Pensions at a Crossroad Between Social Rights and Financial Markets: Which Way to Be Chosen?

  • Nazaré da Costa CabralEmail author
Part of the Financial and Monetary Policy Studies book series (FMPS, volume 48)


Departing from the two basic historical models of social protection, the Bismarckian or labour model and the Beveridgean or universal model, the author proceeds with analysing two contrasting alternatives for the future design of pension systems: (i) The individual insurance model; (ii) The universal tax-financed model. Although motivated by common drivers—an ageing society and technological revolution—the responses and incentives are substantially (philosophically) different. Ultimately, there is a tension between social rights and financial markets that may end up with the predominance of one over the other. In the current (liberalizing) environment and considering past and recent EU policy guidance on this matter—the timidity of the social-rights centred strategy (contained in the European Pillar of Social Rights) in contrast with the impulse given to the development of the Capital Markets Union—may after all mean the triumph of a financial market-driven approach.


  1. Abbott R, Bogenschneider BN (2017) Should robots pay taxes? Tax policy in the age of automation. Harv Law Policy Rev. Forthcoming. Available at SSRN:
  2. Anderson KM (2015) Social policy in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr N, Diamond P (2010) Pension reform – a short guide. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beveridge W (1942) Social insurance and allied services.
  5. Boeri T et al (2006) Dealing with the new giants: rethinking the role of pension funds, Geneva Reports on the World Economy 8. International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. da Costa Cabral N (2017) Europe will be (re)formed by social rights, or it will be not (re)formed at all.
  7. da Costa Cabral N et al (2017) After Brexit – consequences for the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  8. EBRI (1990) Fundamentals of employee benefit programs. Employee Benefit Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen G (1991) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2015) Social protection systems in the EU: financing arrangements and the effectiveness and efficiency of resource allocation. EU, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2016) Study on the potential of green bond finance for resource-efficient investments.
  12. European Commission (2018) Current and future income adequacy in old-age in the EU, Pension Adequacy Report 2018, volume I, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fall F (2014) Comparing the robustness of PAYG pension schemes. OECD Department Working Papers, No. 1134Google Scholar
  14. Fall F, Bloch D (2014) Overcoming vulnerabilities of pension systems. OECD Department Working Papers, No. 1133Google Scholar
  15. Gern K-J (2002) Recent developments in old age pension systems – an international overview. In: Feldstein M, Siebert H (eds) Social security pension reform in Europe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 439–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hemerijck A (2013) Changing welfare states. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. ILO (2018) Reversing pensions privatization – rebuilding public systems in Eastern Europe and Latin America, International Labour OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  18. Lannoo K (2015) Which union for Europe’s capital markets? CEPS, ECMI Policy Brief No. 22/2015.
  19. Modigliani F, Muralidhar A (2005) Rethinking pension reform. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Musgrave RA (1981) A reappraisal of financing social security. In: Skidmore F (ed) Social security financing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 89–120Google Scholar
  21. Neufeind M et al (eds) (2018) Work in the digital era – challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. Rowman and Littlefield, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Cinneide C (2014) Austerity and the faded dream of a ‘social Europe. In: Nolan A (ed) Economic and social rights after the great financial crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2013) Action plan on base erosion and profit shifting.
  24. OECD (2018b) Financial incentives and retirement savings.
  25. Pavolini E, Seeleib-Kaiser M (2016) Comparing occupational welfare in Europe: the case of occupational pensions, OSE Paper series, No. 30, October 2016Google Scholar
  26. Pensions Europe (2015) Pensions Europe paper on the effects of quantitative easing on pension funds.
  27. Schoenmaker D (2017) From risk to opportunity: a framework for sustainable finance. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Schokkaert E, Van Parijs P (2003) Social justice and the reform of Europe’s pension systems. J Eur Soc Policy 13(3):245–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stevens Y (2017) The silent pension pillar implosion. Eur J Soc Secur 19(2):98–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. The World Bank (1994) Averting the old-age crisis – policies to protect the old and promote growth. Washington, The World BankCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Parijs P, Vanderborght Y (2017) Basic income – a radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. WEF (2016) The future of jobs employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIDEEFF - Center for European, Economic, Financial and Tax Law ResearchUniversity of Lisbon, Faculdade de Direito de Lisboa, Alameda da UniversidadeLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations