Commensuration and policy comparison: How the use of standardized indicators affects the rankings of pension systems

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the process of commensuration in the field of pension policy. It looks at the consequences of reducing disparate and variable characteristics of pension systems to a limited set of standardized policy indicators. Although techniques of scoring complex systems through common indicators are applied today in fields as diverse as scientific research, human resources management and international development, this article is the first to examine the process of commensuration in the field of pensions. The empirical analysis looks at three cases where international institutions use standardized pension indicators to score and rank the performance of national pension systems. The first case examines the use of replacement rates in the international benchmarking of pension systems. We then focus on how rankings diverge considerably depending upon which function of the pension system is under assessment. Finally, we discuss how the public–private mix of a pension system affects the ranking of pension adequacy due to the way in which second and third pillar pensions are measured. The cases illustrate some of the problems associated with scoring and ranking the outcomes of unique and complex pension systems by means of internationally standardized indicators.

How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

“…According to Sharman and Holmes (2010), it is important to consider who produces the knowledge that is finally included in decision-making. Methodological studies show that this requirement is also true for the context of social indicator production on policy level (Høyland et al, 2012;Peeters et al, 2014). Thus, this paper tries to find an answer to the question of who is responsible for the knowledge that is included in the set of social indicators and why this knowledge is produced.…”

Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach

“…For example, measurements of vulnerability via indicators refer to a tentative “quantification” of governance via the development of standardized indicators as an essential evolution in the incorporation of scientific information into good governance . Such quantifications have been strongly criticized as being “technologies of governance (which) affect processes of standard setting and decision‐making (as well as) regulation modalities and the relative power and identities of those who govern and those who are governed.” As Peeters et al . explain, by reducing information about various sociotechnical systems into single numerical values, policymakers and scientists can quickly discard excess information and make sense of a vastly complex world.…”

Social policy by numbers. How international organisations construct global policy proposals

“… The special issue by Hansen and Mühlen‐Schulte () did not cover social welfare issues. Peeters, Verschraegen, and Debels () applied theories of numbers to indicators of social protection (pensions), but confined to the OECD and EU and to the numerical instrument ‘indicators’. Studies of indicators and benchmarking under the Open Method of Coordination of the EU are common, but by definition they are restricted to the EU.…”