Pensions Fulfilling Promises the Economist
description
Transcript of Pensions Fulfilling Promises the Economist
1/3www.economist.com/node/21560274?fsrc=scn/tw/te/rfd/pe
Digital & mobile Events Topics A-Z Newsletters Jobs
SearchThursday August 9th 2012
Register SubscribeLog in
World politics Business & finance Economics Science & technology Culture Blogs Debate The World in 2012 Multimedia Print edition
In this section
»Fulfilling promises
Going quietly
Reprints
Aug 11th 2012 | HEIJINGYING | from the print edition
Pensions
Fulfilling promises
China is beginning to face up to its pension problems
IN THIS village in the cornfields outside Beijing, a 74-year-old woman whiles away the
time in the forecourt of a local eatery, chatting to the owner stacking chairs around her.
She can enjoy an unhurried retirement thanks to the money her daughter sends, the
monthly pension her husband collects from his former employer, and, in the past few
years, a small pension, now worth 275 yuan ($44) a month, from the Beijing municipal
government.
Public pensions are fairly new to China’s
countryside. Security in old age used to
mean the family farming plot, not a pension
pot. But by the end of last year 326m rural
residents had been enrolled in a public
pension, according to the Ministry of
Human Resources and Social Security. That
is an increase of over 240m since 2009,
when China rolled out a new rural
programme, based on pilot schemes in
places like Heijingying. This wave of rural
Chinese joins nearly 300m city dwellers
enrolled in a variety of urban pensions. Add
them all up, and China’s social-security
system is now “basically” in place, the
National Audit Office (NAO) has just said.
That is just as well, because the system will soon have a lot
to cope with. The number of Chinese aged 60 or more is
projected to grow from 181m today to almost 390m in 2035,
almost a quarter of the world’s total. And only two working-
age Chinese will support every person in retirement. China is
turning Japanese (see chart).
Like TweetTweet 0
Most commented Most recommended
Advertisement
1. The South China Sea: Troubled waters
2. The euro: The flight from Spain
3. Conscientious consumption and culture war:Feathers flying
4. Higher education: The college-cost calamity
5. Education in Romania: Do Romanian schoolsproduce idiots?
6. Standard Chartered and Iran: Banking for thebad guys
7. America and Europe: Virility symbols
8. Charlemagne: Une rentrée chaude
9. Mitt Romney abroad: Gaffes and choices
10. Japan and the atom: Nuclearphobia
Over the past five days
Advertisement
Be the first to comment Print
E-mail Reprints & permissions
Recent Activity
Login You need to be logged into Facebook to see
your friends' recent activity.
Feathers flying
550 people recommend this.
The college-cost calamity
1,408 people recommend this.
Does the Romanian school produce idiots?
3,258 people recommend this.
Communism still rules
1,206 people recommend this.
Facebook soc ial plugin
2/3www.economist.com/node/21560274?fsrc=scn/tw/te/rfd/pe
Pensions can rest on a variety of “pillars”, among them government handouts, schemes
financed by mandatory contributions, and voluntary arrangements. China’s pillars are all
of different heights, and some are wobbly.
In the countryside local governments pay a basic
pension which varies greatly depending on their
financial health. Personal accounts supplement this,
into which individuals may put money over their
working lives, encouraged by matching contributions
from the state. In the cities the main system
combines social insurance, paid for by payroll taxes,
with individual accounts, into which workers must
pay 8% of their earnings.
But a kind of apartheid is at work, distinguishing urbanites from country folk, and locals
from migrants. Ma Wanzhi, who now lives in Heijingying, enrolled in a scheme through her
employer, a factory making the incense sticks for temples. Her 61-year-old sister, on the
other hand, still lives in the neighbouring province of Hebei, where she collects a meagre
pension of 80 yuan a month. She supplements her income by travelling to Heijingying to
sell peaches by the roadside.
Like these women, many of China’s workers are highly mobile. Yet China’s pensions are
not. In principle, workers may take their individual contributions with them if they move,
as well as 60% of their employer’s. In practice, the system struggles to keep track of
the money. Only a quarter of migrant workers in the cities were covered by pensions in
2010, compared with four-fifths of locals, according to Albert Park of the Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology.
Another problem: the government envisages urban workers retiring on nearly 60% of
their final wage. But that assumes their contributions earn high rates of return, keeping
up with wage growth. In fact, most of the system’s assets languish in bank deposits or
government bonds, where they barely keep up with inflation.
And that is not the worst of it. A lot of individual accounts hold no assets at all.
