Pension Reforms Revisited Asta Zviniene Sr. Social Protection Specialist Human Development Department Europe and Central Asia Region World Bank All Countries in the Europe and Central Asia Region Have Undertaken Reforms Reforms have resulted in varied system designs Types of PAYG systems in ECA region 5 4 2 19 Conventional PAYG Point system Notional accounts None Reforms have taken various pillar configurations Pillar Configuration of ECA Pension Systems 11 2 15 First Pillar only First and Second Second Pillar only 1
First Pillar Reform Experience Retirement Ages: Effective retirement ages have increased for new EU member states the average retirement age in the last two decades has moved from around 56 to 60 but life expectancy at 56 in 1990 has been 20.8; now at 60 it is 20.3 women still generally allowed to retire earlier than men early retirement allowed for substantial part of the population disability provisions still generous in some cases First Pillar Reform Experience Pension Spending: 1.40 old age pension spending per 65+ population compared to GDP per capita 1.30 Hungary 1.20 1.10 Romania 1.00 0.90 Estonia 0.80 0.70 Lithuania 0.60 0.50 Bulgaria 0.40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Latvia 2
New EU members All EU Euro area Ireland Latvia Estonia Romania Lithuania Cyprus Iceland Bulgaria Slovakia Norway Czech Republic Luxembourg Spain Malta Slovenia Hungary United Kingdom Belgium Denmark Finland Poland Sweden Greece Netherlands Germany Switzerland Portugal France Austria Italy EU Pension Spending (% of GDP) EuroStat, 2007 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 o New EU members spend less (8% versus 12%). OECD spends 7.2%. o New EU members have fewer over 65 year olds, lower contributor base Second Pillar Reform Experience: People Like the Individual Accounts What is the public opinion with respect to reduction in contribution to 2nd pillar? (from Swedbank in Latvia) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 9% 3% 15% 73% 70% 66% 21% 30% 13% Support Don't support I have not heard All Women Men 3
% of GDP Rates of Return Have Been Reasonable Real RoR until 2007 Real RoR 2008-10 10.0 30.00 8.0 20.00 6.0 10.00 4.0 2.0 RoR until 2007 0.00-10.00 Estonia Lithuania Slovak Republic Poland Hungary 2008 2009 2010 0.0-2.0-20.00-4.0-30.00-6.0-40.00 Funded Pillars Allow to Pre-pay Future Obligations of Public System Projected Pension System Deficits (1.0%) (2.0%) (3.0%) (4.0%) Without funded pillar With funded pillar (5.0%) (6.0%) (7.0%) 4
Financial Crisis Has Led to Some Reform Reversals Financial crisis led to loss in revenues Contribution revenue fell Pension expenditures rose as the unemployed turned to disability and early retirement Overall fiscal revenue declined making the financing of pension deficits more difficult Many of the added generosities in the first pillar have been removed Partial or complete reversal of second pillars Hungary nationalized the pension funds Latvia reduced second pillar contributions from 8% to 2% Lithuania reduced second pillar contributions from 5.5% to 2% - now proposes that if individual is willing to put in an additional 2%, the government will match that voluntary amount Estonia redirected state contributions to second pillar to first pillar in 2009 and 2010, but has now returned to 2% in 2011 and will rise to the original 4% in 2012 Romania postponed planned increase in second pillar contribution in 2010, but has begun raising the contribution rate in 2011 Poland proposed reducing second pillar contribution from 7.3% to 2.3%, with the possibility of an increase in the future Other countries are adding or considering adding second pillars Czech Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine, Armenia What Would be the Consequences of 2 nd pillar Contribution Reduction? (Swedbank, Latvia) Destroy trust in pension system 24% Consider to pay taxes elsewhere 19% Reduce future pension 18% Reduce motivation to pay taxes 15% Consider leaving the country 9% High risk of tax avoidance Incentive to care by myself 6% Higher social security payments in the future 2% Other 7% Source: Snapshots questionnaire August 2010 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 5
