Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/21185 
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBreyer, Friedrichen
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-28T16:20:11Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-28T16:20:11Z-
dc.date.issued2001-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/21185-
dc.description.abstractIt is now a commonplace that the unfunded public pension systems of many OECD countrieswill run into severe financing problems in the coming decades due to a dramaticallyincreasing pensioner/worker ratio. While this diagnosis is completely undisputed, there is stilla vigorous debate on the appropriate therapy. In this debate, a number of proposals havebeen 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 Paretoimprovement, it is necessary to ask what can be the policy target that justifies such aredistributive move? The present paper tries to examine this question by identifying sevenfallacies that are commonly made by advocates of such a transition.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisher|aInstitute for the Study of Labor (IZA) |cBonnen
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aIZA Discussion Papers |x328en
dc.subject.jelH55en
dc.subject.ddc330en
dc.subject.keywordSocial securityen
dc.subject.keywordtransition to fundingen
dc.subject.keywordPareto improvementen
dc.subject.keywordpolicy proposalsen
dc.subject.stwGesetzliche Rentenversicherungen
dc.subject.stwKapitaldeckungsverfahrenen
dc.subject.stwPareto-Optimumen
dc.subject.stwKritiken
dc.subject.stwTheorieen
dc.titleWhy Funding is not a Solution to the "Social Security Crisis"-
dc.typeWorking Paperen
dc.identifier.ppn843985860en
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen

Files in This Item:
File
Size
98.74 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.