IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v15y2016i03p285-310_00.html

Lessons for public pensions from Utah's move to pension choice

Author

Listed:
  • CLARK, ROBERT L.
  • HANSON, EMMA
  • MITCHELL, OLIVIA S.

Abstract

We explore what happened when the state of Utah moved away from its traditional defined benefit pension. In its place, it offered new hires a choice between a conventional defined contribution plan and a hybrid plan option, where the latter has both a guaranteed benefit component and a defined contribution plan where employees bear investment risk. We show that around 60% of new hires failed to make any active choice and, as a result, were automatically defaulted into the hybrid plan. Slightly more than half of those who made an active choice elected the hybrid plan. Post-reform, employees who failed to actively elect a primary retirement plan were also far less likely to enroll in a supplemental retirement account, compared with new hires who actively selected a plan. We also find that employees hired following the reform were more likely to leave public employment, resulting in higher separation rates. This could reflect a reduction in the desirability of public employment under the new pension design and an improving economic climate in the state. Our results imply that public pension reformers must consider employee responses in addition to potential cost savings, when developing and enacting major pension plan changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Clark, Robert L. & Hanson, Emma & Mitchell, Olivia S., 2016. "Lessons for public pensions from Utah's move to pension choice," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 285-310, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:15:y:2016:i:03:p:285-310_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474747215000426/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Levy & Avichai Snir, 2022. "Potterian economics," Oxford Open Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1, pages 1-32.
    2. Christopher Clark & Brooke Conaway & Jessie Folk & Justin Roush, 2021. "Teaching Economics in Three Acts," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 5(3), pages 116-130, March.
    3. Kim, Dongwoo & Koedel, Cory & Xiang, P. Brett, 2021. "The trade-off between pension costs and salary expenditures in the public sector," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 151-168, January.
    4. María del Carmen Valls Martínez & José Manuel Santos-Jaén & Fahim-ul Amin & Pedro Antonio Martín-Cervantes, 2021. "Pensions, Ageing and Social Security Research: Literature Review and Global Trends," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Laura D. Quinby, 2020. "Do Deferred Retirement Benefits Retain Government Employees?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 469-509, March.
    6. Quinby, Laura D. & Wettstein, Gal, 2021. "Do deferred benefit cuts for current employees increase separation?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • H75 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Government: Health, Education, and Welfare
    • J26 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Retirement; Retirement Policies
    • J38 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Public Policy

    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:cup:jpenef:v:15:y:2016:i:03:p:285-310_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    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.