@techreport{Breyer2001Funding,
abstract = {It is now a commonplace that the unfunded public pension systems of many OECD countries
will run into severe financing problems in the coming decades due to a dramatically
increasing pensioner/worker ratio. While this diagnosis is completely undisputed, there is still
a vigorous debate on the appropriate therapy. In this debate, a number of proposals have
been brought forward in particular in the last five years, which mainly consist in a (partial)
transition to a funded pension system. Because such a transition is not a Pareto
improvement, it is necessary to ask what can be the policy target that justifies such a
redistributive move? The present paper tries to examine this question by identifying seven
fallacies that are commonly made by advocates of such a transition.},
author = {Friedrich Breyer},
copyright = {http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen},
keywords = {H55; 330; Social security; transition to funding; Pareto improvement; policy proposals; Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung; Kapitaldeckungsverfahren; Pareto-Optimum; Kritik; Theorie},
language = {eng},
number = {328},
title = {Why Funding is not a Solution to the "Social Security Crisis"},
type = {IZA Discussion paper series},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10419/21185},
year = {2001}
}
