Abstract
In this paper, we offer an explanation for cyclical reforms to pension systems, based on the experience of countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) over the last three decades. We conclude that in making the transition to funded pension design, governments not only transfer longevity and fiscal risks to the individual but also absorb risks transferred from the public, with each market actor transferring undiversifiable risks to the other. This pathway of hidden risks, which has not previously been discussed in the literature, stems from a public expectation that citizens will enjoy risk premiums and adequate old-age benefits, an expectation that evolves into political pressure. The outcomes of this risk path are realized in financial transfers, such as means-tested social security and minimum pension guarantees. Consequently, funded pension designs converge naturally into a new landscape paradigm of risk-sharing, with intergenerational and intragenerational components. Financial crises such as the one accompanying the recent COVID-19 pandemic foster the convergence process.
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Sociology and Political Science
Reference33 articles.
1. The Social Insurance Paradox;Aaron;Canadian Journal of Economics,1966
2. Another Look at Causes and Consequences of Pension Privatization Reform Reversals in Eastern Europe;N. Altiparmakov;Journal of European Social Policy,2018
3. The Role of Guarantees in Defined Contributions Pensions;P. Antolin,2011
4. Pension Reforms and Long-Term Sustainability of Public Finances of the Central Eastern European Countries;K. Bielawska,2015
5. Should Public Retirement Plans Be Fully Funded? Retrieved from Cambridge;H. Bohn,2010