IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cii/cepidt/2003-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Notional Defined Contribution : a Comparison of the French and the German Point Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Florence Legros

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Florence Legros, 2003. "Notional Defined Contribution : a Comparison of the French and the German Point Systems," Working Papers 2003-14, CEPII research center.
    • Handle: RePEc:cii:cepidt:2003-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2003/wp2003-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kai A. Konrad & Gert Wagner, 2000. "Reform of the Public Pension System in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 200, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    4. Valkonen, Tarmo, 2002. "Demographic Uncertainty and Taxes," Discussion Papers 816, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Queisser, Monika, 1996. "Pensions in Germany," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1664, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan J. Auerbach & Ronald Lee, 2009. "Notional Defined Contribution Pension Systems in a Stochastic Context: Design and Stability," NBER Chapters, in: Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, pages 43-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sergey Belozyorov & Zhanna Pisarenko, 2015. "Pension Reforms in Countries with Developed and Transitional Economies," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 158-169.
    3. Mazzaferro, Carlo & Morciano, Marcello & Savegnago, Marco, 2012. "Differential mortality and redistribution in the Italian notional defined contribution system," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 500-530, October.
    4. András Simonovits, 2006. "Optimal Design of Pension Rule with Flexible Retirement: The Two-Type Case," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 197-222, December.
    5. Auerbach, Alan J. & Lee, Ronald, 2011. "Welfare and generational equity in sustainable unfunded pension systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 16-27, February.
    6. Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2003. "What are NDC Pension Systems? What Do They Bring to Reform Strategies?," MEA discussion paper series 03042, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    2. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Marie-Louise Leroux & Gregory Ponthiere, 2009. "Optimal tax policy and expected longevity: a mean and variance utility approach," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 16(4), pages 514-537, August.
    5. Chi, Yichun & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2022. "Regret-based optimal insurance design," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 22-41.
    6. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    7. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    8. Alessandra Cillo & Marco Bonetti & Giovanni Burro & Clelia Di Serio & Roberta De Filippis & Riccardo Maria Martoni, 2019. "Neurocognitive assessment in obsessive compulsive disorder patients: Adherence to behavioral decision models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6478 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    11. George E. Newman & Daniel Mochon, 2012. "Why are lotteries valued less? Multiple tests of a direct risk-aversion mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 19-24, January.
    12. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Xi Zhi Lim, 2021. "Ordered Reference Dependent Choice," Papers 2105.12915, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    14. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2022. "Source and Rank-dependent Utility," Post-Print hal-03924295, HAL.
    16. Valeri Zakamouline & Steen Koekebakker, 2009. "A Generalisation of the Mean†Variance Analysis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 15(5), pages 934-970, November.
    17. Joshua Huang & Teresa Serra & Philip Garcia, 2021. "The Value of USDA Announcements in the Electronically Traded Corn Futures Market: A Modified Sufficient Test with Risk Adjustments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 712-734, September.
    18. Berg, Nathan & Prakhya, Srinivas & Ranganathan, Kavitha, 2018. "A satisficing approach to eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 127-140.
    19. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    20. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    21. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 2011. "Disappointment Models: an axiomatic approach," Post-Print halshs-00560543, HAL.
    22. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pensions; Labor market; International comparison; Demoeconomics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J26 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Retirement; Retirement Policies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cii:cepidt:2003-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepiifr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.