Pensions after the Crisis: A comparative analysis of recent reform processes David Natali natali@ose.be Observatoire social européen (OSE) April 2012
Pensions after the crisis S1. Key questions S2. European pension models main challenges S3. Assessing the impact of the crisis public and private pensions S4. Most Recent Reforms S5. Conclusion, food for thoughts
S1. Key questions What impact of the crisis? Is there a common trend in reforming pensions after the crisis? «Race to the bottom»? What challenges/strategies for the future?
S2. European Pension Models (before the crisis)
S2. European pension models Multi-pillar Social insurance 1 st Generation 2 nd Generation 1 st Generation 2 nd Generation Public schemes Goal Basic protection (poverty prevention) Salary savings Salary savings (some adequacy) Salary savings (some adequacy) Private schemes coverage Mandatory or quasi-mandatory Mandatory Voluntary Mandatory or quasi-mandatory Earnings-related schemes (mainly) Private Public/private (mainly) Public (mainly) Public
S2. European pension models Source, Ebbinghaus 2010
S1. European Pension Models, main challenges and reform trends (before the crisis) Population Ageing Increased retirement age (active ageing) Adequacy/Labour Market Transformations Contribution credits; minimum benefits; minimum contributions Financial Sustainability Cost-containment (indexation, actuarial principle) Modernisation (shift from contributions to taxes; role of pension funds)
2. Taking stock of 20 years of reforms, expected cutbacks White paper, 2012
S3. Assessing the Impact of the Crisis a. Financial crisis (pension funds) b. Economic crisis (first pillar schemes, stabilisers) c. Budgetary crisis (first pillar schemes)
S3. Funded Schemes Pension funds nominal investment rate return in selected OECD countries (OECD 2011) Country 2008 2009 2010 Diff. 2008-10 Germany 1.60 4.50 6.40 12.50 Greece -0.89 1.70-7.40-6.59 Slovak Rep. -2.08-0.10 0.40-1.78 Spain -8.00 2.80-1.30-6.50 Poland -14.28 8.90 7.70 2.32 Netherlands -15.70 11.10 18.60 14.00 Weighted average -20.93 4.40 3.50-13.03
S3. Reserve Funds, First pillar Pension funds nominal investment rate return in selected OECD countries (OECD 2011) Country 2008 2009 2010 Diff. 2008-10 Sweden- -21.9 20.8 9.0 7.9 France-Agirc -7.8 10.5-2.7 France- Arrco -9.4 11.5-2.1 Poland -5.9 4.9 4.0 3.0 Spain 4.7 4.9 2.1 14.7 Weighted average 1.8 7.3 3.9 13.0
S3. Assessing the impact of the crisis, b) first pillar, automatic stabiliser Expected increase in social expenditures between 2007 and 2010 (EPC, 2009)
S3. Assessing the impact of the crisis, b) first pillar, economic/employment effects Employment is expected to decline: nearly 8 million job losses for 2009/10, in contrast to the net job creation of 9½ million during 2006-08 Potential growth rate of the euro area and that of Denmark, Sweden and the UK are expected to be cut in half in 2009-2010 compared with 2008, i.e. from a growth rate range of 1.3%-1.6% to 0.7%-0.8% Limited economic growth means tensions on Deficit/GDP and thus more strains on welfare programmes
S4. Most Recent Reforms
S4. Most recent reforms Comparative analysis of most different systems France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, UK Major innovations France 2010; Italy, 2011; Poland, 2011; Sweden, 2010; UK, 2008-11
S4. Multi-pillar systems, 1st gen. First pillar (PAYGO) Main challenges Low protection Financial viability Reforms Special one-off payments Indexation Retirement age increase Supplementary funds Financial Viability (Under funding) Low and uneven protection Increased Premiums/ Lower Indexation /Lower benefits (NL) Auto-enrolment (UK) More protection for a-typical workers (UK) More effective regulation (NL; UK) Early access to the benefits (UK)
S4. Multi-pillar systems, 2 nd gen. First pillar (PAYGO) Supplementary funds Main challenges Decreasing protection Financial viability Financial viability (Under funding) Low and uneven protection Reforms Special one-off payments Retirement age increase (HUN; PL) Further restriction of early retirement (PL) Reduced indexation (HUN) Increased contributions (ROM) Re-nationalisation (HUN; ROM) Decreased contributions (PL; LT) More effective regulation (PL) Reduction of charges (PL)
S4. Social Insurance systems,1st gen. First pillar (PAYGO) Supplementary funds Main challenges Decreasing protection Financial viability Financial viability (Under funding) Low and uneven protection Reforms Special one-off payments Increased minimum benefits (BEL; ITA; FRA) Retirement age increase (FRA; ITA) Additional resources and further restriction of early retirement (FRA; ITA) Use of reserve funds (FRA) Decreased contributions, decided by contributors (ITA; GER) More effective regulation
S4. Social Insurance systems,2 nd gen. First pillar (PAYGO) Main challenges Decreasing protection Financial viability Reforms Special one-off payments (SWE) Tax credits (SWE) Increased minimum benefits (FIN) Automatic adjustment (SWE) to be revised Supplementary funds Financial viability (Under funding) Low and uneven protection More effective governance
S5. Conclusion Common traits of reforms short-term increase of benefits and/or reduction of taxes active ageing (increased retirement age, incentives for employers) more effective regulation of supplementary schemes (reducing charges and increase protection) common paradigm (multi-pillar pensions) Any convergence? Race to the bottom? More complex reform packages A U-turn in some CEE countries
S5. Conclusion, food for thoughts Key challenges Ageing Adequacy Viability of pension funds Reforms done so far Active ageing (automatic policymaking) One off measures Minimum benefits New social risks More effective regulation Alternative paths? Job quality Increase employment (for all ages) Flexible retirement (different age for different categories; Soft exit from the labour market) Minimum benefits New social risks Redistribution (Tax policy) What role for pension funds? Regulation Governance (Administraive charges)