IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/13231.html

The Effect of Pension Design on Employer Costs and Employee Retirement Choices: Evidence from Oregon

In: Retirement Benefits for State and Local Employees: Designing Pension Plans for the Twenty-First Century

Author

Listed:
  • John Chalmers
  • Woodrow T. Johnson
  • Jonathan Reuter

Abstract

We use administrative data from Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to study the effect of pension design on employer costs and employee retirement-timing decisions. During our 1990–2003 sample period, PERS calculates each member's retirement benefit using up to three different formulas (defined benefit (DB), defined contribution (DC), and a combination of DB and DC), and PERS pays the maximum benefit for which the member is eligible. We show that this “maximum benefit” calculation results in average ex post retirement benefits that are 54% higher than if they had been calculated using only the DB formula and that employees receiving DC benefits are significantly more likely than employees receiving DB benefits to retire before the plan's normal retirement age. Monte Carlo simulations verify that the higher costs could have been predicted at the start of our sample period. Exploiting exogenous plan changes, we show that employees respond to within-year variation in their retirement incentives and, consistent with peer effects, that they respond more strongly to these incentives when more of their coworkers face similar incentives. Finally, consistent with the emerging literature on financial mistakes by households, we show that a small but noteworthy fraction of retirees would have benefited from shifting their retirements by as little as one month.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • John Chalmers & Woodrow T. Johnson & Jonathan Reuter, 2012. "The Effect of Pension Design on Employer Costs and Employee Retirement Choices: Evidence from Oregon," NBER Chapters, in: Retirement Benefits for State and Local Employees: Designing Pension Plans for the Twenty-First Century, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:13231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Francesco D'Acunto & Alberto G. Rossi & Michael Weber & Michael Weber, 2019. "Crowdsourcing financial information to change spending behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 7533, CESifo.
    2. Kronlund, Mathias & Pool, Veronika K. & Sialm, Clemens & Stefanescu, Irina, 2021. "Out of sight no more? The effect of fee disclosures on 401(k) investment allocations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 644-668.
    3. Gustafson, Matthew T., 2017. "The market sensitivity of retirement and defined contribution pensions: Evidence from the public sector," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Louise Grogan & Fraser Summerfield, 2019. "Government Transfers, Work, and Wellbeing: Evidence from the Russian Old-Age Pension," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1247-1292, October.
    5. J. Michael Collins & Carly Urban, 2016. "The Role Of Information On Retirement Planning: Evidence From A Field Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(4), pages 1860-1872, October.
    6. Davidoff, Thomas & Gerhard, Patrick & Post, Thomas, 2017. "Reverse mortgages: What homeowners (don’t) know and how it matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 151-171.
    7. Niels Vermeer, 2016. "Age Anchors and the Expected Retirement Age: An Experimental Study," De Economist, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 255-279, September.
    8. Marco Antonio Montufar-Benítez & Jaime Mora-Vargas & Carlos Arturo Soto-Campos & Gilberto Pérez-Lechuga & José Raúl Castro-Esparza, 2025. "A simulation model to analyze the behavior of a faculty retirement plan: a case study in Mexico," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 2981-3006, July.
    9. Chalmers, John & Reuter, Jonathan, 2020. "Is conflicted investment advice better than no advice?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 366-387.
    10. Sílvia Garcia-Mandicó & Sergi Jiménez-Martín, 2020. "Spillovers in pension incentives and the joint retirement behavior of Spanish couples," Working Papers 2020-13, FEDEA.
    11. Blaufus, Kay & Milde, Michael, 2018. "Learning to save tax-efficiently: Tax misperceptions and the effect of informational tax nudges on retirement savings," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 225, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    12. 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.
    13. Touria Jaaidane & Robert J. Gary-Bobo, 2018. "The Evaluation of Pension Reforms in the Public Sector: A Case Study of the Paris Subway Drivers," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 245-277, June.
    14. Mugerman, Yevgeny & Sade, Orly & Shayo, Moses, 2014. "Long term savings decisions: Financial reform, peer effects and ethnicity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 235-253.
    15. Kim, Dongwoo, 2020. "Worker retirement responses to pension incentives: Do they respond to pension wealth?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 365-385.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • J26 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Retirement; Retirement Policies

    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:nbr:nberch:13231. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.