2006年-世界发展银行全球_Civil-service_Pension_Schemes_Around_the_World_88页_930kb

Civil-Service Pension Schemes Around the World: Summary

Core Content

This paper provides an analysis of civil-service pension schemes globally, highlighting their design, fiscal implications, and policy considerations. It emphasizes that while civil-service pension schemes are relatively common, especially in developing countries, they are often more generous and less funded compared to national pension schemes. The authors argue that maintaining parallel schemes is generally not justified due to the high fiscal burden and the potential for integration.

Main Findings

• Global Prevalence: About half of the world’s countries have separate civil-service pension schemes, including major developing economies such as Brazil, China, and India.
• Fiscal Impact: Civil-service pensions account for a significant portion of total pension spending in higher-income OECD countries (about 25%), but the proportion is often higher in less developed countries due to limited tax bases.
• Generosity and Funding: Civil-service schemes typically offer more generous benefits, including higher replacement rates and better indexation provisions, but they are often underfunded with lower funding ratios and higher per member liabilities.
• Fiscal Burden: In many developing countries, civil-service pensions have become a major fiscal burden, threatening to crowd out other public programs.
• Dualism and Integration: The paper argues that maintaining separate civil-service pension schemes is not justified in the long run, as the costs of dualism generally outweigh the benefits, especially in countries with small populations or limited pension coverage.
• Obstacles to Integration: Administrative complexity, fiscal implications, and political economy factors hinder the integration of civil-service and national pension schemes.

Key Design Features

Institutional Arrangements

• Separate vs. Integrated: Over half of the 158 countries studied have separate civil-service pension schemes. Integration is more common in Latin America and Eastern Europe.
• Regional Variations:
  • South Asia and Africa: Many countries have separate schemes, often inherited from colonial systems.
  • Middle East/North Africa: Some countries have integrated systems, but not all.
  • OECD Countries: Most have integrated systems, with some having top-up arrangements.

Eligibility Criteria

• Retirement Age: Civil servants often have lower or the same retirement age as the general population. In some countries, such as Mexico and Iran, retirement age is not strictly tied to age but to years of service.
• Length of Service: Most countries require 15–30 years of service for eligibility, with some requiring less (e.g., 10–20 years). In a few countries, such as the Maldives, individuals can receive multiple pensions upon meeting service conditions.
• Gender Differences: Some countries have different retirement ages for men and women, and the years of service required may vary.

Replacement Rates and Indexation

• Replacement Rates: Civil-service schemes generally offer higher replacement rates (75–100%) than national schemes (typically 50–80%).
• Indexation: Civil-service pensions are often indexed to wages or earnings, whereas national schemes are usually indexed to prices. This makes civil-service pensions more favorable in real terms if wages rise over time.
• DB vs. DC Schemes: Defined-benefit (DB) schemes are more common for civil servants, with some countries having defined-contribution (DC) top-up arrangements.

Policy Issues

• Fiscal Impact: Civil-service pensions can be a significant fiscal burden, especially in low-income countries.
• Labor Market Effects: These schemes may affect labor mobility and job flexibility, as they often restrict movement between sectors.
• Dualism: The existence of parallel systems is often not justified, as integration can reduce costs and improve efficiency.
• Portability and Preservation: Pension rights are often not portable across sectors or jobs, limiting job mobility and creating inequities.

Conclusion

• The authors conclude that civil-service pension schemes are often more generous and less funded than national schemes.
• Integration is generally more efficient and sustainable, but obstacles such as administrative complexity and political resistance must be addressed.
• The paper recommends moving towards integrated systems, especially for countries with small populations and limited pension coverage.

Key Tables and Figures

• Table 1: Compares retirement age and service criteria for civil-service and national schemes.
• Table 2: Shows accrual rates and maximum replacement rates for civil-service and national schemes.
• Table 3: Details indexation procedures for civil-service pensions.
• Table 4: Compares DB civil-service and national schemes in non-OECD countries.
• Table 5: Highlights central government employment trends.
• Table 6: Shows the implicit pension debt for civil-service and national schemes.
• Table 7: Lists recent reforms in OECD countries.
• Table 8: Reviews parametric reforms for both civil-service and national schemes.
• Table 9: Indicates vesting periods for civil-service schemes.
• Table 10: Compares portability and preservation of pension rights.
• Table 11: Reviews integration of civil-service pension schemes.
• Table 12: Explains the structure of state pension schemes in the US.
• Figures: Include regional institutional arrangements, pension cost comparisons, and age distribution of pensioners.

Policy Recommendations

• Promote integration of civil-service and national pension schemes.
• Address the administrative and fiscal challenges of integration.
• Consider the impact of civil-service pensions on labor mobility and public finances.
• Evaluate the long-term sustainability of separate schemes, particularly in low-income and small-population countries.