Advertisement

Last Lessons Learned from the Swedish Public Pension System

  • María del Carmen Boado-PenasEmail author
  • Poontavika Naka
  • Ole Settergren
Chapter
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Retirement systems across the world are undergoing major reforms to adapt to continuously changing economic and demographic factors. Among these major changes are the so-called notional defined contribution pension schemes (NDCs), first developed about 20 years ago in countries such as Italy, Latvia, Poland and Sweden. These pension schemes attempt to reproduce the logic of a financial defined contribution pension plan within a pay-as-you-go framework. Among the countries with NDCs, Sweden is the only one where an automatic balancing mechanism goes hand in hand with the prior calculation of a financial solvency indicator that emerges from an actuarial balance sheet. This chapter describes the Swedish pension experience over the 2007–2015 period through its accounting method, together with the problems faced by the system and the policy responses.

Keywords

Accounting Balancing mechanism Public pensions Retirement Solvency Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Maria del Carmen Boado-Penas is grateful for the financial support of the project MEYC ECO2015-65826-P.

References

  1. Auerbach, A. J., & Lee, R. (2009). Notional defined contribution pension systems in a stochastic context : Design and stability. In J. R. Brown, J. B. Liebman, & D. A. Wise (Eds.), Social security policy in a changing environment (pp. 43–68). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach, A. J., & Lee, R. (2011). Welfare and generational equity in sustainable unfunded pension systems. Journal of Public Economics, 95(1–2), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, N. (2013). The pension system in Sweden, report to the expert group on public economics 2013:7. Stockholm: Ministry of Finance.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, N., & Diamond, P. (2011). Improving Sweden’s automatic pension adjustment mechanism, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Issue in Brief 11–2.Google Scholar
  5. Boado-Penas, M. D. C., & Vidal-Meliá, C. (2013). The actuarial balance of the PAYG pension system: The Swedish NDC model versus the DB-type model. In R. Holzmann, E. Palmer, & D. Robalino (Eds.), Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) pension systems, volume 2: Gender, politics, and financial stability (pp. 443–480). Washington D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  6. Boado-Penas, M. D. C., Vidal-Meliá, C., & Valdés-Prieto, S. (2008). The actuarial balance sheet for pay-as-you-go finance: Solvency indicators for Spain and Sweden. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 89–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börsch-Supan, A. H. (2006). What are NDC systems? What do they bring to reform strategies? In R. Holzmann & E. Palmer (Eds.), Pension reform: Issues and prospects for Non-financial Defined Contribution (NDC) schemes (pp. 35–55). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  8. Chłoń-Domińczak, A., Franco, D., & Palmer, E. (2012). The first wave of NDC reforms: The experiences of Italy, Latvia, Poland, and Sweden. In R. Holzmann, E. Palmer, & D. Robalino (Eds.), Nonfinancial defined contribution pension schemes in a changing pension world, volume 1: Rogress, lessons, and implementation (pp. 31–84). World Bank: Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond, P. (2004). Social security. American Economic Review, 94(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holzmann, R., & Palmer, E. (2006). Pension reform : Issues and prospects for non-financial defined contribution (NDC) schemes. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holzmann, R., Palmer, E., & Robalino, D. (2012). Nonfinancial defined contribution pension schemes in a changing pension world, volume 1: Progress, lessons, and implementation. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindbeck, A., & Persson, M. (2003). The gains from pension reform. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1), 74–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD. (2012). Putting pensions on auto-pilot: Automatic-adjustment mechanisms and financial sustainability of retirement-income systems. In OECD Pensions Outlook 2012. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Palmer, E. (2013). Generic NDC: Equilibrium, valuation, and risk sharing with and without NDC bonds. In R. Holzmann, E. Palmer, & D. Robalino (Eds.), Nonfinancial defined contribution pension schemes in a changing pension world, Volume 2: Gender, politics, and financial stability (pp. 309–333). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Settergren, O. (2001). The automatic balance mechanism of the Swedish pension system: A non-technical introduction. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 48(4), 339–349.Google Scholar
  16. Settergren, O. (2013). A decade of actuarial accounting for the NDC scheme in Sweden: Quantifying change in the financial position of a PAYG pension plan. In R. Holzmann, E. Palmer, & D. Robalino (Eds.), Nonfinancial defined contribution pension schemes in a changing pension world, Volume 2: Gender, politics, and financial stability (pp. 361–391). Washington D.C: World Bank.Google Scholar
  17. Settergren, O., & Mikula, B. D. (2005). The rate of return of pay-as-you-go pension systems: A more exact consumption-loan model of interest. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 4(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2007). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2007. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  19. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2008). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2008. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  20. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2009). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2009. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  21. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2010). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2010. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  22. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2011). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2011. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  23. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2012). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2012. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  24. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2013). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2013. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  25. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2014). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2014. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  26. Swedish Social Insurance Agency. (2015). Orange report: Annual report of the Swedish Pension System 2015. Stockholm: Swedish Social Insurance Agency.Google Scholar
  27. Valdés-Prieto, S. (2000). The financial stability of notional account pensions. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(3), 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vidal-Meliá, C., & Boado-Penas, M. D. C. (2013). Compiling the actuarial balance for pay-as-you-go pension systems. Is it better to use the hidden asset or the contribution asset? Applied Economics, 45(10), 1303–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vidal-Meliá, C., Boado-Penas, M. D. C., & Settergren, O. (2010). Instruments for improving the equity, transparency and solvency of pay-as-you-go pension systems: NDCs, Abs and ABMs. In M. Micocci, G. N. Gregoriou, & M. G. Batista (Eds.), Pension fund risk management: Financial and actuarial modeling (pp. 419–472). Chapman & Hall/CRC Finance Series.Google Scholar
  30. Vidal-Meliá, C., Domínguez-Fabián, I., & Enrique Devesa-Carpio, J. (2006). Subjective economic risk to beneficiaries in notional defined contribution accounts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 73(3), 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitehouse, E. (2009). Pensions during the crisis: Impact on retirement income systems and policy responses, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 34(4), 536–547.Google Scholar
  32. Whitehouse, E., D’Addio, A., Chomik, R. Reilly, A. (2009). Two decades of pension reform: What has been achieved and what remains to be done? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 34(4), 515–535.Google Scholar
  33. Whitehouse, E. R. (2010). Decomposing notional defined-contribution pensions : experience of OECD countries reforms, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No.109.Google Scholar
  34. Williamson, J. B. (2004). Assessing the pension reform potential of a notional defined contribution pillar. International Social Security Review, 57(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yermo, J. (2008). Governance and investment of public pension reserve funds in selected OECD countries, OECD Working Papers On Insurance And Private Pensions.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • María del Carmen Boado-Penas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Poontavika Naka
    • 3
  • Ole Settergren
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesInstitute for Financial and Actuarial Mathematics (IFAM), University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Swedish Pensions AgencyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Chulalongkorn Business School, Department of StatisticsBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations