International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 331–348 | Cite as

Retirement and Social Security in a Probabilistic Voting Model

  • Paola Profeta
Article

Abstract

Why are social security transfers associated with retirement rules? This paper focuses on the political interactions between retirement and social security. Using a probabilistic voting approach, it analyzes why old people are induced to retire in order to receive pension transfers from the young. A crucial hypothesis is that leisure in old age represents a “merit good,” which is positively valued by all agents in the society, young and old. Thus, the politicians choose to tax the labor income of the old, to induce them to retire. Retirement increases the level of ideological homogeneity of the old. In fact, once retired, the elderly are more “single-minded,” since they only care about redistributive issues, such as pensions. This increase in their political power allows them to win the political game and to receive a positive transfer from the young (social security).

political economy multidimensional voting merit goods single-mindedness endogenous ideological homogeneity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boeri, T., A. Börsch-Supan and G. Tabellini. (2001). “Would You Like to Shrink theWelfare State? The Opinions of European Citizens. ” Economic Policy 16(32), 7–50.Google Scholar
  2. Brennan, G. and L. Lomansky. (1983). “Institutional Aspects of Merit Goods Analysis. ” Finanzarchiv 41(2), 183–206.Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, G. and C. Walsh. (1977). “Pareto-Desirable Redistribution in Kind:AnImpossibility Theorem. ” American Economic Review 67(5), 987–990.Google Scholar
  4. Coughlin, P. (1992). Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Coughlin, P. and S. Nitzan. (1981a). “Directional and Local Electoral Equilibria with ProbabilisticVoting. ” Journal of Economic Theory 34, 1–12.Google Scholar
  6. Coughlin, P. and S. Nitzan. (1981b). “Electoral Outcomes with Probabilistic Voting and Nash Social Welfare Maxima. ” Journal of Public Economics 15, 113–121.Google Scholar
  7. Delli Caprini, M. X. and S. Keeter. (1996). “What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. ” Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Galasso, V. and P. Profeta. (2002). “The Political Economy of Social Security: A Survey. ” European Journal of Political Economy 18, 1–29.Google Scholar
  9. Gruber, J. and D. Wise. (1999). “Social Security and Retirement around the World. ” NBER.Google Scholar
  10. Harberger, A. C. (1984). “Basic Needs versus DistributionalWeights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis. ” Economic Development and Cultural Change 32(3), 455–474.Google Scholar
  11. Head, J. (1966). “On Merit Goods. ” Finanzarchiv 25(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  12. Hinich, M. J., J. O. Ledyard and P. C. Ordershook. (1972). “Nonvoting and the Existence of the Equilibrium under Majority Vote. ” Journal of Economic Theory 44, 144–153.Google Scholar
  13. Lindbeck, A. and J. W. Weibull. (1987). “Balanced-Budget Redistribution as the Outcome of Political Competition. ” Public Choice 52, 273–297.Google Scholar
  14. Lindert, P. H. (1996). “What Limits Social Spending?” Explorations in Economic History 33, 1–34.Google Scholar
  15. Mulligan, C. B. and T. J. Philipson. (2000). “Merit Motives and Government Intervention: Public Finance in Reverse. ” NBER Working Paper No. #7698.Google Scholar
  16. Mulligan, C. B. and X. Sala-i-Martin. (1999a). “Gerontocracy, Retirement and Social Security. ” NBER Working Paper No. #7117.Google Scholar
  17. Mulligan, C. B. and X. Sala-i-Martin. (1999b). “Retirement-Inducing Policy Wear many Disguises. ” Working Paper, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Musgrave, R. (1957). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Musgrave, R. (1986). “On Merit Goods. ” Public Finance in a Democratic Society: Collected Papers of Richard Musgrave. New York University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Musgrave, R. (1988). “Merit Goods, ” The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Stocktone Press.Google Scholar
  21. Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Persson, T., G. Roland and G. Tabellini. (1998). “Towards Micropolitical Foundations of Public Finance. ” European Economic Review 42, 685–694.Google Scholar
  23. Persson, T. and G. Tabellini. (2000). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Profeta, P. (2002). “Aging and Retirement: Evidence Across Countries. ” Forthcoming in International Tax and Public Finance.Google Scholar
  25. Shepsle, K. A. (1979). “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. ” American Journal of Political Science 23(1).Google Scholar
  26. Stromberg, D. (2000). “Radio's Impact on Public Spending. ” Mimeo, Stockolm University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Profeta
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Economia PoliticaUniversità Bocconi and Università di PaviaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations