IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/recofi/ecofi_0987-3368_1997_num_40_2_2314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Que reste-t-il du débat répartition-capitalisation ?

Author

Listed:
  • Didier Blanchet
  • Bertrand Villeneuve

Abstract

[eng] What is left from the debate on state retirement pensions compared to contributory pension schemes ? . Over the last couple of years, the debate on state retirement pensions compared to contributory pension schemes has been an issue of major concern in the field of retirement matters. It is beforehand related to an original demographic evidence : which is the exact nature of constraints that demography exerts on retirement benefits ? . Are contributory pension schemes a good or a bad answer to these constraints ? Which could eventually be the economic advantages of such a development ? About these questions, it would seem that there is a relative common view that contributory pension schemes will not work wonders, but are one of the possible means of preventing next century demographic and economic uncertainties. Under these conditions, debate has shifted to the issue of how to implement contributory pension schemes, and mainly how to reach a balance between players' control and players' freedom, both on the side of the system's recipients and on that of the system's managers. This question is considered on three major issues : individual and collective sharing, means and ways of contributory pension cashing and manager's status. [fre] Le débat répartition-capitalisation a été au centre des réflexions sur la retraite au cours des dernières années, et cet article retrace quelques-uns de ses aspects les plus marquants. Il revient d'abord sur le constat démographique initial : quelle est la nature exacte des contraintes que la démographie fait peser sur les retraites, et le développement de la capitalisation est-il une bonne ou mauvaise réponse à ces contraintes ? Quels seraient par ailleurs les avantages économiques de ce développement ? Sur toutes ces questions, il semble qu'on ait convergé vers une position moyenne selon laquelle la capitalisation n'est en rien une panacée mais constitue un moyen parmi d'autres de se prémunir contre les incertitudes démographiques et économiques du siècle prochain. . Dans ces conditions, le débat a basculé vers la question des modalités de mise en place de cette capitalisation, et notamment du dosage à trouver entre contrôle et liberté des acteurs, aussi bien du côté des bénéficiaires que des gestionnaires du système. On examine cet arbitrage à propos de trois grandes questions : celle du partage individuel/collectif, celle des modalités de liquidation des retraites capitalisées, celle du statut des gestionnaires.

Suggested Citation

  • Didier Blanchet & Bertrand Villeneuve, 1997. "Que reste-t-il du débat répartition-capitalisation ?," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 40(2), pages 157-174.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:recofi:ecofi_0987-3368_1997_num_40_2_2314
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecofi.1997.2314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecofi.1997.2314
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecofi_0987-3368_1997_num_40_2_2314
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Henri Sterdyniak & Gaël Dupont & Alexis Dantec, 1999. "Les retraites en France : que faire ?," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 68(1), pages 19-81.
    2. Arnaud Lechevalier, 2000. "L’épargne retraite en France : état des lieux et finalités d’une réforme," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 56(1), pages 217-240.
    3. André Masson, 1999. "Quelle solidarité intergénérationnelle ?," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 14(1), pages 27-90.

    More about this item

    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:prs:recofi:ecofi_0987-3368_1997_num_40_2_2314. 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: (Equipe PERSEE). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecofi .

    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.