Can
pension systems be sustainable? Do they exist? So called ‘first-pillar’ pension
systems around the world have been put to the test by the Allianz Pension
Sustainability Index (finchannel.com, April 7, 2014).
Over
the last twenty years pension reforms have been introduced in various
retirement schemes globally, differing from country to country. The Pension
Sustainability Index (PSI) rates the pension schemes annually across countries,
particularly in terms of long term sustainability in ageing societies. A good
ranking does not mean generous pension payments. Rather, it shows that a
country’s pension system will be able to cope with its demographics – an aging
population.
In
the current 2014 study, the pension systems of Thailand, Brazil, and Japan were
found to be the least sustainable. The pension schemes of Australia, Sweden,
and New Zealand were the most sustainable.
Thailand,
for example, states the PSI report, has an extremely low retirement age,
sporadic coverage, and the population is aging rapidly. Brazil is aging quickly
too, and its pension system has a high replacement rate and early retirement
options, placing it unsustainable in the long term. Japan has an unsustainable
pension system due to its large population of older people and high sovereign
debt level.
Australia
has a two-tier pension system combining a lean public finance contribution with
a highly developed funded pension, which does not place a heavy burden on the government.
The western European countries whose pension systems were rated highly benefit
from their comprehensive pension systems based on strong, funded pillars. The
Netherlands surpassed Sweden and Norway on the rating component based on the
country’s solid public finance situation, but overall Sweden placed highest.
Norway’s high legal retirement age and moderate aging demographic helped it
reach a high index score.
The
PSI noted that Greece, which ranked worst of all countries in the 2011 PSI,
improved in this 2014 study due to drastic reforms stipulated by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) austerity
packages. It succeeded in cutting back on pension expenditures with lasting
effect, but the high debt level and old age dependency ratio well above the
European average remains a challenge for the Greek system. Greece jumped from
last place on the index scale in 2011 to 8th from the bottom in 2014.
The
report noted two main differences in pension systems: (1) countries such as the
United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Ireland have developed a ‘bottom-drawer’
approach in which the government pension covers only the basic requirements to
prevent old-age poverty, expecting the public to ‘top-up’ their own pension
scheme if they expect additional income to maintain a certain standard of
living, and (2) countries such as Italy, Spain, France, and Greece have a more
generous government pension approach, which is good for people, but it may
place more pressure on governments long term as more people age.
The
top ranked 20 countries on the PSI include: Australia, Sweden, New Zealand,
Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, United States, Latvia, United
Kingdom, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Russian Federation, Chile, Hong Kong,
Luxembourg, Lithuania, Singapore, and Mexico.
The
lowest ranked 20 countries on the PSI include: Belgium, Hungary, Turkey,
Portugal, Slovak Republic, Indonesia, Taiwan, France, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, South
Africa, Greece, Malta, China, Slovenia, India, Japan, Brazil, and Thailand.
Comments
Post a Comment