A Comparative Typology of Pension Regimes

Abstract

This report presents an empirical typology of pension regimes in the
\nEuropean Union, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. The categorisation is
\nbased on 34 quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the mandatory parts
\nof the pension systems in these countries. The empirical analysis shows that
\nEsping-Andersen's classical distinction between liberal, corporatist and
\nsocial-democratic welfare regime types does not entirely hold in the case of
\npension systems.
\nThe empirical traits of the various pension systems can be summarised on two
\nmain dimensions: the general level of pension provision and the existence of
\nprivate schemes within the mandatory part of the pension system.
\nOn these dimensions four clusters of countries, or pension regime types, have
\nbeen identified empirically. Two of those are as one would theoretically
\nexpect: the corporatist group has rather high earnings-related pension
\nbenefits, while the liberal pension regime type provides a more basic,
\nmeans-tested pension. However, two other clusters are not in line with the
\nstandard
\nclassification of welfare regimes. In the 'moderate pensions' cluster, the
\nlevel of pension provision is lower than in the corporatist countries, but it
\nsurpasses the standards attained by countries with a liberal pension regime. In
\ncountries belonging to the 'mandatory private' cluster, the government obliges
\nemployees to participate in private pension schemes, which are
\ngenerally funded and based on defined contributions. The pension level in this
\ngroup is moderate or high.
\n
\nENEPRI
\n This is not a publication of the Institute of Social Research of the
\nNetherlands - SCP, but is published by European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.