National Interests: Priorities and Security
 

Funded pension systems: Evidence from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden

Vol. 13, Iss. 11, NOVEMBER 2017

Received: 31 August 2017

Received in revised form: 26 September 2017

Accepted: 14 October 2017

Available online: 29 November 2017

Subject Heading: SOCIAL SERVICES AND EDUCATION

JEL Classification: J32, H55, I38

Pages: 2152–2165

https://doi.org/10.24891/ni.13.11.2152

Pudova D.O. Financial Research Institute of Ministry of Finance of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation dpudova@nifi.ru

Importance The article discusses the practice of using funded pension schemes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.
Objectives I perform a comparative analysis of methods that exist in OECD countries to involve citizens into mandatory/quasi-mandatory pension plans. I review the mandatory/quasi-mandatory format of pension plan formation. The article also presents my analysis and summary of the relevant experiences in the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.
Methods To accomplish the objective, I use information, analytical materials and laws of OECD countries.
Results Analyzing the best foreign practices of promoting the pension plans among the population, I provide the scientific and methodological rationale how the best foreign practices can be used in the Russian Federation to involve the population into mandatory/quasi-mandatory pension schemes. The article presents my proposals for promoting non-governmental pension plans in the Russian Federation.
Conclusions and Relevance The quasi-mandatory model of pension plans can be used only if it proves beneficial in terms of public involvement, coverage, efficiency, distribution of the risk exposure and costs.

Keywords: quasi-mandatory pension schemes, mandatory insurance, OECD, individual pension capital

References:

  1. Lyashok V.Yu., Nazarov V.S., Oreshkin M.S. [Factors of pension growth in modern Russia]. Nauchno-issledovatel'skii finansovyi institut. Finansovyi zhurnal = Research Financial Institute. Finance Journal, 2016, no. 1, pp. 7–21. (In Russ.)
  2. Antolin P., Payet S., Yermo J. Coverage of Private Pension Systems: Evidence and Policy Options. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, 2012, no. 20. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k94d6gh2w6c-en
  3. Sørensen O.B., Billig A., Lever M., Menard J.-C., Settergren O. The Interaction of Pillars in Multi‑Pillar Pension Systems: A Comparison of Canada, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden. International Social Security Review, 2016, vol. 69, iss. 2, pp. 53–84. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12101
  4. Tumanyants K.A., Antonenko I.V., Antosik L.V., Shlevkova T.V. [Pension savings investments: Government or private sector?]. Nauchno-issledovatel'skii finansovyi institut. Finansovyi zhurnal = Research Financial Institute. Finance Journal, 2017, no. 1, pp. 91–102. (In Russ.)
  5. Nijman T. Pension Reform in the Netherlands: Attractive Options for Other Countries? Bankers, Markets & Investors, 2014, iss. 128, pp. 36–45.
  6. Lavrenova E.S., Belomyttseva O.S. [Efficiency of pension accruals management in non-State pension funds]. Nauchno-issledovatel'skii finansovyi institut. Finansovyi zhurnal = Research Financial Institute. Finance Journal, 2016, no. 3, pp. 115–125. (In Russ.)
  7. Kangas O., Lundberg U., Ploug N. Three Routes to Pension Reform: Politics and Institutions in Reforming Pensions in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Social Policy & Administration, 2010, vol. 44, iss. 3, pp. 265–284. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00713.x

View all articles of issue

 

ISSN 2311-875X (Online)
ISSN 2073-2872 (Print)

Journal current issue

Vol. 13, Iss. 11
November 2017

Archive