Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Design alternatives for social pension programs Robert Palacios, World Bank International Conference – “Funded Systems: Their Role in Solving the Pension Problem” Varna, Bulgaria May 31-June 1, 2007 Contents The ‘coverage gap’ motivating social pension policies The role of social pensions today Design and future role of social pensions 2 The ‘coverage gap’ Almost all countries mandate pension coverage for formal sector workers But after operating for decades, coverage of these schemes has remained stagnant and for the poorest, it may not make sense (James (1999)). There is little evidence that coverage is significantly affected by type of scheme or whether it is funded or not There is, however, a strong correlation to income per capita which is a proxy for many factors 3 The long run ‘coverage gap’ The global coverage/income pattern suggests that it will take a long time for coverage rates to rise in developing countries Fitted line including TSE dummy 20000 90% 18000 80% members/labor force PPP Income per capita 100% 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 4000 20% 2000 10% 0 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% contributors/labor force % 80% 100% 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 income per capita PPP-adjusted 4 The long run ‘coverage gap’ We also know that coverage rises with income within countries 80.0 Uruguay % of employed contributing 70.0 60.0 El Salvador 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 India 10.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 Quintile 5 What are the policy options? Find ways to expand existing contributory schemes Statutory mandate can be expanded Better enforcement Improve schemes in terms of the ‘deal’ or rate of return to contributors Reduce administrative costs Reduce non-pension incentives to be in the informal sector Set up parallel schemes designed specifically to increase voluntary participation by informal sector workers Introduce or expand non-contributory or ‘social pensions’ 6 Social pensions – their role today Palacios-Sluchynsky (2006) document a wide variety of SPs ranging from universal with large benefits to narrow with small targeted benefits Proponents of large social pension schemes note that because it is not tied to a previous contribution history, it is the only program that can address the problems of the current or soon to be elderly However, introducing or expanding social pension programs may imply important fiscal tradeoffs and may lead to certain distortionary behavior Existing research provides limited guidance while many countries are now increasing the role of SPs 7 Social pensions – their role today 0% The bars for each country show the ratio of the social pension to per capita income x the ratio of the number of recipients to the number of elderly 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% South Africa Mauritius Bolivia Namibia Brazil Botswana Nepal Egypt, Arab Rep. Turkey Costa Rica Colombia Chile Bangladesh Many countries (e.g., India, Chile, Kenya) are introducing or expanding SPs India Uruguay Russian Federation Argentina Estonia Algeria Dominican Republic 8 Social pension design issues Key SP parameters are: Eligibility requirements Age Income Residency Benefit level Palacios, Sluchynsky and Biletsky (2007) suggest the need to take into account initial conditions and devise a dynamic SP policy 9 Parameters – eligibility age 22 20 life expectancy at age 60 Health and productivity of the elderly will be lower in poor countries and for poor within the country 18 16 14 12 10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 PPP adjusted $ income per capita 10 Parameters – eligibility age However, more countries are introducing this link 22 20 life expectancy at NRA While the SP eligibility age should be coordinated with the contributory scheme age, the latter are not often tied to life expectancy 18 16 14 12 y = 0.2634x + 0.831 2 R = 0.2698 10 45 50 55 60 65 70 Normal retirement age 11 Parameters – eligibility age There is a case for poor countries to have lower social pension eligibility ages than in richer countries The social pension age minimum can be higher than the contributory pension age minimum when the latter benefits are adjusted on an actuarially fair basis and contributors have achieved the target smoothing objectives (replacement rates) Both types of eligibility ages can be structured flexibly with a view towards maintaining the ‘pension wealth’ constant; this automatically handles increasing longevity over time 12 Parameters – benefit levels Generally subjective, but should compare to three numbers Poverty line Other social assistance type benefits Contributory scheme target benefits Poor countries probably can focus more on absolute poverty while middle and higher income countries may tend to look at relative poverty Ad hoc or discretionary benefit changes over time should be avoided in favor of indexation based on objective indices to avoid inter-cohort inequities, make fiscal costs transparent and minimize populism 13 Parameters – benefit levels Benefit level should be designed with both contributory and social pension components integrated into objectives Australia Denmark 14 Parameters – income tests Social pensions are not intended to supplement the income of rich elderly, but universal plans exist in several countries New Zealand, Mauritius, Botswana, Brunei