The Privatization and Marketization of Pensions in Europe: A Double Transformation Facing the Crisis

Abstract

In response to the demographic challenges and fiscal constraints, many European welfare states have moved toward the privatization and marketization of pensions in order to improve their financial sustainability. The privatization of retirement income responsibility has led to a shift from dominantly public pensions to a multi‐pillar architecture with growing private pillars composed of personal, firm‐based, or collectively negotiated pension arrangements. At the same time, marketization has led to the introduction and expansion of prefunded pension savings based on financial investments as well as stronger reliance of market‐logic principles in the remaining public pay‐as‐you‐go (PAYG) pensions. However, there are also important cross‐national variations in the speed, scope, and structural outcome of the privatization and marketization of European pension systems. Liberal market economies, but also some coordinated market economies (the Netherlands and Switzerland) as well as the Nordic countries have embraced multi‐pillar strategies earlier and more widely, while the Bismarckian pensions systems and the post‐socialist transition countries of Eastern Europe have been belated converts. The recent financial market and economic crisis, however, indicates that the double transformation may entail short‐term problems and long‐term uncertainties about the social and political sustainability of these privatized and marketized multi‐pillar strategies.

Occupational pensions in Europe: Trojan horse of financialization?

“…Yet, according to Afonso and Visser (), the Dutch political economy has a more liberal connotation, with weak left‐wing parties and trade unions, strong internationalization patterns and emphasis on private strategies of adaptation to economic challenges. Ebbinghaus () has talked of a liberal CME with a long tradition of OPs based on sectoral collective agreements. The Netherlands outperforms the Anglo‐Saxon countries in pension assets and represent a typical multi‐pillar pension system.…”

Pensions planning in the UK: A gendered challenge

“…By absorbing state fiscal subsidies, they effectively reduce funds available for state pensions (Ginn and Macintyre, 2013). As discussed later, retirement costs could be funded through alternative means which have a less negative gendered impact, such as increased social contributions, higher taxes and changes to tax relief (Ebbinghaus, 2015).…”

Ideologija starostizma kot operativna kategorija kapitalizma: primer pokojninske blagajne

“…Kritičarke neoliberalizma in zagovorniki javnega pokojninskega sistema so si edini v tem, da je za stabilnost in vzdržnost pokojninske blagajne bolj kot delež upokojenih in starejših pomembna stopnja zaposlenosti, predvsem pa oblike dela in vrste zaposlitve ter višina delodajalskih vplačil kot tudi višina dohodka, od katerega se vplačujejo socialni prispevki (Augusztinovics, 1999;Ebbinghaus, 2015). Večji ko je delež nestandardnih oblik dela, kar gre na roke kapitalu, večji je izpad pokojninskih in drugih prispevkov iz javne blagajne, ki naj bi jih taki tipi zaposlovanja prinašali oziroma dvigovali -ne glede na stopnjo zaposlenosti.…”