Adequacy of Retirement Income after Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe

Abstract

All of the former transition economies in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe (CESE) inherited from the era of central planning traditional defined-benefit pension systems financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Like many pay-as-you-go public pension systems elsewhere in the world, CESE pension systems were in need of reforms to address short-term fiscal imbalances and longer-term issues relating to population aging. Reforms were also needed to adjust benefit and contribution structures to meet the challenges of-as well as to take advantage of opportunities relating to the transition to a market economy, including the widespread adoption of multiplier designs with improved risk-sharing across funded and unfunded pillars. By 2006, most countries in Europe and Central Asia had introduced a voluntary private pension scheme. By 2008, 14 countries roughly half of all countries in the region had legislated mandatory private pension schemes, and all but one of those schemes (the one in Ukraine) had been introduced. These reforms shared a number of common objectives, in particular putting the systems on a sounder financial footing and better aligning them with the (very different) incentives of a market economy. This report is organized as follows. The first section discusses the motivation for reform across the eight countries included in the study against the backdrop of the regional (and global) trend toward multiplier pension arrangements. The second section summarizes the key provisions of the reformed systems in the eight countries within the World Bank's five-pillar framework for pension system design. The third section summarizes pension system performance against the two crucially important dimensions of adequacy and sustainability. The last section provides some policy recommendations for addressing gaps in reforms and taking advantage of further opportunities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.