Old Age Income Support in the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform
Old Age Income Support in the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform
复制标题
21世纪的老年收入支持：养老金制度与改革的国际视角
DOI：
10.1093/cpe/bzm021
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Aldo Barba
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aldo Barba
书评114被许多人认为是不言而喻的真理，不容争辩。实际上，从目前的讨论中可以看出，养恤金改革的政治经济学基本上是一个执行问题：资金充足的计划的优越性被认为是理所当然的，辩论的中心是如何形成联盟，以确保不顾政治力量和选民的反对通过“改革”。世界银行自1994年发表其有影响力的报告《避免老龄危机》以来，在促进和协助养恤金改革方面发挥了主导作用。世纪的老年收入支援计划，旨在根据过去十年世界各地的许多改革经验，更新其议程。众所周知，世界银行支持私营的全额资助强制性计划，基于两个主要论点。有了预先供资，养老金领取者对当前产出的要求得到了受法律的财产权保护的资产的支持，因此他们不会面临公共税收转移计划规则变化的政治风险。此外，虽然现收现付养恤金制度通过与在职工人的交换来确保对老年人的收入支助，但在全额供资计划中，在职个人必须积累以供养老年人，因此养恤金的提供将影响资本增加所提供的额外产出。公共项目的作用将仅限于将富人的收入重新分配给那些面临老年贫困风险的人。相反，在整个生命周期中平滑消费必须通过私人计划来实现，尽管这是强制性的。从这一分离中产生了《避免老龄危机》提出的多支柱办法：一个公共管理的制度，强制参与，目标是确保老年人的最低收入水平;一个私人管理的强制性全额供资制度，通过时间分配收入，以及一个自愿制度，确保自由选择的储蓄。《21世纪的老年收入支助》重申了FF计划大大上级PAYG制度的原则：“（预先）供资或资本化的优势，达到适合整个制度设计和适用条件的程度，仍然是世界银行关于养恤金改革观点的一个基本要素”（第44页）。此外，它进一步限定了多支柱办法，从三个基本要素改为五个基本要素：“（a）不缴款或'零支柱'（以“养老金”或社会养恤金的形式）提供最低限度的保护;（B）与不同程度的收入挂钩并试图取代部分收入的“第一支柱”缴款制度;（c）强制性的“第二支柱”，基本上是个人储蓄账户;（d）可采取多种形式的自愿“第三支柱”安排（个人、雇主赞助、固定福利、固定缴款），但基本上具有灵活性和酌处性;以及（e）向老年人提供经济和非经济支助的非正式家庭内部或代际来源，包括获得医疗保健和住房”（第42页）。因此，在避免老年危机方面，扩大了公共支柱的职能，以确保不仅向那些一直在工作的人提供基本收入支助，而且向那些没有任何保险的经济困难的老年人提供基本收入支助。
BOOK REVIEWS 114 regarded by many as a self-evident truth not open to debate. Indeed, the political economy of pension reforms, as it emerges from the current discussion, is widely a matter of implementation issues: the superiority of fully funded schemes being taken for granted, the debate centres on how to form coalitions in order to ensure the passing of “reforms” in spite of the opposition of both political forces and voters. The World Bank has taken a leading role in promoting and assisting pension reforms since the publication of its influential report Averting the Old Age Crisis in 1994. Old Age Income Support in the 21st Century purports to update its agenda in the light of many reform experiences recorded worldwide during the last decade.The World Bank’s favour for private fully funded mandatory schemes rests, as is well-known, upon two main arguments. With pre-funding, pensioners’ claims on current output are backed by assets protected by legal property rights, therefore they are not exposed to the political risk of changes in the rules governing public tax-transfer schemes. Moreover, while pay-as-you-go (PAYG) pension systems assure income support to old age through an exchange with active workers, in fully funded (FF) schemes active individuals have to accumulate in order to provide for the elderly, so pension provision would impinge on the additional output made available by an increased capital. The role of public programs would be confined to redistributing income from the rich to those at risk from old age poverty. Consumption smoothing over the life cycle, instead, has to be realized through a private scheme, albeit compulsory. From this separation originates the multipillar approach put forward by Averting the Old Age Crisis: a publicly managed system with mandatory participation with the goal of ensuring a minimum income level to the old; a privately managed mandatory fully funded system to allocate income through time, and a voluntary system to ensure discretionary saving choices. Old Age Income Support in the 21st Century reaffirms the tenet that FF schemes are vastly superior to PAYG systems:“[t] he advantages of (pre) funding or capitalization to the degree appropriate for the overall system design and applicable conditions remain a basic element of the World Bank’s perspective on pension reform”(p. 44). In addition, it further qualifies the multipillar approach, moving from three to five basic elements:“(a) a noncontributory or ‘zero pillar’(in the form of a ‘demogrant’or social pension) that provides a minimal level of protection;(b) a ‘first-pillar’contributory system that is linked to varying degrees of earnings and seeking to replace some portion of income;(c) a mandatory ‘second pillar’that is essentially an individual savings account;(d) voluntary ‘third-pillar’arrangements that can take many forms (individual, employer sponsored, defined benefit, defined contribution) but are essentially flexible and discretionary in nature; and (e) informal intrafamily or intergenerational sources of both financial and nonfinancial support to the elderly, including access to health care and housing”(p. 42). Thus, with respect to Averting the Old Age Crisis, the functions of the public pillar are widened, in order to ensure basic income support not only to those that have been active workers, but also to the elderly in economic distress without any coverage.