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
Pension Systems and Financial Crisis: An Overview Regional (ECA) Workshop Pension Systems in Times of Financial Crisis Brussels, May 7, 2009 Robert Holzmann World Bank Outline I. II. III. IV. V. Nature of Crisis and Implications for Pension Systems Pre-crisis Situation of Reformed Pension Systems Policy Actions with the Onset of the Crisis: Legislated and proposed Assessment of Crisis Shock and Policy Actions on Fiscal, Financial and Social Outcomes Directions for Policy Actions I. Nature of Crisis and Implications for Pension Systems Financial turned economic crisis • pressure on pension systems world-wide • low or negative GDP growth linked with falling employment, wages, and asset prices Both unfunded and funded systems are adversely affected but timing and magnitude of impacts quite different Crisis impact on pension schemes PAYG (first pillar) • Fiscal pressure primarily via lower revenue due to lower wages and employment • Expenditure same or increase via more beneficiaries (early retirement; disability) • If benefit levels unaffected, bound to lead to deterioration of fiscal balance of scheme • Happens at a time of lower general gov. revenues and increased demand elsewhere (unemployment benefits; social assistance) • Transition deficit (2nd pillar) accentuated Crisis impact on pension schemes PAYG (first pillar) • Recent discretionary benefit increases to catch-up with strong wage-increase • Recent benefit reforms to compensate transition generations Funded (second pillar) • Direct impact on asset and benefit level, but limited in effect as few retiring • Fiscal impact if budget provides compensation for affected individuals II. Pre-crisis Situation of Reformed Pension Systems Most ECA countries have undertaken some pension reform with transition • 13 countries introduced 2nd pillar; some legislated but have not yet introduced • Most others did parametric reforms to address fiscal, incentive and social issues • All introduced some form of voluntary savings schemes, with diff. in regulation • Many countries introduced/strengthened social assistance and/or social pensions Pre-crisis situation Despite reform efforts, only a few countries have been successful in achieving both long-term financial sustainability and long-term benefit adequacy in the pre-crisis state Situation aggravated by advanced and projected further demographic aging Stark trade-off between financial sustainability and benefit adequacy is result of low effective retirement age Post-Reform Pension System Fiscal Balances as a Percent of GDP BULGARIA CROATIA 20 15 15 Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure -10 20 20 15 15 15 -5 Deficit -10 -5 2049 2044 2039 Revenue 2050 0 2050 2040 2030 2020 2010 0 5 2008 Percent of GDP 5 2000 Percent of GDP 0 Expenditure 10 Revenue 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Percent of GDP Expenditure 10 Revenue 2029 ROMANIA 20 5 2024 Deficit POLAND Expenditure 2019 -5 -10 HUNGARY 10 2014 2009 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 Deficit 2040 -10 -5 0 2020 Deficit Revenue 5 2010 -5 0 2040 2015 2010 2005 2000 0 5 2010 Revenue Revenue 2005 5 10 Percent of GDP 10 Percent of GDP 10 2034 15 Percent of GDP CZECH REPUBLIC 20 2030 20 -5 Deficit Deficit -10 -10 SERBIA SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA 20 20 20 15 15 15 Expenditure Expenditure -5 -5 5 Deficit Deficit -10 -10 2050 2040 2030 2020 -5 Deficit -10 2010 0 2045 2035 2025 0 Revenue 2005 Revenue Percent of GDP 5 2015 0 10 Expenditure 2005 5 Percent of GDP 10 Revenue 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Percent of GDP 10 Pre-crisis situation Projected benefits of reformed systems remain often generous (as measured by gross and net replacement rate) Projected replacement rates in multipillar schemes based on conservative assumption of net interest rate-wage growth differential of 1.5% Performance of pension funds since inception has in many cases not yet lived-up to expectations Chart 90 1: Gross Replacement Rates for Male Full Career Workers High Benchmark 70 60 Bulgaria Romania Poland Slovak Republic Hungary Slovenia Croatia Czech Republic 50 40 30 20 10 Middle Benchmark Low Benchmark Earnings as Multiple of Average Wage 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0 0.5 Replacement Rates (Percent) 80 Chart 120 2: Net Replacement Rates for Male Full Career Workers Replacement Rate (Percent) 100 80 60 40 20 Low, Middle and High Benchmarks 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Earnings