Search Results

This comparative chapter by Ebbinghaus and Neugschwender discusses the institutional differences in the public–private mix, distinguishing mature from emerging multipillar systems and hybrid from dominantly public pension systems. It focuses on exploring the interaction between income inequalities in working life and pension system features for old age income. In particular, it considers the first tier of minimum income support, the public and private second-tier earnings-related pensions, and the particularities of private pensions. The empirical analysis compares poverty rates over time and across countries, discussing the impact of public pensions. The further analysis reveals variations in the recipient rate and income share of private supplementary pensions among the elderly. The importance of mandatory or negotiated occupational pensions in order to reduce inequality in multipillar pension systems is evident in addition to the role of public minimum income protection for poverty reduction.

This chapter by Ebbinghaus and Gronwald provides a comparative historical analysis mapping the cross-national institutional diversity in the evolution of pension systems in ten European countries. Analysing the long-term development, it describes the way in which institutional arrangements in private pensions evolved over time and interact with public pension reforms. The process of institutional change is examined by analysing critical junctures in the public–private pension mix. First, the early legacy and path-dependent post-war dynamics in public pension development are sketched, contrasting Bismarckian social insurance and Beveridge basic pension traditions. The second juncture compares successful versus belated or even failed expansion of public pensions to secure living standards in old age, and its consequences for crowding out private pensions. Finally, the more recent pension reforms led towards a multipillar pension system, in some cases retrenchment of public pensions and privatization efforts are crowding in funded private pensions.

The introductory chapter discusses the need for studying the changing public–private pension mix and the governance and regulation of private (occupational and personal) pensions. Public pension systems with pay-as-you-go financing have not only come under pressure due to demographic and socio-economic changes but also the recent financial crisis has challenged funded private pensions. Mapping the main features of the public–private pension mix of the selected ten European countries, the chapter gives an overview of the content of the country chapters, drawing some lessons from their varied experiences. The introduction also sketches the main topics of the three comparative studies on the changing public–private pension mix, the varieties of pension governance and regulation as well as the poverty and inequality patterns emerging from the different pension systems.

Denmark developed a multipillar pension system, adding private pensions to its universal flat-rate, tax-financed ‘people's pension’. Following the failure to introduce a public earnings-related supplementary pension, fully funded ‘labour market’ pensions were added through collective agreements between employers and trade unions, extending these occupational pensions to nearly all employment groups since the early 1990s. Comprehensive institutional change took place almost without any legislation by non-state actors, except for the reform of the public basic pension which became increasingly means-tested. Private pension governance is typically left to pension funds or to special life insurance companies jointly owned and controlled by unions and employers. Strict rules protect pension funds against financial shocks, but these were eased during the financial crisis to improve returns on these defined-contribution (DC) pensions. Nevertheless, the Danish pension system looks quite satisfactory from both an economic and social policy perspective.

The Netherlands departed from the Bismarckian social insurance tradition by combining flat-rate public basic pensions with quasi-mandatory, funded occupational pensions with near universal coverage. The emergence, expansion, and reorganization of occupational pensions show their close integration with the public pension scheme. Many efforts helped expand and improve coverage through collective agreements by employers and trade unions. Short case studies of pension funds in the public and private sector highlight the core features of the Dutch system as well as its institutional variation. In the wake of the financial crisis, occupational pensions were scaled back since these defined-benefit (DB) pensions were threatened by underfunding. Current debates question the future viability of the Dutch system in an era marked by both demographic ageing and volatile financials.

This comparative chapter by Ebbinghaus and Wiß analyses the governance of supplementary pensions in ten European countries and the scope for state intervention or collective regulation by employers and trade unions. Private occupational and personal pensions combine different features in terms of coverage, benefits, funding rules, supervision, and administration. While the state partially retreated from the public responsibility to finance sufficient and adequate pensions, the need for and importance of state regulation and societal control of private pensions increased. Societal actors like trade unions, employers' associations, and financial services became more important in governing pension systems. Since the pension beneficiaries rely as principals on agents with more financial knowledge, regulation should decrease asymmetric information and limit uneven power distribution. The more pensions are privatized and funded, the more a financial crisis can increase risks for old age income security.

In Italy, the move from a dominant public pension pillar based on a pay-as-you-go-financed Bismarckian social insurance towards a multipillar system is an instructive example of a ‘top-down’ process pursued by governments in order to compensate for the far-reaching pension reforms in the 1990s. Change began during difficult socio-economic and financial conditions when policymakers opted to exploit the pre-existing severance-pay scheme as an ‘institutional gate’ in order to boost private supplementary pensions. However, this strategy ruled out compulsory affiliation to the new funded schemes, thereby limiting their potential coverage. The establishment of supplementary pensions has recently given rise to a ‘new politics’ putting pressure on policymakers, employers, and trade unions for regulatory harmonization between occupational funds and personal pension schemes.