Public pension reform and the 49th parallel: Lessons from Canada for the U.S.

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Pub Date : 2020-09-24 DOI:10.1111/fmii.12133
Clive Lipshitz, Ingo Walter
{"title":"Public pension reform and the 49th parallel: Lessons from Canada for the U.S.","authors":"Clive Lipshitz,&nbsp;Ingo Walter","doi":"10.1111/fmii.12133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Public employee pension systems around the world show remarkable diversity in design and execution. Among these, the U.S. defined benefit public pension system has drawn increased attention because of questions about the long-term sustainability of many of the underlying pension funds – as well as concerns of equity between pension plan members, retirees, taxpayers, bondholders, and users of public services. The Covid-19 pandemic introduced new fissures in state and local government finances, heightening the need to bolster long-term public pension fund robustness. As an alternative model, the Canadian public pension system is widely respected. This was not foreordained. The authors trace difficult decisions undertaken in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s along with essential descriptive features of the Canadian Model. Using a novel primary dataset, the authors benchmark the 25 largest U.S. plans against their ten largest Canadian peers, exploring key issues in a paired analysis. The authors extract fundamental lessons from the Canadian experience, proposing a roadmap for reform of the U.S. public pension system. They argue that long-term pension sustainability, once politically prioritized, must be built on equity and discipline in plan design, funding, and amortization of existing deficits. They emphasize the importance of legal framework, particularly joint sponsorship, alongside enhanced governance and unified legislation. They also draw lessons from the Canadian experience with respect to enhanced investment organizations and investment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":39670,"journal":{"name":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","volume":"29 4","pages":"121-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/fmii.12133","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Public employee pension systems around the world show remarkable diversity in design and execution. Among these, the U.S. defined benefit public pension system has drawn increased attention because of questions about the long-term sustainability of many of the underlying pension funds – as well as concerns of equity between pension plan members, retirees, taxpayers, bondholders, and users of public services. The Covid-19 pandemic introduced new fissures in state and local government finances, heightening the need to bolster long-term public pension fund robustness. As an alternative model, the Canadian public pension system is widely respected. This was not foreordained. The authors trace difficult decisions undertaken in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s along with essential descriptive features of the Canadian Model. Using a novel primary dataset, the authors benchmark the 25 largest U.S. plans against their ten largest Canadian peers, exploring key issues in a paired analysis. The authors extract fundamental lessons from the Canadian experience, proposing a roadmap for reform of the U.S. public pension system. They argue that long-term pension sustainability, once politically prioritized, must be built on equity and discipline in plan design, funding, and amortization of existing deficits. They emphasize the importance of legal framework, particularly joint sponsorship, alongside enhanced governance and unified legislation. They also draw lessons from the Canadian experience with respect to enhanced investment organizations and investment strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共养老金改革与第49条平行线:加拿大对美国的启示
世界各地的公务员养老金制度在设计和执行方面表现出显著的多样性。其中,美国的固定收益公共养老金制度引起了越来越多的关注,因为许多潜在养老基金的长期可持续性问题,以及养老金计划成员、退休人员、纳税人、债券持有人和公共服务使用者之间的公平问题。2019冠状病毒病大流行给州和地方政府财政带来了新的裂痕,凸显了加强公共养老基金长期稳健性的必要性。作为另一种模式,加拿大的公共养老金制度受到广泛尊重。这不是命中注定的。作者追溯了加拿大在20世纪80年代和90年代所做的艰难决定以及加拿大模式的基本描述特征。作者使用一个新颖的原始数据集,将美国25个最大的计划与加拿大10个最大的计划进行比较,在配对分析中探索关键问题。作者从加拿大的经验中提取了基本教训,为美国公共养老金体系的改革提出了路线图。他们认为,长期养老金的可持续性,一旦在政治上得到优先考虑,就必须建立在计划设计、资金筹措和现有赤字摊销方面的公平和纪律的基础上。他们强调法律框架的重要性,特别是联合赞助,以及加强治理和统一立法。它们还从加拿大在加强投资组织和投资战略方面的经验中吸取教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments bridges the gap between the academic and professional finance communities. With contributions from leading academics, as well as practitioners from organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, the journal is equally relevant to both groups. Each issue is devoted to a single topic, which is examined in depth, and a special fifth issue is published annually highlighting the most significant developments in money and banking, derivative securities, corporate finance, and fixed-income securities.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Do banks adjust their capital when they face liquidity shortages? Evidence from U.S. commercial banks Piercing through the haze: Did PPP increase versus decrease bank efficiency? Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1