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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath