Public Sector Pension Plans: Defined Benefit Versus Defined Contribution

2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Kilgour
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution

Transitions from career employment among public- and private-sector workers

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 529-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Quinn ◽  
Kevin E. Cahill ◽  
Michael D. Giandrea
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Public And Private Sector ◽  
Career Employment ◽  
Public Sector Workers

AbstractDo the retirement patterns of public-sector workers differ from those in the private sector? The latter typically face a retirement landscape with exposure to market uncertainties through defined-contribution pension plans and private saving. Public-sector workers, in contrast, are often covered by defined-benefit pension plans that encourage retirement at relatively young ages and offer financial security at older ages. We examine how private- and public-sector workers transition from full-time career employment, with a focus on the importance of gradual retirement. To our surprise, we find that the prevalence of continued work after career employment, predominantly on bridge jobs with new employers, is very similar in the two sectors, a result with important implications in a rapidly aging society.

scholarly journals Behavioral economics perspectives on public sector pension plans

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN BESHEARS ◽  
JAMES J. CHOI ◽  
DAVID LAIBSON ◽  
BRIGITTE C. MADRIAN
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Pension Plan ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Savings Behavior ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public And Private Sector

AbstractWe describe the pension plan features of the states and the largest cities and counties in the U.S. Unlike in the private sector, defined benefit (DB) pensions are still the norm in the public sector. However, a few jurisdictions have shifted toward defined contribution (DC) plans as their primary savings plan, and fiscal pressures are likely to generate more movement in this direction. Holding fixed a public employee's work and salary history, we show that DB retirement income replacement ratios vary greatly across jurisdictions. This creates large variation in workers’ need to save for retirement in other accounts. There is also substantial heterogeneity across jurisdictions in the savings generated in primary DC plans because of differences in the level of mandatory employer and employee contributions. One notable difference between public and private sector DC plans is that public sector primary DC plans are characterized by required employee or employer contributions (or both), whereas private sector plans largely feature voluntary employee contributions that are supplemented by an employer match. We conclude by applying lessons from savings behavior in private sector savings plans to the design of public sector plans.

Retirement and Pensions in American Economic History

2018 ◽  
pp. 354-374
Author(s):  
Robert Clark ◽  
Lee A. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Retirement Plans ◽  
The Us ◽  
Defined Benefit Plans ◽  
State And Local

The proportion of the US population that survives to retirement age has increased over time, as has the share of the older population that retires. Higher incomes at older ages explain the increase in the incidence of retirement. Pensions provide much of that income. In general, public-sector workers, especially military personnel, were covered by pensions before their private-sector counterparts, and coverage in the public sector remains more widespread, and generous, than it is in the private sector. Public-sector pension plans are more likely to be defined benefit plans than are private-sector plans. Many public-sector employers have promised their employees more in benefits than they have set aside to pay for those benefits. Estimates suggest that the federal, state, and local retirement plans currently in operation are underfunded by as much as $5 trillion.

Pension Reforms and Public Sector Turnover

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgenia Gorina ◽  
Trang Hoang
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
State Level ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Retirement Benefits ◽  
Employment Benefits ◽  
Pension Reforms ◽  
Defined Contribution Plans ◽  
Retirement Systems ◽  
State Pension

Abstract Over the past decade, many states have reformed their retirement systems by reducing benefit generosity, tightening retirement provisions, introducing non-defined-benefit (DB) plan options and even replacing DB plans with defined-contribution plans. Many of these reforms have affected post-employment benefits that public workers will receive when they retire. Have these reforms also affected the attractiveness of public sector employment? To answer this question, we use state-level data from 2002 to 2015 and examine the relationship between state pension reforms and public employee turnover following the reforms. We find that employee responsiveness to the reforms was tangible and that it differed by reform type and worker education. These results are important because the design of public retirement benefits will continue to influence the ability of the public sector to recruit and retain high-quality workforce.

scholarly journals Retirement Security in an Aging Population

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Poterba
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Support Program ◽  
Standard Of Living ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Private Pensions ◽  
Elderly Individuals ◽  
Income Sources ◽  
Retirement Security

