It is almost an optical illusion: looming on Japan's horizon, and on Europe's and on the United States', is a pensions crisis. The problem is real, though exaggerated. The illusion is in some of the plans being devised to deal with it.
The main question is whether privatizing pension systems, as President George W. Bush has proposed for Social Security in the US, would solve the problem or merely make matters worse. With many countries pondering whether to adopt variants of the Bush plan, the question requires careful examination.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
By itself, privatization is clearly not the solution. The US' troubled private pension system -- now several hundred billion dollars in debt -- already appears headed for a government bailout. There was a time when privatization ? allowing individuals to set up individual savings accounts -- seemed better than Social Security, which invests in lower-yielding Treasury bills. Advocates of privatization argued that funds would do much better if invested in stocks, predicting a return of 9 percent.
But the stock market does not guarantee returns; it does not even guarantee that the stock values will keep up with inflation -- and there have been periods in which they have not. The US' Social Security system insulates individuals against the vagaries of the market and inflation, providing a form of insurance that the private market does not offer.
It does so with remarkable efficiency. The costs of managing the Social Security system are far smaller than those likely to be associated with privatized accounts. This is understandable: private investment firms spend an enormous amount on marketing and salaries.
It is possible that to reduce these transactions costs, Bush will propose restricting choice, which was the main argument for privatization in the first place. But these limited kinds of choices -- for example, a T-bill fund with 90 percent in T-bills and 10 percent in an indexed stock fund -- could easily be introduced into the public social security system.
Bush says that reform is urgently needed, because the system will be insolvent in about a quarter-century. But the problem depends on the US growth rate: if the growth rates of the late 1990s return, there is no problem. Even if there is a problem, it can easily be fixed; spending a fraction of the money that went into Bush's two tax cuts would have fixed Social Security for 75 years; slight benefit cuts, adjusting the age of retirement, or minor adjustments in the level of contributions could fix the system permanently.
Moreover, Bush's proposals won't fix social security -- unless they are accompanied by drastic benefit cuts. For how could they? He proposes diverting almost a third of the Social Security tax to private accounts. That means less money coming in. If benefits are not reduced, the gap between receipts and expenditures will increase. One doesn't need a Nobel Prize to figure that out.
So privatization would not protect retirees against the Social Security system's insolvency; it would merely add enormously to today's fiscal deficit, because partial privatization entails diverting money to private funds that would have been used to close the gap between government expenditures and revenue.
The anticipated increase in the fiscal deficit is striking: the central plan discussed by Bush's Council of Economic Advisers would -- according to the Council's own estimates -- increase the US fiscal deficit by US$2 trillion over the next decade. Advocates of privatization claim to believe in markets, but they are proposing budget gimmickry that would move those losses off the books, as if markets could be easily fooled.
The US and the world should remember: Argentina's privatization of its pension system was at the center of its recent fiscal woes. Had Argentina not privatized, its budget would have been roughly in balance. The US is starting on its privatization venture with a fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP.?
Privatization advocates insist, however, that investments in stocks would yield sufficiently higher returns to provide individuals the same retirement income as before, with the surplus used to fill the gap. But if markets are working well, then returns will be higher only because risk is higher. There is still no free lunch in economics.
With higher risk, there is a chance that, 40 years from now, many individuals will find themselves with less than they need to retire. But if one really thinks that free lunches exist, there is still no reason to privatize: government could get the additional returns by investing in the stock market itself. Indeed, President Clinton proposed doing just that.
With increased transaction costs, worsening solvency for the system, increased budget deficits, and decreasing benefits and security for retirees, why the drive for privatization? One reason is the interest financial markets have in grabbing a piece of all those transactions costs. A second is the Bush administration's ideological hostility to the modest amount of wealth redistribution implied by the public system. The US Social Security program has been so successful in reducing poverty because the poor get back a little more than they contribute, and the rich get back a little less.
Even with Social Security's mildly redistributive effect, poverty and inequality in the US are increasing. Privatization will only make matters worse.
Bush has tried to scare the US about the magnitude of the problem, and he has tried to fool the US about how privatization would solve it. The Social Security deficit pales by comparison with the deficits created by Bush's huge tax cuts for upper-income Americans or in comparison with the deficit in Medicare, which provides health care for the aged. Why has he ignored these problems? Is there another agenda?
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to president Bill Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations