Advertisement

Old-Age Pension Systems: Characterization and Comparability

  • Miguel CoelhoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Financial and Monetary Policy Studies book series (FMPS, volume 48)

Abstract

Old-age pension systems can be classified according to three aspects: funded versus unfunded systems (pay-as-you-go), actuarial versus non-actuarial systems, and defined benefit (DB) versus defined contribution (DC) systems.

Several European countries have (or had) public old-age pension schemes with defined benefits, financed by a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) scheme, where old-age pensions are determined by a formula not related to actuarial principles.

However, given the existence of several structural problems, such as the decrease in employment, ageing of the population and decline in fertility rates, these systems have reached their maturity, showing certain signs of difficulties as regards sustainability and/or the capacity to meet social goals.

In this context, in order to guarantee the sustainability of the systems, some countries have introduced structural reforms in their pension system architecture adopting alternative solutions as regards the funding of the system and/or the calculation of the pension benefit value.

This article intends to compare the main pension models, trying to identify, from a conceptual perspective, the advantages and disadvantages of each one of them, in order to identify how to better address common challenges in the EU with regard to the protection of old age citizens in a sustainable manner.

References

  1. Banyár J (2016) Possible reforms of pay-as-you-go pension systems. Eur J Soc Secur 18(3):286–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baynar J (2017) European handling of implicit and explicit government debt as an obstacle to the funding-type pension reforms. Eur J Soc Secur 19(1):45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billari F (2016) The “Timing of life”: the organisation of the life course in Europe. The European Social Survey Round 9 Question Module Design Teams (QDT) Stage 2 ApplicationGoogle Scholar
  4. Brimblecombe S, McClanahan S (2019) Improving gender outcomes in social security retirement systems. Soc Policy Admin 53(3):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chlon A, Góra M, Rutkowski M (1999) Shaping pension reform in Poland: security through diversity. Pension Reform Primer, SP Discussion Paper No. 9923, The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho M (2013) Balanced conditions of a pay as you go public system with defined benefit: an analysis of the Portuguese public system. Working Papers in Economics, E/n° 63/2013, Universidade de AveiroGoogle Scholar
  7. Colàs-Neila E (2016) Reconfiguring the employment pension connection in times of austerity. Eur Labour Law J 7(3):461–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamond P (2006) Conceptualization of non-financial defined contribution systems. Pension Reform Issues and Prospects for Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes, Proceedings of the NDC Conference in Sandhamn, Sweden, September 28–30, 2003, World Bank, pp 76–80Google Scholar
  9. Franco D, Sartor N (2006) NDCs in Italy: unsatisfactory present, uncertain future. Pension Reform Issues and Prospects for Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes, Proceedings of the NDC Conference in Sandhamn, Sweden, September 28–30, 2003, World Bank, pp 467–493Google Scholar
  10. Lindbeck A (2006) Conceptualization of non-financial defined contribution systems. Pension Reform Issues and Prospects for Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes, Proceedings of the NDC Conference in Sandhamn, Sweden, September 28–30, 2003, World Bank, pp 71–75Google Scholar
  11. Lindbeck A, Persson M (2003) The gains from pension reform. J Econ Lit 41(1):74–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Orenstein M (2005) The new pension reform as global policy. Glob Soc Policy 5(2):175–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Palmer E (2000) The Swedish pension reform model – framework and issues. World Bank’s Pension Reform Primer Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0012. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmer E, Stabin S, Svensson I, Vanovska I (2006) NDC strategy in latvia: implementation and prospects for the future. Pension Reform. Issues and Prospects for Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes, Chapter 15, The World Bank, pp 397–424Google Scholar
  15. Rofman R (2005) Social security coverage in Latin America. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, Social Protection Unit Human Development Network, The World Bank, No. 523Google Scholar
  16. Samuelson P (1958) An exact consumption-loan model of interest with or without the social contrivance of money. J Polit Econ 66(6):467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schoyen M, Stamati F (2013) The political sustainability of the NDC pension model: the cases of Sweden and Italy. Eur J Soc Secur 15(1):79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Valdés-Prieto S (2002) Pension policies and pensions markets: a university textbook for Latin America. Ediciones Universidad Católica, SantiagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade LusíadaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations