IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v53y2025i1p62-93.html

Optimal Social Security with Loss Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon Lehr

Abstract

This article characterizes optimal social security in economies with agents who exhibit loss aversion. Two forms of loss aversion are explored. In the first, workers have a fixed retirement age and are loss averse over private savings. This motivates a more generous social security program. In the second, workers do no private savings but can choose their retirement age, exhibiting loss aversion over the foregone leisure time from delayed retirement. Social security benefits consequently rise steeper with retirement age and an earlier normal retirement age is optimal. In both cases, optimal policy is highly sensitive to the introduction of loss averse preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon Lehr, 2025. "Optimal Social Security with Loss Aversion," Public Finance Review, , vol. 53(1), pages 62-93, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:53:y:2025:i:1:p:62-93
    DOI: 10.1177/10911421241261745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10911421241261745
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10911421241261745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    2. Tanjim Hossain & John A. List, 2012. "The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2151-2167, December.
    3. Gabrielle Demange & Guy Laroque, 2000. "Social Security, Optimality, and Equilibria in a Stochastic Overlapping Generations Economy," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & William J. Congdon, 2012. "A Reduced-Form Approach to Behavioral Public Finance," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 511-540, July.
    5. Luc Behaghel & David M. Blau, 2012. "Framing Social Security Reform: Behavioral Responses to Changes in the Full Retirement Age," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 41-67, November.
    6. Diamond, Peter, 2006. "Optimal tax treatment of private contributions for public goods with and without warm glow preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 897-919, May.
    7. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00772844 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Roland G. Fryer, Jr & Steven D. Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 18237, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Yew, Siew Ling & Zhang, Jie, 2009. "Optimal social security in a dynastic model with human capital externalities, fertility and endogenous growth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 605-619, April.
    10. Tatiana A. Homonoff, 2018. "Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 177-210, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Syon P. Bhanot & Christina A. Roberto & Anjali Chainani & Charles Williamson & Mehra den Braven, 2019. "Testing effects of loss framing and checklists: evidence from a field experiment on wellness program participation in Philadelphia," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 210-222, December.
    2. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    3. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2022. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9999, CESifo.
    4. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    5. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2023. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_450, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    6. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, IZA Network @ LISER.
    9. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    10. Daniele Nosenzo, 2016. "Employee incentives: Bonuses or penalties?," World of Labour, LISER, pages 234-234, January.
    11. Jonathan de Quidt, 2018. "Your Loss Is My Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 522-559.
    12. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks - Evidence From a Field Experiment," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 71, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    14. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    15. Leon Zolotoy & Don O’Sullivan & Geoffrey P. Martin, 2022. "Behavioural Agency and Firm Productivity: Revisiting the Incentive Alignment Qualities of Stock Options," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(7), pages 1756-1787, November.
    16. Mylène Lagarde & Duane Blaauw, 2021. "Effects of incentive framing on performance and effort: evidence from a medically framed experiment," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 33-48, September.
    17. Marvin M. Müller & Kim Leonardo Böhm & Erich Renz, 2023. "Pay or nudge employees into change? A theoretical and experimental investigation of the effect of nudging for organizational change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(6), pages 3666-3695, September.
    18. Paul J. Ferraro & J. Dustin Tracy, 2022. "A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: a meta-analysis and a real-effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1441-1466, November.
    19. Koch, Alexander & Nafziger, Julia & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2015. "Behavioral economics of education," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 3-17.
    20. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González, 2019. "Revisiting the Trade-off Between Risk and Incentives: The Shocking Effect of Random Shocks?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1096-1114, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:pubfin:v:53:y:2025:i:1:p:62-93. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.