Financing Social Protection in Developing Asia: Issues and Options

Asher, Mukul G.; Bali, Azad Singh

doi:10.1355/ae31-1e

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Losses of the national enterprises within 2014-2017 (see Table 1) Table 2. Matrix of results of correlation analysis of indicators Х [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Source: The authors' calculation. Given the conducted correlation analysis for construction of a multifactor regression model, all seven proposed indicators will be used.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Special features of formation of the source base for economic socialization

Stukalo¹,

Simakhova

Vasylieva

2019

Problems and Perspectives in Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trends in the global social development increasingly clearly demonstrate their relation to the processes of socialization of the global economy. Countries around the world are creating a global socio-economic space in the framework of integration and globalization. Global development of social economies in the world serves as the basis for further cooperation of the countries in addressing global problems and ensuring decent living standards of the population. It also applies to the countries with transition economies. The main problem of development of the process of economy socialization is its financial support, which makes the search for potential sources of financing more relative.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Special features of formation of the source base for economic socialization

Stukalo¹,

Simakhova

Vasylieva

2019

Problems and Perspectives in Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In any accumulation fund, the relationship between real gross domestic product (GDP) growth, real wage growth, and the real rate of return credited to members is impacts the replacement rate. The annual average relationship for Singapore for the 1987–2011 period was as follows: the real growth was 7.9%; the real wage growth rate was 5.0%; and the real rate of return credited to Central Provident Fund members was 1.42% (Asher & Bali, ). For Malaysia, estimates suggest that annual real returns averaged 3.3% between 1961 and 2009, and the real rate of return fluctuated between 2.6% from 1961 to 1980; and 4.42% from 1980 to 1996.…”

Section: Assessment Of Current Pension Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Pension Programs in Southeast Asia: An Assessment

Asher

Bali

2015

Asian Economic Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses public pension programs in select Southeast Asian economies (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam -henceforth referred to as the SEA6) and the key issues facing them. The criteria used in assessing pension systems are the philosophy of pension design, the extent of coverage, investment policies and performance, and administrative and compliance costs. The paper argues that three broad reform directions to strengthen public pensions merit consideration. The first direction is to enhance the professionalism of the existing provident and pension fund organizations, including their governance practices. The second direction is to strengthen the role of noncontributory budget-financed pensions (e.g. social pensions). The third is to adopt a systemic perspective to pension reform that includes reforms in complementary areas (labor markets, public financial management practices, and the civil service); developing a financing-mix of pensions; and lastly, improving effective coverage by exploring complementarities between health care and pension programs.

show abstract

“…Even in developing Asia where high rates of economic growth and increasing formalisation of the economy provide more fiscal headroom, there are substantial challenges in funding social protection. Asher and Bali () consider a hypothetical social pension scheme for Southeast Asian countries, with very optimistic assumptions of an 11 per cent growth rate in nominal incomes, no administrative costs, no disincentive effects of transfers and no general equilibrium effects on the rest of the economy (for example, on the price level). Even a scheme that provides benefits set at just 20 per cent of per capita gross national income (GNI) costs about 4 per cent of GNI by 2030 for countries like Thailand and about 3 per cent for Vietnam and China.…”

Section: Fiscal Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%