Unexpected Outcomes from Second Pillars Not as immune to political interference as hoped Limited financial literacy limits competition among funds Debt-financing of transition costs has led to unsustainable debt levels Management of pension funds costlier than expected in some countries Overly conservative portfolios have led to lower rates of return What are these Reforms and Reversals Trying to Achieve? Objectives of pension system: alleviate poverty in old age provide a mechanism for individuals to partially replace their wage income are there enough resources to achieve both? Stability of the pension policy requires that pensions are: affordable in the short and long run seen as adequate seen as fair, both inter-generationally and intragenerationally 6
New Realities for Central Europe EU accession and increased market integration Tighter enforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact New fiscal challenges arising from slower growth following the financial crisis Disillusion with miracle cures in pension systems Starker demographics Sharper decline in fertility Prolonged emigration Persistent informality Fertility Rates Have Dropped by a Third Between 1990 and 2010 110% Number of Children under 5 compared to 1990 100% 90% 80% 70% Euro area (15 countries) 10 new members 60% 50% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 7
Working Age Population is Shrinking Due to Emigration 130.00% 120.00% 110.00% 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% Shrinking number of 30-35 year olds remaining in central Europe Resulting Decline In Working Age Population 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Uzbekistan Ukraine Turkmenistan Turkey Tajikistan Slovenia Slovakia Serbia Russian Federation Romania Poland Montenegro Moldova Macedonia Lithuania Latvia Kyrgyz Republic Kazakhstan Hungary Georgia Estonia Czech Republic Croatia Bulgaria Bosnia Belarus Azerbaijan Armenia Albania 2010 2050 8
Contributors as % of Labor Force Aging of the Population Percentage of the population over 65 35 30 25 20 15 10 2010 2050 5 0 Central Europe Had Unusually High Coverage Rates Prior to Transition Relationship between Per Capita Income and Contributor Coverage 120.0 100.0 ECA Average 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Per Capita Income on PPP Basis 9
% of GDP These Factors Add up to significant Increase in Future Obligations Projected Pension System Deficits (1.0%) (2.0%) (3.0%) (4.0%) Without funded pillar With funded pillar (5.0%) (6.0%) (7.0%) Before dismantling the second pillar, useful to have social dialogue on other options Want to avoid instability and loss of credibility in policy making Alternatives: adjust expectations on what is adequate / fair raise retirement ages further lower benefits further to be supplemented with voluntary savings actively seek immigration from areas with unemployed youth shift some income unrelated benefits to general budget 10
Poland Bulgaria Greece France Belgium Germany Finland Austria Netherlands United Sweden United States Norway Switzerland Age Is Status Quo Fair / Sustainable? End of 19 th beginning of 20 th century - > Civil servants, occupational schemes Before World War II- > Workers in industry and commerce Since 1950s - > Farmers, domestic workers, self-employed Since 1960s - > Increased female LF participation, higher retirement ages, baby boomers 21 st century: Immigrants? Mothers of young children? Young retirees? Partially disabled? Where to find new recruits? - > What happens if they can not be found? Coverage & Retirement Age, Selected Countries 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 Coverage Earliest retirement age Ret. age trendline o Coverage is typically calculated as number of contributors over population aged 20-65 o Surest option to increase coverage statistic is to increase retirement age 11
Belarus: Majority of People at Current Retirement Age Are Able to Work 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000-55-59, male 47% 60-64, male 65-69, male 51% 30% 26% 17% 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, female female female fully retired working pensioners not yet retired o o 71% of early retirees continue to work (why have this scheme at all?) Disability and unemployment programs would provide a safety net 120% Lithuania: 50% of Population Continue Working after Reaching Retirement Age Men 120% Women 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 200% contributors disabled, not working 0% working 55 56 pensioners 57 58 59 and 60 disabled 61 62 63 64 pensioners 65 not working 12
