Politická ekonomie 2008, 56(1):102-122 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.633

Proč přechod průběžného penzijního systému na fondový nijak nesouvisí s demografickým vývojem?

Jan Kubíček
Česká národní banka, Praha.

Why a switch from payg to funded pension system has no link to demographic development?

The paper deals with a wide-spread myth that a switch from a PAYG to a funded pension system might solve adverse consequences of the population aging. It is shown, that under additional assumptions the pension debt (which is created during the process of the switch) is exactly equal to the value of assets that the pension funds accumulate. These additional assumptions are following: government imposes additional taxes, which are equal to the difference between the contributions to the former PAYG system and the contributions to the pension funds. Therefore workers contribute less to the pension funds but if the additional taxes are taken into account, they continue paying the same amount. It is shown, that if the additional taxes were permanently lower than what is supposed, the pension debt would grow beyond any limits. The other additional assumption made is that the interest rate paid by government from its pension debt is the same as the interest rate reached by the funds. If this assumption is relaxed, the qualitative conclusions do not change. Hence, demographic development cannot be used as an argument in favour of a switch of the pension system.

Keywords: pension reform, social security, pension funds
JEL classification: G18, G23, H55

Published: February 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kubíček, J. (2008). Why a switch from payg to funded pension system has no link to demographic development? Politická ekonomie56(1), 102-122. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.633
Download citation

References

  1. BARR, N. 2002. Reforming Pensions, Myths, Truths and Policy Choices. International Social Security Review. 2002, vol. 55, s. 3-37. Go to original source...
  2. EATWELL, J. 2003. The Anatomy of the Pensions Cisis and Three Fallacies on Pensions. Cambridge : Cambridge Endowment for Research in Finance, 2003.
  3. GEANAKOPLOS, J.; MITCHELL, O. S.; ZELDES, S. P. 1998. Would a Privatized Social Security System Really Pay a Higher Rate of Return? [Working Paper No. 6713]. Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998. Go to original source...
  4. HOLMAN, R. 2002. Osobní účty ve zdravotním a penzijním pojištění. Praha : Centrum pro ekonomiku a politiku, 2002.
  5. JEŽEK, M. 2004. Czech Pension Funds in an International Context - Prospects and Challenges [diplomová práce]. Praha : Univerzita Karlova, 2004.
  6. KUBÍČEK, J. 2004. Fondový penzijní systém v konvergující ekonomice. Finance a úvěr. 2004, č. 11-12, s. 478-499. Go to original source...
  7. LOUŽEK, M. 2006. Má důchodová reforma se zadlužením smysl? Politická ekonomie. 2006, č. 2, s. 247-260. Go to original source...
  8. ORSZAG, P. R.; STIGLITZ, J. E. 2001. Rethinking Pension Reform: Ten Myths About Social Security Systems. In HOLZMAN, STIGLITZ (eds.). New Ideas About Old Age Security. World Bank, 2001.
  9. SINN, H. W. 2000. Why a Funded Pension System Is Useful and Why It Is Not Useful [Working Paper no. 7592]. Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000. Go to original source...
  10. SLAVÍK, M.; RUTAROVÁ, R. 2005. Příspěvek do diskuse o reformě penzijního systému. Politická ekonomie. 2005, č. 3, s. 349, 368. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.