According to Zheng Bingwen of the Centre for International Social Security Studies at
the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, individual accounts held assets worth only 270
billion yuan at the end of 2011, even though 2.5 trillion yuan had been paid into them.
Local authorities had collected the remainder and diverted it to other, more pressing
ends. These include building stadiums, buying cars and outright fraud. The NAO identified
132 cases of malpractice in the 18 funds it investigated. Last month the former director
of a social-security fund in Gansu province was sentenced to death for embezzling 28m
yuan over a decade.
Embezzlement is to blame for only a small fraction of the money emptied from individual
accounts. Most of it goes to pay today’s pensions, including to workers who were made
to retire in their 40s from state-owned enterprises anxious to shed staff during the
1990s. Their legacy weighs heavily on China’s rustbelt provinces in the north-east.
Liaoning, for example, needed to impose a payroll tax of about 30% to meet its pension
obligations, says Stuart Leckie of Stirling Finance. By contrast, Shenzhen, a southern
city full of sunrise industries, got away with a 13% rate until recently.
These pressures have turned the “pre-funded” part of China’s pension system into a de
facto “pay-as-you-go” system, where today’s payroll taxes pay for today’s pensioners.
Some economists, including Peter Diamond, a Nobel prizewinner from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, think China should make its peace with this fact. It could
emulate Sweden, Italy and Poland by converting its empty accounts into “notional”
accounts.
Under this system, individuals contribute to personal accounts, just as they would in a
pre-funded scheme. But rather than relying on the financial markets to turn contributions
into fatter pension benefits, notional schemes work on an actuarial formula that takes
account of how well the economy has done and how long someone is expected to live.
And rather than pay benefits out of a pot of past contributions, notional accounts
remain empty, leaving pensions to be financed from current taxes, sometimes
supplemented by a central trust fund.
Even if China’s pension contributions were zealously guarded, they would fall short of the
amounts required. In a recent simulation, Zheng Song of the University of Chicago,
Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Daily chart Olympics: When last would have beenfirstFrom Graphic detail - 31 mins ago
The two Sudans: A deal that is only half doneFrom Baobab - 54 mins ago
Financial reform in India: From theory to practiceFrom Banyan - 56 mins ago
Infrastructure: Coming apart at the seamsFrom Democracy in America - 1 hour 25 mins ago
The BBC's new boss: All change at the BeebFrom Leviathan - 1 hour 27 mins ago
Syria's civil war: On the ground in IdlebFrom Newsbook - 1 hour 32 mins ago
Extremism in Europe: The rise of the radicalsFrom Newsbook - 1 hour 35 mins ago
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Get e-mail newsletters
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail
newsletters and alerts.
Follow The Economist on Twitter
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article
postings on Twitter
Follow The Economist on Facebook
See a selection of The Economist's articles,
events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
3/3www.economist.com/node/21560274?fsrc=scn/tw/te/rfd/pe
Chief ExecutiveOfficer
Jobs.economist.com
Director, FinanceDepartment
Jobs.economist.com
Solutions Architect/ Integration M…
Jobs.economist.com
EducationSpecialist
Jobs.economist.com
About The Economist Media directory Advertising info Staff books Career opportunities Subscribe Contact us Site index [+] Site Feedback
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2012. All rights reserved. Accessibility Privacy policy Cookies info Terms of use Help
Classified ads
from the print edition | China
Recommend
Submitto reddit
Be the first to comment
Fabrizio Zilibotti of the University of Zurich and two colleagues show that pensions need
to be cut by over 35% to bring contributions and payouts into line over the long run.
However, they advocate delaying such a cut for 30-odd years. That would benefit
people who retire before 2040 at the expense of future generations. The move, the
authors argue, can be justified because China’s future generations will be much richer
than today’s. Someone who started work in 2000 (and will therefore retire after 2040)
will be six times better off than someone who started work in 1970 (and is therefore due
to retire soon). In future China will have many fewer workers for each person in
retirement, yet also much more output per worker.
Rather than cut benefits, China could instead raise the retirement age, by perhaps five
years. In the cities men now retire at 60, white-collar women retire at 55, and blue-
collar women retire as early as 50. The system would be far more sustainable if the
retirement age rose to about 65.
Moreover, if China’s elderly wanted to carry on working past the notional retirement age,
its social-security system should allow them to do so. In the countryside people can
collect their pension whether or not they continue working. That is sensible, because it
reflects rural practicalities. A farmer, after all, wants to continue to work on his field. As
Ms Ma, the peach seller’s sister, says: “In the countryside, people don’t use the word
‘retirement’.”
Want more? Subscribe to The Economist and get the week's most relevantnews and analysis.
TweetTweet 0 ShareShare 0Like