IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pension Funds in France: Still a Dead-End?


  • Anne Lavigne

    () (LEO - Laboratoire d'économie d'Orleans - UO - Université d'Orléans - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)


Today there still lack a consensus on pension funds in France. The only issue that seems not to be debatable is the willingness to maintain a PAYG public scheme for the basic and complementary pension schemes. The debate concerns the introduction of pension funds as a third pillar. We show in this paper that, even if pension funds hardly exist in France, they have close, but imperfect, substitutes such as life insurance and employee-saving schemes. The difficulty is that these saving instruments are not specifically designed for retirement purposes. There is thus a risk of insufficient saving at old-age. We advocate the introduction of pension-oriented schemes, but not as designed by the Thomas Act, since there is an insufficient protection of wage-earners against financial risks. The first section is devoted to an institutional overview of the French pension system, and presents basic statistics. The second section gives some details on the supplementary occupational funded schemes. In section 3, we argue that funding does exist in France, through personal savings. In section 4 we show that the last reforms did not pave the way to pension funds. Section 5 concludes.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Lavigne, 2003. "Pension Funds in France: Still a Dead-End?," Post-Print halshs-00007671, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00007671
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Didier Blanchet & Florence Legros, 2002. "France: The Difficult Path to Consensual Reforms," NBER Chapters,in: Social Security Pension Reform in Europe, pages 109-136 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    pension funds; employee savings schemes; risk sharing;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    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:hal:journl:halshs-00007671. 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: (CCSD). 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.

    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.