Research, Boston CollegeGoogle Scholar
  42. Papke L (2004a) Individual financial decisions in retirement saving plans: the role of participant-direction. J Public Econ 88:39–61 (January)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Papke L (2004b) Choice and other determinants of employee contributions to defined contribution plans. Social Secur BullGoogle Scholar
  44. Papke LE, Poterba JM (1995) Survey evidence on employer match rates and employee saving behavior in 401(k) plans. Econ Lett 49(3):313–317 (September)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poterba JM (2003) Employer stock and 401(k) plans. Am Econ Rev 93(2):398–404 (May)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poterba JM, Venti SF, Wise DA (1996) How retirement savings programs increase saving. J Econ Perspect 10(4):91–112 (Autumn)Google Scholar
  47. Powell JL (1984) Least absolute deviation estimation for the censored regression model. J Econom 25:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America (2001, 2002) The Profit Sharing/401(k) SurveyGoogle Scholar
  49. Ramaswamy K (2002) Company stock and pension plan diversification, Working Paper, Pension Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  50. Shefrin H, Thaler R (1992) Mental accounting, saving, and self-control. In: Loewenstein G, Elster J (eds) Choice over time. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 98–112Google Scholar
  51. Thaler R (1999) Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak 12:183–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warner JT, Pleeter S (2001) The personal discount rate: evidence from military downsizing programs. Am Econ Rev 91(1):33–53 (March)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wooldridge JM (2003) Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. Am Econ Rev May 2003, 93(2),pp.133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finance and Economics DivisionColumbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Management DivisionColumbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations