公共政策. 美国.荷兰.养老金 政策.比较.

Summary of the 2010 US and the Netherlands Pension SeminarNewsflash | 3 September 2010On June 24, 2010, the Heritage Foundation, in cooperation with APG-General Pensions Group, The Retirement Security Project, The Employee Benefit Research Institute, The Pensions Right Center and the Royal Netherlands Embassy, hosted a seminar on retirement security issues in the US and the Netherlands.The US and the Netherlands: Converging paths to retirement securityRound Table Meeting, Washington, June 24, 2010 Please click here for program and speakers.SummaryGeneral∙The US and The Netherlands are both confronted with serious challenges for their pension systems. Ageing and the impact of the financial crisis have affected and will affect the pension systems and call for change.∙Both the first pillar/social security as well as the second and third pillar/supplementary pensions are confronted with thesechallenges, albeit of a different nature. The focus of the Round Table meeting was primarily the challenges facing the second and third pillar/supplementary pension provisions.∙In shaping their pension systems, the US and The Netherlands have the same goal: assuring an adequate income for pensioners now and in the future, in an efficient way, at low cost. An important aspect is to overcome the shortsigthedness of people, as many people prefer certain cash now, over a pension in an uncertain future, once they are retired.∙In the search for answers to the challenges confronting their pension systems, the US and The Netherlands have found converging paths. Four issues stand out in the discussion:1.Defined contribution schemes vs defined benefit schemes2.Certainty vs uncertainty3.Collective vs individual4.Free choice vs mandatory arrangementsDefined contribution vs defined benefit schemes∙Both countries seem to be at opposite ends on the continuum between DC and DB. Pension schemes in the US are more of a DC nature, whereas pension schemes in The Netherlands look more like DB. In reality, only very few schemes in either country are DC or DB, most schemes are somewhere in between, and thus of a hybrid nature.∙Moreover, schemes in both the US and the Netherlands are shifting towards more hybridity. In the US there is a search for more DBelements in pension schemes. In the Netherlands the discussion is about the increased ineffectiveness of contribution rates, theoverall price of pensions and, hence, increasing the flexibility of pensions, thus introducing more DC elements in pension schemes.This illustrates the convergence in the pension systems in bothcountries.∙The academic debate about DC versus DB appears to becounterproductive to some extent. In redefining pension deals it is more effective to focus on the distinctive elements of pension plan design.∙An attractive feature of the Dutch pension system is the built-in flexibility, which is an important characteristic of a trust-based pension scheme. The US pension system is more of a contract-based nature. The said flexibility appears to be incompatible with the US legal (“common law”) system. An interesting topic for further research and discussions is how flexibility might be introduced in the US system.Certainty vs uncertainty∙People have a passion for certainty, yet complete certainty in pension schemes is unaffordable. Thus uncertainty is unavoidable.Due to the financial crisis all pension scheme participants have become more conscious of the uncertainties in the system. With a move towards more hybrid schemes, the importance of uncertainty in the Dutch pension system will most likely grow. It has for long beena key element in the American pension system.∙People have difficulty to understand, accept and handle uncertainty.This leads to a gap between what people expect from their pension and what they may actually receive. It is therefore essential to temper expectations: it is better to underpromise and overdeliver, than to overpromise and underdeliver. Pension providers should betransparent about the possible size of future pension income and the uncertainties surrounding it, and to help people to takeadequate action in response to this. This implies clear and honest communication about pension prospects.∙In both countries the experience with respect to financial education is mixed. There is a consensus that financial education at an early stage (at secondary school) may be helpful. At the same time, it is also acknowledged that there are limits to financial education, implying that also providers of pension provisions havea role to play in this respect. In addition, both the theory as wellas the empirics of behavorial finance clearly indicate that limits to understanding financial products need to be taken into account in pension plan design (e.g. defaults, automatic enrolment with opt-out).∙Initiatives, such as the website , can be very effective in enhancing communication with respect to pensions.A more detailed analysis of experiences with respect to pensioncommunication in the United States and the Netherlands would be very fruitful.Collective vs individual∙In the Netherlands pension schemes are organized on the basis of collectivity, whereas in the US the system is more individually organized.∙As pooling of risks is efficient and reduces costs, there is a case for organizing pensions on a more collective scale.∙The institutional set-up of pension systems is different in both countries and very much part of the overall legal, social andeconomic fabric. Hence, for a number of reasons, collectivearrangements and ensuing governance of pension funds typical for the Netherlands cannot be transferred to the United States.Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to investigate to which extent more collectively organised arrangements can be effectivelyintroduced in the United States. An interesting feature of the Dutch pension system in this respect, is the substantial role of private contracting parties, with a limited role of the government.Free choice vs mandatory arrangements∙People have to make many choices with respect to pensions. Whether to save for pension at all. Whether to participate in a scheme or not. Which stocks or bonds to invest in, in an individual DC plan.Wether to buy an annuity when pension starts or to take up a lumpsum at once. Whether an employer should set up a pension scheme or not.∙Free choice makes it possible for each individual to decide for himself. However, because pension decisions concern the long(er) term, shorthsightedness plays a role, thus keeping people away from what would be the optimal decision in the long run. Nonparticipation may be preferred over participation because itenables people to spend money now instead of in an uncertain future that may never come. For the same reason a lump sum payment at the moment of retirement may be preferred over an annuity, thus ignoring longevity risks. And the employer may find it easier to satisfy his employees with extra cash payments instead of through setting upa pension scheme.∙Therefore there is a case for some form of paternalism. This may take the form of mandatory participation (as in the Netherlands), but also a softer form, (e.g. using defaults as in the US, forexample the automatic individual retirement account: ‘AutoIRA’).∙• The United States clearly has more experience with respect to free choice in pensions, in particular also in terms of what works well, and what doesn’t. Where free choice leads to a low participation in pension schemes, like for self employed people in The Netherlands, the experiences in the United States may offer solutions that are also applicable in the Dutch context.Follow-up∙It has been concluded that it would be very fruitful to give a follow-up to the Round Table Meeting in which specific issues could be discussed in more detail.∙Interesting topics for further discussion would be, among other things:1.effective and efficient pension plan design, in particular theissue of contract versus trust based and “collective”risk-sharing mechanisms (increasing flexibility in pensionsystems);munication with respect to pensions, also in light of behavorialfinance considerations;3.the pay-out phase of retirement provisions (focus of the Round TableMeeting mainly was at the accumulation phase);bour market developments and pension plan design (e.g. the issueof effective and efficient pension provisions for self employed).There is a broad consensus that further research with respect to pension systems in the United States and the Netherlands might be fruitful and would be to the benefit of both countries.。