IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v25y2009i2p237-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Europeans' preferences for pension provision

Author

Listed:
  • van Groezen, Bas
  • Kiiver, Hannah
  • Unger, Brigitte

Abstract

This paper analyses which factors are most important for explaining why people in fifteen European countries prefer either public, occupational or private pension provision. We make a distinction between personal characteristics such as age, gender and occupation, nationality and the actual, current kind of pension provision that respondents have. Using a large European survey, we find that although all three types of variables are important, the current pension provision and nation-specific effects have a much stronger effect than personal characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • van Groezen, Bas & Kiiver, Hannah & Unger, Brigitte, 2009. "Explaining Europeans' preferences for pension provision," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 237-246, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:237-246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176-2680(08)00097-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Browning, Edgar K, 1975. "Why the Social Insurance Budget Is Too Large in a Democracy," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(3), pages 373-388, September.
    2. Wang, Lu & Davis, Otto A, 2003. "Freedom and Other Variables in the Choice of Public Pension Systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 361-385, March.
    3. Galasso, Vincenzo & Profeta, Paola, 2002. "The political economy of social security: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Tito Boeri & Axel Boersch-Supan & Guido Tabellini, 2002. "Pension Reforms and the Opinions of European Citizens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 396-401, May.
    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. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    2. Vermeer, Niels & Mastrogiacomo, Mauro & Van Soest, Arthur, 2016. "Demanding occupations and the retirement age," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 159-170.
    3. David Hollanders & Barbara Vis, 2013. "Voters’ commitment problem and reforms in welfare programs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 433-448, June.
    4. Hollanders, D.A. & Vis, B., 2009. "Voters' Commitment Problem and Welfare-Program Reforms," Discussion Paper 2009-93, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. de Bresser, J.R., 2013. "Between goals and expectations : Essays on pensions and retirement," Other publications TiSEM 4a23d569-88cd-40fa-aa23-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Peeters, Marga, 2011. "“Better Safe than Sorry” - Individual Risk-free Pension Schemes in the European Union - Macroeconomic Benefits, the Mobile Working Citizen’s Perspective and Why Nots," MPRA Paper 33571, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2014. "Winners and Losers in Transition: Preferences for Redistribution and Nostalgia for Communism in Eastern Europe," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 447-461, August.
    8. Marga Peeters, 2012. "Better Safe than Sorry - Individual Risk-free Pension Schemes in the European Union," Contemporary Economics, University of Finance and Management in Warsaw, vol. 6(3), September.
    9. Jochem Bresser & Arthur Soest, 2015. "Retirement Expectations and Satisfaction with Retirement Provisions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 61(1), pages 119-139, March.

    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:eee:poleco:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:237-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.