Life Expectancy at Age 65 EuroStat, 2007 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 o Old EU members:19; new EU members: 16. Selected FSU: 15 not such a big difference! Compare with 10+ year gain in less than 40 years in OECD or 4 year gain in 20 years in new EU member states Life Expectancy at Statutory Retirement Age EuroStat, 2007 Men Women 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 o o New EU member states and FSU can not afford retirement lengths of old EU members; even old EU members can not afford them and are starting to reform Gender difference in old member states: 4.6; new member states 5.4; FSU: 7.4 years 13
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053 2055 2057 2059 2061 2063 2065 2067 2069 2071 2073 2075 Raise Retirement Ages Need a social consensus that people cannot continue to retire young May need to consider modifications more applicable to an aging workforce for example, part-time work, pay scales, etc. May need to include lifelong learning and retraining opportunities Clearly a win-win-win proposition Labor force expands Number of retirees are reduced Pension adequacy is maintained Raise Retirement Ages to 70 by 2047 Projected Deficits with Retirement Age Increase (1.0%) (2.0%) (3.0%) (4.0%) Current Ret Age Ad (5.0%) (6.0%) (7.0%) 14
Pension/Average Wage OECD: Average Pension / Net Average Wage for Full Career Workers looks generous, but 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 o Requires 45 year career o Many of these OECD schemes are not sustainable and will have to be reformed OECD Accrual Rates UK Canada Japan Norway Germany Hungary US Switzerland Iceland Sweden Korea Belgium Finland Netherlands Lux France Austria Italy Portugal Malta Spain Turkey 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 o Average accrual rate of <1.5% suggests that a 45% gross benefit after 30 years of service is considered reasonable in OECD. Pensions can only be higher with substantially longer careers 15
OECD Indexation Price Indexed Belgium, Canada, France, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, UK, US Discretionary Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, Sweden 80% Price-20% Wage Finland 50% Price-50% Wage Switzerland Wage Indexed Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway 50-50, 1 80-20, 1 Wage, 4 Discreti onary, 4 Price, 10 ECA Price Indexed Azerbaijan, Serbia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Bulgaria Discretionary Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Lithuania Dependant on GDP growth Hungary, Estonia 80% price-20% wage Poland, Ukraine 2/3 price-1/3 wage Czech Republic 50% price-50% wage Croatia, Slovak Republic, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro 100% wage Belarus, Bosnia, Romania, Slovenia, Tajikistan wage, 5 50-50, 5 67-33, 1 80-20,2 price, 6 discretionary, 6 dependant on GDP, 2 Changes in Pension Indexation Focus should be on maintaining the pensioner s absolute consumption basket in retirement With declining labor force, relatively sharp increases in productivity and consequently, wages, are hoped for to help mitigate the impact of demography on the wage bill If these increases are directly shared with pensioners, when wages increase to alleviate the reduction in number of workers, benefits will be raised, resulting in much larger fiscal problems Focus of public system has to be on poverty alleviation and not on maintaining relative position of pensioner To be complemented with additional savings by workers if desired 16
2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071 2075 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 2043 2047 2051 2055 2059 2063 2067 2071 2075 Reduce Benefit Levels By Approximately 40% Projected Deficits with Benefit Decrease 50.0% Projected Benefit Levels Relative to Average Wage (1.0%) (2.0%) 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% (3.0%) (4.0%) (5.0%) (6.0%) 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%.0% (7.0%) Current Ben Level Adj Current Ben Level Adj Funded Pillar o Diversification of risk is still relevant Timing of shocks to financial asset prices considerably different than timing of crisis on PAYG benefit levels o Aging of population Benefit levels will likely fall further in the future To maintain adequacy of benefits, will need to save either on voluntary or mandatory basis o But need to have adequate preparation Fiscal space Adequate financial markets Adequate supervision and regulation 17
Forthcoming World Bank Report Looks at what actually happened in the reform countries in the last 20 years Aims to contribute to the dialogue on how each country can best move forward Thank You 18