A Comparative Typology of Pension Regimes
This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1647.pdf | 246.41 KB | 655 | 1 hour 9 min ago |
This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
978-92-9079-788-3-en-1476
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 79354fe6090db6131eafddb32885d8dd [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/comparative-typology-pension-regimes [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-788-3 [safe] => 978-92-9079-788-3 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 54 [safe] => 54 [view] => 54 ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Arjan Soede and Cok Vrooman [safe] => Arjan Soede and Cok Vrooman ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1647 [safe] => 1647 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 36 [view] => 36 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-04-28T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 28 April 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [taxonomy_term_38] => Array ( [title] => Social welfare policies [href] => taxonomy/term/38 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => ) ) [taxonomy_term_101] => Array ( [title] => ENEPRI Research Reports [href] => catalog/101 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => Produced by the European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, which is composed of leading socio-economic research institutes from throughout the EU and managed by CEPS, this series presents the findings and conclusions of research undertaken in the context of ENEPRI research projects. ) ) ) [files] => Array ( [1519] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1519 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1647.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1647.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 252321 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-10 14:58:52 [nid] => 1476 [vid] => 1476 [description] => 1647.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1476 [nid] => 1476 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] =>This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1647.pdf | 246.41 KB | 655 | 1 hour 9 min ago |
This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
978-92-9079-788-3-en-1476
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 79354fe6090db6131eafddb32885d8dd [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/comparative-typology-pension-regimes [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-788-3 [safe] => 978-92-9079-788-3 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 54 [safe] => 54 [view] => 54 ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Arjan Soede and Cok Vrooman [safe] => Arjan Soede and Cok Vrooman ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1647 [safe] => 1647 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 36 [view] => 36 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-04-28T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 28 April 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [38] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 38 [vid] => 3 [name] => Social welfare policies [description] => [weight] => 10 ) [101] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 101 [vid] => 4 [name] => ENEPRI Research Reports [description] => Produced by the European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, which is composed of leading socio-economic research institutes from throughout the EU and managed by CEPS, this series presents the findings and conclusions of research undertaken in the context of ENEPRI research projects. [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( [1519] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1519 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1647.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1647.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 252321 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-10 14:58:52 [nid] => 1476 [vid] => 1476 [description] => 1647.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1476 [nid] => 1476 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [print_links] => Array ( [#weight] => -101 [#suffix] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [display_price] => Array ( [#weight] => -10 [#access] => 1 [#value] =>BOOK
[#delta] => 0 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => [#children] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 1 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [2] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 2 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 2 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#single] => 1 [#attributes] => Array ( ) [#required] => [#parents] => Array ( ) [#tree] => [#context] => full [#page] => 1 [#field_name] => field_type [#title] => type [#access] => 1 [#label_display] => inline [#teaser] => [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type] => content_field [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1647.pdf | 246.41 KB |
This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1647.pdf | 246.41 KB |
This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is based on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts of the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that Esping-Andersen’s classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and social-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of pension systems. The empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two main dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of private schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system. On these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have been identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically expect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension benefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic, means-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the standard classification of welfare regimes. In the ‘moderate pensions’ cluster, the level of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it surpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In countries belonging to the ‘mandatory private’ cluster, the government obliges employees to participate in private pension schemes, which are generally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this group is moderate or high.
Researchers
Related Publications
- How social the single market?
- NACHKRISENZEIT – Und was kommt jetzt?
- The Effect of the Financial Crisis on Systemic Trust
- Adequacy of Pension Systems in Europe: An analysis based on comprehensive replacement rates
- Towards sustainable but still adequate pensions in the EU: Theory, trends and simulations
- How to make European pensions adequate and sustainable?
- Sustainable and Adequate Pensions: How far have we come?
- Measuring the Sustainability of Pension Systems through a Microsimulation Model: The Case of Italy
- What are the consequences of the AWG-projections for the adequacy of social security pensions?
- Measurement Issues for Adequacy Comparisons among Pension Systems
Editor's choice
-
Financial Markets
-
Politics and Institutions
-
Justice and Home Affairs
-
Economic Policy
-
EU Neighbourhood Policy
-
Economic Policy