No abstract

Nonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon.

Nonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon. ABSTRACTNonfinancial defined contribution (NDC) schemes offer governments desirable properties in terms of efficiency, fairness, and financial sustainability and an opportunity to deflect the blame for pension cuts. Yet adoptions of NDC schemes largely ground to a halt and several countries retreated from NDC implementation after legislation. Lack of support from powerful international actors is partly to blame, as is the perceived rigidity of NDC in reducing room for policy maneuver. Correct implementation requires substantial administrative capacity. Less demanding automatic stabilizing mechanisms undercut the appeal of NDC in the European Union. Thus, while being an important option for policy makers and a benchmark against which to measure alternative reforms, NDC is unlikely to become the dominant pension design choice anytime soon.

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all countries. Since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2021, governments across the world have mobilised on a tremendous scale and put in place different policies to contain the spread of the virus and its negative effects on society. International organisations have supported these efforts through evidence-based policy recommendations and emergency financing packages. This chapter presents a brief overview of the responses made by international organisations and European Union towards COVID-19. Special attention is given to the guidance of these organisations on the changes in social insurance and pension plans to protect the most vulnerable population groups.

No abstract