Around 1990, trade unions in both Norway and Denmark moved away from their previous hostile stance, and started actively to promote occupational pensions. Over time, full coverage of occupational pensions was achieved in both countries, yet with different scopes, degrees of risk-sharing and modes of governance. Why did both countries go through similar institutional changes, and why were the outcomes still so different? The roads to full coverage were different: In Denmark, this was achieved through wage bargaining; in Norway, through mandating. Denmark developed far more collectivistic schemes than Norway, but recent developments indicate convergence: efforts are being made in Norway to develop encompassing schemes more similar to the Danish ones, while the Danish system appears to be moving in a more individual direction. In both countries, strong trade union branches have at critical junctures forged alliances with their employer counterparts at the expense of trade union solidarity. Both mandatory and negotiated schemes thus have the potential to be sources of solidarity as well as of self-interest within the union movement. Ré suméAux alentours de 1990, les syndicats, aussi bien en Norvège qu'au Danemark, ont abandonné leur hostilité traditionnelle à l'encontre des pensions professionnelles, et ont commencé à promouvoir activement de telles formules. Au fil du temps, une couverture généralisée en termes de pension /home/trs professionnelle a été mise en place dans les deux pays mais avec des différences quant au champ d'application, au niveau du partage du risque et au mode de gouvernance. Pourquoi ces deux pays ont-ils adopté des changements institutionnels similaires et pourquoi sont-ils parvenus à des résultats encore si différents? Les parcours menant à une couverture intégrale n'ont pas été les mêmes. Au Danemark, l'objectif a été atteint au travers de la négociation salariale ; en Norvège, par des mesures contraignantes. Le Danemark avait développé des régimes bien plus collectifs que la Norvège, mais les évolutions récentes montrent une convergence : en Norvège, des tentatives visent à adopter des régimes plus proches du système danois, alors que le système danois semble évoluer dans une direction plus individualiste. Dans les deux pays, les syndicats ont, à des moments critiques, passé des accords avec leurs interlocuteurs patronaux, au détriment de la solidarité syndicale. Au sein du mouvement syndical, les régimes obligatoires comme les formes négociées ont donc le potentiel d'être source de solidarité comme de recherche d'intérêts particuliers. ZusammenfassungAnfang der 1990er Jahre nahmen die Gewerkschaften in Norwegen und Dänemark Abstand von ihrer vormals ablehnenden Einstellung gegenüber betrieblichen Systemen der Altersversorgung und begannen damit, sich aktiv für dieses Modell einzusetzen. Mit der Zeit wurde in beiden Ländern eine umfassende Absicherung durch Betriebsrenten erreicht, allerdings mit unterschiedlichen Geltungsbereichen, Ausmaßen der Risikoteilung sowie Leitungs-und Ü berwachun...
Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have advanced multi‐pillar pension systems. Using micro‐simulations, this article presents a close examination of the interaction of pillars in these countries. The relative importance and the role of the different pension pillars vary from country to country, and according to age, income, gender and socio‐economic dimensions as well as between generations. A further area of investigation is the mitigation capacity of the four pension systems. On the one hand, adverse labour careers lead to lower life‐time earnings and lower private pension accruals. On the other hand, these effects are mitigated through the design of pillars and their interaction. Mitigation is important to income security and stability in retirement and to post‐retirement income distribution. However, mitigation mechanisms come at the cost of incentives. Moreover, in many countries, the generosity of public benefits is set to decrease – increasing the importance of private pensions. This will shift risk and uncertainty from employers and pension institutions to individuals. Thus, risks and uncertainties related to private pensions will become more important, raising questions about the division of responsibilities between public and private pensions, and about the potential of mitigating such risk through pillar interaction. These concerns are further reinforced by labour market changes. Although a pension system free of distortions is inconceivable, this article seeks to contribute to addressing how mitigation should be designed, and how mitigation and risk sharing should be balanced against incentives, challenges which are as much political as technical.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.