Rationale often cited is that it is simple to administer; but this comes with a fiscal cost and less redistribution Where income tax net is wide, this can be dealt with through progressive income tax But most LICs and MICs have narrow tax bases 15 Parameters – income tests A taper or partial offset with income is one option and is used in several countries, but it may be difficult and costly to assess hh incomes A more practical and cheaper approach is to apply a “pension test” There are two problems with the pension test: It will result in regressive errors by ignoring nonpension income and, It would reduce incentives to participate in the contributory scheme 16 Parameters – income tests How convincing are these arguments? First, there will be errors, but some of this can be dealt with through income tax and some can be dealt with through joint annuity provisions Second, there is little evidence that rates of return affect participation in contributory schemes (except in the case of retirement behavior) – requires long term view that is rare. Third, as explained by Valdes-Prieto (2000), optimal income tax theory (Slemrod et. al., 1994) is consistent with a declining marginal tax on income for more productive workers and targeting makes this possible. 17 Chilean SP reform PILAR VOLUNTARIO APV PMG PILAR PILAR CONTRIBUTIVO CONTRIBUTIVO PILAR SOLIDARIO PASIS 18 Initial conditions and dynamic SP policy Most high income OECD countries are in a steady state policy - high coverage and not likely to significantly change the role of SPs Low and middle income countries (LICs and MICs) in contrast may still choose a different long term SP policy (e.g., Bolivia, Chile) We argue that initial conditions matter and that the SP policy should be dynamic and adapt as the contributory schemes expand 19 Initial conditions and dynamic SP policy We focus on three stylized cases to see general policy implications of different SP policies Country PPP$YCAP Coverage ratio Ratio 20-59/60+ types population LIC >4500 17% 7.6 MIC 4500-15,000 51% 6.3 HIC 15,000+ 90% 3.4 TSE 2000-20,000 66% 3.7 Source: authors’ calculations based on World Bank pension database and SIMA. 20 Simulation of dynamic SP policy Case 1: shift to a universal SP at 40% of YCAP Case 2: allow 100% pension test and introduce DC scheme with 40% target RR at Lifetime Average Income per capita (LIA) Case 3: allow 50% pension test and introduce DC scheme with 40% RR target at LAI Case 4: CPI index the SP with 40% RR target at LAI and introduce DC scheme Coverage of the DC scheme allowed to expand and mature along with growth in income per capita growth over a 60 year period 21 Results for LIC In the first year, there is only the universal pension…in case 1, this remains the long term policy Contributory Social Contributory Social 2.5 Gross relative pension level 1.25 1 .75 .5 .25 0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita 2 1.5 1 .5 0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita 22 Results for LIC In case 2, we apply a 100% pension test and introduce the DC scheme so that at maturation it looks like this… Contributory Social 2.5 Gross relative pension level 1.25 1 .75 .5 .25 0 Contributory Social 2 1.5 1 .5 0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita 23 Results for LIC 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Real GDP Growth, % NPV of Social, %GDP Social, %GDP 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 % % 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 The long run cost of the SP is significantly lower due to DC scheme 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Social, %GDP NPV of Social, %GDP 24 Results for LIC In case 4, the objective is absolute poverty, so the CPI indexed SP declines relative to incomes Contributory Social Gross relative pension level 1.25 1 .75 .5 .25 0 Contributory 2 1.5 1 .5 0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita Social 2.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Individual income, proportion of average income per capita 25 Results for LIC 2 3 2 4 3 4 5 % % 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 Case 4 has lowest long run fiscal cost 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Social, %GDP Case 2 NPV of Social, %GDP 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Social, %GDP NPV of Social, %GDP Case 4 26 Results for MICs and TSEs The tradeoffs differ for MICs because (a) they are already older but (b) they have higher coverage – (a) raises SP costs while (b) reduces them Same is true for TSEs, except that there is a special pattern of temporarily declining coverage that affects the trajectory of the SP costs. TSEs are also older than MICs generally. In TSEs, the SP can be seen as a bridge between a period of high coverage before and after the transition 27 Conclusions There is increasing pressure in many countries to introduce or expand SPs in light of persistently low coverage of contributory schemes, funded or not Social pension parameters should be carefully considered and viewed in conjunction with contributory schemes Pension tests may be the most practical mechanism for controlling costs through targeting A dynamic SP policy can reduce the long term fiscal costs as contributory schemes expand and mature Initial conditions will result in different combinations of social vs contributory pensions and different time paths of convergence to steady state 28 Thank you 29