Elderly individuals exhibit wide disparities in their sources of income. For those in the bottom half of the income distribution, Social Security is the most important source of support; program changes would directly affect their well-being. Income from private pensions, assets, and earnings are relatively more important for higher-income elderly individuals, who have more diverse income sources. The trend from private sector defined benefit to defined contribution pension plans has shifted responsibility for retirement security to individuals. A significant subset of the population is unlikely to be able to sustain their standard of living in retirement without higher pre-retirement saving.

scholarly journals Contribution volatility and public pension reform

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
TRAVIS ST. CLAIR ◽  
JUAN PABLO MARTINEZ GUZMAN
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Pension Reform ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Fiscal Sustainability ◽  
Economic Downturn ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Unfunded Liabilities

AbstractIn the wake of the economic downturn of 2008–2009, researchers and policymakers have focused considerable attention on the extent of unfunded liabilities in US public sector pension plans and the implications for the long term fiscal sustainability of state and local governments. In response to the growth in liabilities, many states have introduced legislation that cuts back on defined benefit (DB) plan commitments, in some cases even shifting the pension system from a DB to a defined contribution or hybrid plan. This paper explores the factors that have led states to engage in pension reform, focusing particular attention on one factor that has only recently gained attention in the research literature: contribution volatility. While unfunded liabilities have significant long-term solvency implications, in the short term fluctuations in the amount of required contributions pose substantial difficulties for the ability of plan sponsors to balance budgets and engage in strategic planning. We begin by quantifying the volatility in the required contributions US states were expected to make between 2001 and 2013 and comparing the volatility of pension spending to other relevant tax and spending measures. Next, we describe the various types of pension reforms that states have implemented and examine the fiscal pressures facing those states that have engaged in reform. States with greater fluctuations in their required payments have been more likely to reduce benefits and increase employee contributions; they have also been more likely to institute these reforms sooner.

How defined contribution plans and 401(k)s affect employer pension costs

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
TERESA GHILARDUCCI ◽  
WEI SUN
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Pension Plan ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Defined Contribution Plans ◽  
Pension Costs ◽  
Administrative Expenses ◽  
Pension Contribution

We investigate the pension choices made by over 700 firms between 1981 and 1998 when DC plans expanded and overtook DB plans. Their average pension contribution per employee dropped in real terms from $2,140 in 1981 to $1,404 in 1998. At the same time, the share of their pension contributions attributed to defined contribution plans was 23% in 1981 and increased to 68% in 1998. By analyzing pension plan data from the IRS Form 5500 and finances of the plan's sponsoring employer from COMPUSTAT with a fixed-effects ordinary least squares model and a simultaneous model, we find that a 10% increase in the use of defined contribution plans (including 401(k) plans) reduces employer pension costs per worker by 1.7–3.5%. This suggests firms use DCs and 401(k)s to lower pension costs. Lower administrative expenses may also explain the popularity of DC plans. Although measuring a firm's pension cost per worker may be a crude way to judge a firm's commitment to pensions, this study suggests that firms that provide both a traditional defined benefit and a defined contribution plan are the most committed because they spend the most on pensions. Further research, especially case studies, is vital to understand employers' commitment to employment-based pension plans.

scholarly journals Are Cash Balance Pension Plans A Viable Retirement Program For Corporate America?

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 451
Author(s):  
John J. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
Pension Plans ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Corporate America ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Cash Balance ◽  
Benefit Plan ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Program Option ◽  
Cash Balance Pension Plans

Cash Balance Pension Plans are a defined benefit plan where employees have a hypothetical account that increases annually, as a result of compensation credit as well as interest credit. In essence, cash balance pension plans combine elements of both a traditional defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan (Lucas, 2007). This paper examines the recent trends and legal ruling regarding cash balance pension plans. The paper also provides an examination of the role of the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 and its impact on cash balance pension plans. An evaluation will also be presented to determine if cash balance pension plans are a viable retirement program option in corporate America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document