Advertisement

The Role of the Government in Creating or Enhancing the Access to Funded or Unfunded Pensions in the Modern Welfare State

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

Abstract

Due to ageing, governments have put into place parametric pension reforms during the last two decades. Consequently pension systems have become extremely complicated. Whether statutory, occupational or personal all pension forms are remarkably difficult to understand in depth. Nonetheless this huge complexity people are connected to their national pension system due to the existing underlying pension concepts. Each country possesses thus a unique own national pension identity. Every national pension landscape is created by or composed of the various pension forms occurring and operating concurrently, resulting in an aggregate pension concept that is tailored to a specific national context. It is this uniqueness that makes transposition of reforms from one country to another so complicated or at least deeply problematic. Changes from PAYG to funded schemes are therefore far from self-evident to be successful.

Keywords

Funded and unfunded pensions Coverage Welfare state Normative policy Toolkit for broadening of narrowing coverage 

References

  1. Aaron H (1966) The social insurance paradox. Can J Econ Polit Sci 32(3):371–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banyar J (1991) “Possible reforms of PAYG pension systems”, in E.J.S.S. 2016/18, 286–308. In: Deleeck H (ed) Zeven lessen over sociale zekerheid. ACCO, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrendt C (2000) Private pensions – a viable alternative? Their distributive effects in a comparative perspective. ISSR 53(3):3–26Google Scholar
  4. Bovenberg L, Nijman T (2016) Persoonlijke pensioenrekeningen met risicodeling. In: Van Ewijk C, Heemskerk M, Maatman H, Nijman T (eds) Pensioen 2020. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  5. Chand SK, Jaeger A (1996) Aging populations and public pension schemes, paper 147. International Monetary Fund, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies B (1994) Participation des syndicats aux régimes complémentaires. La Revue de L’IRES 15:29–42Google Scholar
  7. Davies B (2000) Equity within and between generations: pension systems and equity. In: Hughes G, Stewart J (eds) Pensions in the European Union: adapting to economic and social change. Kluwer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. De Deken J (2013) Towards and index of private pensions provision. J Eur Soc Policy 23(3):270–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Witte K, Stevens Y, Roels P (2009) The Matthew effect: why current pension policy helps the rich get richer. In: Stewart J, Hughes G (eds) Personal provision of retirement income, meeting the needs of older people? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 151–175Google Scholar
  10. Deleeck H (2000) De betaalbaarheid van de pensioenen. In: CSB Berichten. UFSIA, Antwerpen, p 16Google Scholar
  11. Ebinghaus B, Wiss T (2011) Taming pension fund capitalism in Europe: collective and state regulation in time of crisis. Transfer 17(1):15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis C, Munnell A, Eschtruth A (2014) Falling short: the coming retirement crisis and what to do about it. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferreiro J, Serrano F (2012) Uncertainty and pension system reforms. J Econ Issues 45(2):317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelissen J (2001) Old age pensions: individual or collective responsability. Eur Soc 3(4):495–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghilarducci T (2009) The plan to save American Workers’ retirements. In: Orenstein M (ed) Pensions, social security and the privatization of risk. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Gollier J-J (1989) Les problèmes de pension vus dans la perspective des trois pilliers. Reflets perspectives de la vie économique 4:285–293Google Scholar
  17. Heemskerk M, Maatman R, Werker B (2016) Heldere en harde pensioenrechtechten onder een PPR. In: Van Ewijk C, Heemskerk M, Nijman HM e T (eds) Pensioen 2020. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  18. Hemming R (1994) “Should public pensions be funded?”, I.S.R.R. 1999/2, 3–29. In: Kune J (ed) De controverse kapitaaldekking versus omslagfinanciering, S.MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirose K (2011) Pension reform in central and Eastern Europe in times of crisis, austerity and beyond. ILO, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoff S (2015) Pensions: solidarity and choice: opinions of working people on supplementary pensions. SCP, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs A (2017) Pensioenrecht: de sociaalregelijke en sociaalpolitieke aspecten. Kluwer, Deventer, p 4Google Scholar
  22. Jaime Castillo A (2013) Public opinion and the reform of the pension systems in Europe: the influence of solidarity principles. J Soc Policy 23:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mesa-Lago C (2009) Re-reform of Latin American private pensions systems: Argentinian and Chilean models and lessons. Geneva Pap Risk Insur 34(4):602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris M (2014) Values as the essence of culture: foundation or fallacy. J Cross Cult Psychol 45(1):14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2018) OECD Pension outlook 2018. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orenstein M (2008) Privatizing pensions: the transnational campaign for social security reform. Princeton University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orszag P, Stiglitz J (1999) Rethinking pension reform: ten myths about social security systems. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Peemans-Poulet H (1995) Sociale zekerheid: de 70ste verjaardag van de werknemerspensioenen. In: Belgium Ministerie van Sociale Voorzorg (ed) En toen kwam het pensioen. Bruylant, Brussel, pp 29–65 Google Scholar
  29. Peeters H (2014) The invisible tax system: how taxation impacts pension outcomes in Belgium. In: Van Oorschot W, Peeters H, Boos K (eds) Invisible social security revisited. Lannoo, Leuven, pp 249–265Google Scholar
  30. Roels P (2010) Myths with respect to accounting for pensions. In: Stevens Y (ed) Protecting pension rights in times of economic turmoil. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  31. Schmähl W (2000) PAYG versus capital funding: towards a more balanced view in pension policy. In: Hughes G, Stewart J (eds) Pensions in the European Union: adapting to economic and social change. Kluwer, London, pp 195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schokkaert E, Van Parijs P (2002) Pension policies for a just Europe: individual versus collective responsibilities. Belg J Soc Secur 44(3):491–515Google Scholar
  33. Steinmeyer HD (2000) The decision making process in the German pension system. In: Hughes G, Stewart J (eds) Pensions in the European Union: adapting to economic and social change. Kluwer, London, pp 163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens Y (2017) The silent pension pillar implosion. Eur J Soc Secur 19(2):98–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stroobant M (2018) Ideologie en sociaal recht: over de ideologieën als verborgen rechtsbronnen en over de eenheid en diversiteit in de sociaalrechtelijke structuren. In: Liber Amicorum Willy Van Eeckhoutte. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 641–665Google Scholar
  36. Van Oorschot W, Reekens T, Meuleman B (2012) Popular perceptions of welfare state consequences: a multilevel, cross-national analysis of 25 European countries. J Eur Soc Policy 22(2):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. World Bank (1994) Averting the old age crisis: policies to protect the old and promote growth. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wyper A (2017) Pensions auto-enrolment: unintended consequences of regulation and private law remedies. Edinb Law Rev 21:352–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law Faculty KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations