P ublic policies are often made without much reliance on economic reasoning. Economists are often unaware of what is happening in the world of public affairs. As a result, both the quality of public decisionmaking and the role that economists play in it are less than optimal. This feature contains short articles on topics that are currently on the agendas of policymakers, thus illustrating the role of economic analysis in current debates. Suggestions for future columns and comments on past ones should be sent to Isabel V. Sawhill, c/o Journal of Economic Perspectives,

No abstract

This paper estimates how much people actually receive in retirement relative to earnings before retirement when all sources of income, including income generated by homeownership, are combined. Previous studies find that middle class people need between 70 and 75 percent of their pre-retirement earnings to maintain their life style once they stop working. The objective of this study is to determine what people are actually receiving in retirement.

The Great Recession had a profound effect on the retirement security of older Americans, and the slow recovery from the downturn will have a lasting impact on their quality of life. The nature of today’s retirement system left older households exposed to the collapse in the equity and housing markets and induced many to plan for a later retirement. More late-career workers experienced job loss than in previous recessions, often with long jobless spells, encouraging a record number of early Social Security retirement claims and disability applications. Going forward, workers who lost a job can expect lower earnings and more instability and, potentially, poorer health. Even households that avoided job loss will have less money available for spending in retirement due to low interest rates and reduced home values. These findings emphasize the importance of Social Security as income insurance and the need for a more robust retirement income system.

Public pension funding has recently become a front-burner policy issue in the wake of the financial crisis and given the pending retirement of large numbers of baby boomers. This paper examines the current funding of state and local pensions using a sample of 126 plans, estimating an aggregate funded ratio in 2009 of 78 percent. Projections for 2010-2013 suggest that some continued deterioration is likely. Funded status can vary significantly among plans, so the paper explores the influence of four types of factors: funding discipline, plan governance, plan characteristics, and the fiscal situation of the state. Judging the adequacy of funding requires more than just a snapshot of assets and liabilities, so the paper examines how well plans are meeting their Annual Required Contribution and what factors influence whether they make them. The paper also addresses the controversy over what discount rate to use for valuing liabilities, concluding that using a riskless rate of return could help improve funding discipline but would need to be implemented in a manageable way. Finally, the paper assesses whether plans face a near-term liquidity crisis and finds that most have assets on hand to cover benefits over the next 15-20 years. The bottom line is that, like private investors, public plans have been hit hard by the financial crisis and their full recovery is dependent on the rebound of the economy and the stock market.