| Abstract: |
This working paper is a tentative, solutions-oriented response to concerns
that pensions would not work without economic growth. It aims to concretize
post-growth visions, but also validate post-growth thinking to those who
consider it too far outside the mainstream. To the contrary, this analysis
begins from mainstream policy aims and economic concerns, and as its result
proposes institution types that are already widespread. A pension system can
be widely acceptable if it promotes three 'provisioning aims': poverty
alleviation, income maintenance, and voluntary provisioning. Without economic
growth, possible 'adverse economic conditions' of pension systems include low
earnings; low, negative, or volatile interest rates; high inflation; and
demographic aging. Additionally, even financially sustainable pension funds
can have 'adverse social effects'if their interest income is extractive,
exploitative, or inequality-amplifying. I argue that three broad institution
types could constitute a post-growth pension system: non-contributory
(governmentfinanced) minimum/basic pensions, contributory pay-as-you-go
pensions, and collective pension funds. Together they promote all three
provisioning aims. The provisioning aims make tradeoffs against each other and
their institutions have different weaknesses regarding adverse economic
conditions and social effects. Still, even without economic growth, most
wealthy economies could probably promote at least poverty elimination and
income maintenance without paradigmatic reforms. To close, I anticipate four
interesting aspects of post-growth pensions governance: benefit protection
versus cost control, distribution versus redistribution, challenging of
economic individualism, and property rights within funded pension schemes. |