Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:47:10.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Dutch pension contracts and lessons for other countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2018

LANS BOVENBERG  and
THEO NIJMAN
LANS BOVENBERG
Affiliation:
Tilburg University and Netspar(e-mail: [email protected])
THEO NIJMAN
Affiliation:
Tilburg University and Netspar(e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper summarizes recent developments in Dutch occupational pensions of both the defined contribution and defined benefit (DB) types. A reform of DB schemes is discussed that introduces financial assets as individual entitlements. At the same time, the reformed schemes derive (dis)saving, financial risk management and insurance decisions from the explicit objective of adequate and stable lifelong retirement income. The proposed system also involves an insurance contract pooling longevity risks and possibly collective buffers that share systematic risks with future pension savers. The paper identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch contract design and draws lessons for other countries.

Keywords

D14D91E21E62G11G22G23G28H31H55J14J18J26J62P43Defined benefitdefined contributionvariable annuitypersonal pension
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 331 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Dirk Broeders, Kees Goudswaard, Marike Knoef, Ralph Koijen, Michael Preisel, and Bas Werker for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Ball, L. and Mankiw, N. G. (2007) Intergenerational risk sharing in the spirit of Arrow, Debreu and Rawls, with applications to social security design, Journal of Political Economy, 115(4): 523–547.Google Scholar
Balter, A. and Werker, B. (2016) “Variable annuities in the Dutch pension System”, Netspar Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Boeijen, D., Bonenkamp, J., Bovenberg, A. L., Frehen, L., de Haan, J., Joseph, A., Lever, M., Loois, M., Michielsen, T., Ponds, E., Nijman, T., and Werker, B. (2016) De meerwaarde van risicodeling met toekomstige generaties nader bezien. Rapportage van bevindingen van een Netspar werkgroep, Netspar Occasional Paper 07/2016.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, A. L. and Nijman, T. (2009) Developments in pension reform: the case of Dutch stand-alone collective pension schemes. International Tax and Public Finance, 16(4): 443–469.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, A. L. and Nijman, Th. E. (2017) Personal pensions with risk sharing. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 16(4): 450–466.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, A. L., Mehlkopf, R., and Nijman, Th. E. (2015) The promise of defined ambition plans: lessons for the United States, In: Mitchell, O. S. and Shea, R. (eds), Reimagining Pensions: The Next 40 Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, A. L., Cox, R., and Lundbergh, S. (2016) Lessons from the Swedish occupational pension system, Netspar Design Paper 45.Google Scholar
European commission (2017) Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and the council on a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP), website EU.Google Scholar
Finanstilsynet (2017) Pensions when the guarantees disappear. What are the implications for product characteristics and consumer protection? Discussion Paper (Danish FSA).Google Scholar
Gollier, C. (2008) Intergenerational risk-taking and risk-taking of a pension fund. Journal of Public Economics, 92: 1463–1485.Google Scholar
Horneff, W., Maurer, R., Mitchell, O. S., and Stamos, M. (2010) Variable payout annuities and dynamic portfolio choice in retirement. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 9(2): 163–183.Google Scholar
Koijen, R. S. J. and Yogo, M. (2017) The Fragility of Market Risk Insurance, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2972295 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2972295.Google Scholar
Lucas, D. and Zeldes, S. (2009) How should public pension plans invest? American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 99(2): 527–532.Google Scholar
Maurer, R., Mitchell, O. S., Rogalla, R., and Siegelin, I. (2016) Accounting and actuarial smoothing of retirement pay-outs in participating life-annuities. Insurance: mathematics and Economics, 71: 268–283.Google Scholar
Novy Marx, R. (2015) Economic and financial approaches to valuing pension liabilities. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 14(2): 144–150.Google Scholar
Novy Marx, R. and Rauh, J. D. (2011) Public pension promises: how big are they and what are they worth? Journal of Finance, 66(4): 1207–1245.Google Scholar
Ponds, E. and Huitron, M. G. (2016), Participation and choice in funded pension plans: Guidance for the Netherlands from worldwide diversity, Netspar Design Paper 55.Google Scholar
SER (2015) Advisory Report on the Future of the Dutch Pension System, Abstract of advisory report: https://www.ser.nl/en/publications/publications/2015/2015-pension-system.aspx.Google Scholar
SER (2016) ‘Persoonlijk pensioenvermogen met collectieve risicodeling”, verkenning, mei 2016.Google Scholar
van Bilsen, S., and Bovenberg, A. L. (2016) Personal pensions with risk sharing: various approaches, Netspar Discussion Paper 12/2016-038.Google Scholar
Van Ewijk, C., Hoet, C., Mehlkopf, R., and van den Bleeken, S. (2017) Welke keuzemogelijkheden zijn wenselijk vanuit het perspectief van de deelnemer, Netspar Design paper 71/ 2017.Google Scholar