Lessons from 30 countries

Social Security reform in the United States has become a nationally debated topic, but privately managed, funded plans are already a component of the social security systems of more than 30 nations around the world, says economist Estelle James.

For example:

Chile, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were the first countries to reform, in the 1980s.

Most countries in Latin America, Eastern and Central Europe, as well as some in the Asian-Pacific region, created similar systems during the past 10 years.

The Latin American and Eastern European countries funded their worker-based personal account systems by diverting money from a pre-existing payroll tax.

By contrast, the industrial countries in Western Europe, along with Australia and Hong Kong, made employer-based retirement plans mandatory, in addition to their tax-financed systems.

Although most pension reforms have similar goals, there are dramatic structural differences and also some striking similarities among them, says James. For example:

Contributions to personal accounts range from a low of 2.5 per cent of wages in Sweden to a high of 12.5 per cent (including fees) in Chile.

In most cases, contributions are made with funds that otherwise would have been paid as payroll taxes, however, in the mandatory employer-based plans the contributions are typically in addition to payroll taxes.

Practically every country (except Argentina, Colombia and the United Kingdom) requires new labour market entrants to enrol in the new systems.

Examining these reformed systems may offer useful insights for the United States as they consider their own social security reforms, says James. The experience of other countries suggests problems to be avoided and solutions to be emulated. In particular, the United States can learn how to keep administrative costs low, how to reduce risk, how to handle payouts and how to ensure that the elderly are kept out of poverty.

Source: Estelle James, Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Countries, NCPA Study No. 277, National Centre for Policy Analysis, June 2005.

For text: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st277/

For more on Social Security: Case for Privatisation: http://www.teamncpa.org

FMF Policy Bulletin/ 21 June 2005

Publish date: 30 June 2005
Views: 962

Welfare, Rule of law / Law

The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author.

Share this article

Help FMF promote the rule of law, personal liberty, and economic freedom become an individual member / donor HERE ... become a corporate member / donor HERE