as Multiple of Average Wage Hungary Romania Bulgaria Poland Slovak Republic Slovenia Croatia Czech Republic ECA Ave World Ave Ave Poverty Line Table 1: Rate of Return of Pension Funds since Inception till end 2007 (in real terms and as differential over GDP growth) Year of Inception Real Rate of Return 2002 Bulgaria 2002 Estonia 1998 Hungary 2001 Latvia 2004 Lithuania 1999 Poland 2005 Slovakia Sources: World Bank staff using data from national sources 3.2 4.9 2.6 -3.5 5.7 8.9 0.9 RoR over GDP growth 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.3 0.7 2.2 0.1 II. Policy Actions with the Onset of the Crisis: Legislated and proposed As fiscal impact of crisis was felt quickly, many countries initiated or proposed deficitreducing measures Revenue increasing measures • (Re-) increase in contribution rate • Diversion of 2nd pillar contributions • Delaying movement to second pillar Expenditure reducing measures • Changes in indexation • Increase in retirement age • Elimination of early retirement option Table 2: Policy Actions In ECA Countries – Legislated and Considered Policy Action Legislated Considered Increase in Overall Contribution Rate -Romania: From 27.5% in 2008 to 31.3%. - Russia: From 20% to 26%, and moving contributions from basic pension to NDC pension. Adjustment to Second Pillar Contribution Rate -Romania: Contribution rates to the second pillar frozen at 2% (instead of legislated increase to 2.5%) -Lithuania: Second pillar contribution rates reduced from 5.5% to 3% 2009 and 2010, to go back to 5.5% in 2011. -Latvia: Diverting part of contributions from second to first pillar. -Estonia: Diverting 4% of 2nd pillar contributions to 1st pillar Allowing Opting in/out of Second Pillar - Slovak Republic: First option (Jan – June 2008) and second option (Jan – June 2009) to switch in/out of the second pillar. -Croatia: Allowing second pillar participants (age between 40-50 ) to switch back to the first pillar, with the individual saving accounts transferred to treasury in exchange for the full first-pillar guaranteed pension benefit. , Making Second Pillar Voluntary to New Entrants -Slovak Republic: Second pillar participation for new participants voluntary as of January 2008. Changing Indexation/ Minimum &Basic Pension -Serbia : Suspension of indexation for 2009 per GoS agreement with the IMF Increase in Retirement Age Measures to Address Early Retirement -Latvia: Elimination of wage indexing of contributory pensions. -Hungary: Switch to Swiss or pure inflation indexation depending on the GDP growth. -Ukraine: Increase in retirement age to 62 for both men and women -Hungary: Increase in retirement age from 62 to 65 by 2016. -Poland: Elimination of numerous early retirement schemes (previously available to some 1 million people) . -Hungary: Increase in penalties for early retirement and introduction of bonuses for delayed retirement. -Ukraine: Gradual elimination of special and early pension regimes IV. Assessment of Crisis Shock and Policy Actions: Preview Fiscal outcomes: • Depends very much on assumptions on depth and length of crisis/transitional reduction in wages and employment • While fall in wages and employment will eventually translate into lower future benefits and expenditure, transitional fiscal gap can be large and are policy dependent Financial sector outcomes: • Crisis as well as policy reaction to the crisis have an effect on the size and structure of the financial sector and its ability to deliver expected rates of return for funded benefits Social Outcomes • Assessment of both replacement rate as well as benefit level (compared to other groups) is important • Short-term impact is largely determined by selected price indexation (1st pillar) and changes in asset values (2nd pillar) • Medium and long-term impact is more difficult to assess as depending on real developments (wage and employment growth path) as well as structure of pension benefit system V. Directions for Policy Actions Actions will need to be country specific and useful to consider in a short and long term framework, and by ranking the policy options General recommendations for the short run: • Avoid hasty actions that promise quick fixes for the fiscal pressure but risk doing harm in the long term to fiscal sustainability and/or benefit adequacy • Avoid irreversible decisions that are based on incomplete information about the state of the world General recommendation for the long-run: • Use the crisis as an opportunity to initiate or complete reform to exit stronger from it