IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problemi e potenzialità della riforma pensionistica del 1995 in un confronto tra modelli previdenziali stilizzati


  • Giuseppe Vitaletti


Problemi e potenzialità della riforma pensionistica del 1995 in un confronto tra modelli previdenziali stilizzati (di Giuseppe Vitaletti) - ABSTRACT: The debate over the characteristics of the social security system in Italy revolves around four basic models: a) the contribution defined fully funded scheme, which has oriented the outset of government’s intervention on the pension front in the first half of the twentieth century; b) the benefit defined pay-as-you-go scheme, which has dominated in the second half of the century; c) the contribution defined pay-as-you-go scheme, which was introduced by the 1995 reform to be fully operative after some decades in the new century, and which constitutes a typology adopted for the first time in the world; d) the benefit defined fully funded scheme, which has been recently proposed authoritatively in a fascinating way to change the national social security more incisively than it has been done in 1995. In the paper the four models are set forth in a stylized manner, by first framing the basic distinction between the fully funded and the pay-as-you-go typologies and by considering the two possibilities (the contribution defined method and the benefit defined one) to run both of them. They are then confronted and evaluated especially with regard to three profiles: 1) the advantages (comprehensive of riskiness) that workers perceive by confronting the returns they would receive from the same payments made either to the government or to private insurance companies; 2) the degree of ridistribution among incomes which is possible to pursue in each scheme; 3) the comparative capability to stabilize expenditures, with the aim of impeding that the ratio of social security outlays over GDP becomes excessive. It is shown that the great confidence in obtaining simultaneously the three targets at a high level, improving the situation very much with respect to the pre-1995 system, is not well founded whatever perspective is adopted: either that of the supporters of the 1995 reform or that of the advocates of a benefit defined fully funded scheme. Finally it is concluded that the best solution is perhaps a compromise between the two possible configurations of pay-as-you-go, on one side by maintaining and fostering some aspects of the 1995 reform, on the other side by reintroducing some characteristics of the pre-1995 model in a new operating fashion.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Vitaletti, 2000. "Problemi e potenzialità della riforma pensionistica del 1995 in un confronto tra modelli previdenziali stilizzati," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2000(4).
  • Handle: RePEc:fan:epepep:v:html10.3280/ep2000-004001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info:

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Roberto Perotti, 2012. "The "Austerity Myth": Gain without Pain?," NBER Chapters,in: Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, pages 307-354 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Roberto Perotti, 2012. "The Effects of Tax Shocks on Output: Not So Large, but Not Small Either," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 214-237, May.
    3. Carlo Cottarelli & Laura Jaramillo, 2013. "Walking Hand in Hand: Fiscal Policy and Growth in Advanced Economies," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 4(2).
    4. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Lars P. Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2014. "Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization and Economic Growth: Survey and Meta-Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4985, CESifo Group Munich.
    5. Dixit Avinash K, 2010. "Democracy, Autocracy and Bureaucracy," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-47, January.
    6. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    7. Christina D. Romer & David H. Romer, 2010. "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 763-801, June.
    8. Roberto Perotti, 2011. "The "Austerity Myth": Gain without Pain?," Working Papers 430, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    9. Perotti, Roberto, 2011. "The "Austerity Myth": Gain without Pain?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8658, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Timothy Besley, 2007. "The New Political Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(524), pages 570-587, November.
    11. Roberto Perotti, 2011. "The "Austerity myth": Gain Without Pain?," BIS Working Papers 362, Bank for International Settlements.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Spataro, Luca, 2005. "Social security incentives and retirement decisions in Italy: An empirical insight," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 223-256, September.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:fan:epepep:v:html10.3280/ep2000-004001. 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: (Angelo Ventriglia). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.