Non-state pension prevision development in Ukraine

S. Zubyk
{"title":"Non-state pension prevision development in Ukraine","authors":"S. Zubyk","doi":"10.15407/EIP2017.03.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the evolution of approaches for the construction of a multi-level pension provision model proposed by the leading international financial institutions and organizations. This model must meet the criteria of sufficiency, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and reliability. It underlies of the concept of pension reform in Ukraine, which involves the implementation of measures of parametric and systemic character. Non-state pension provision, as an integral component of the pension system, is intended for the voluntary accumulation of savings for the additional pensions. The basic legislation on non-state pension provision came into force in Ukraine in 2004, but the amount of funds attracted by non-state pension funds remains insignificant at this time. Till 2008, an extensive growth of the non-state pension provision market was taking place: against the backdrop of a low base, the value of non-state pension funds assets actually doubled, the number of non-state pension funds, their contributors and participants increased dynamically. After the crisis of 2008-2009, annual growth rates of assets of non-state pension funds stabilized at the level of 25-30%, reaching, at the end of 2014, UAH 2 469.2 million, while the number of contributors and participants remained almost unchanged, and the number of non-state pension funds began to decrease, which is explained by the beginning of consolidation in this market. As a result of the crisis of 2014-2015, a decapitalization of non-state pension funds took place and their total assets at the beginning of 2016 decreased to UAH 1,980.0 million. The two main forms of decapitalization were net outflow of capital (exceeding the amount of pension payments above the amount of pension contributions) and loss-making activities (depreciation of securities, loss of deposits in banks and assets in the Crimea and in the east of the country). In 2016, despite the fact that the net outflow of capital continued, the process of growth of the non-state pension funds assets resumed. The two main categories of non-state pension fund contributors are individuals (households) and corporations (employers). Till 2015, in the total contributions, the share of the former was from 3 to 6%, and that of the latter from 94 to 97% (the phenomenon of growth of the share of individuals in 2016 in the total contributions to 16.4% requires additional study, but there is a high probability that such an increase occurred under the influence of employers, who prompted employees to co-finance corporate pension schemes). According to sociological surveys, only 10% of households in Ukraine saved part of their income, while giving preference to short-term investments, and about 40% of households indicated that they were forced to direct all income received to current needs. Statistics from other countries confirm the thesis of a direct relationship between household income and their inclination to save on an additional pension. Corporations (employers) are considering the introduction of supplementary pension schemes as a manifestation of corporate social responsibility and as an effective HR tool. As a rule, corporations of those sectors of the economy, where there is a higher level of competition in the labour market (labour demand), resort to such programs, and there is a need to expand the tools for stimulating personnel through a social package: the financial sector, telecommunications, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Cross-country comparisons make it possible to conclude that other motivational factors and incentives, such as the use of retirement assets as sources of investment resources and the creation of a favourable tax regime, have a limited impact on employer participation in supplementary pension provision programs. Consequently, prospects for the development of non-state pension provision are primarily associated with an increase in incomes and increased competition in the labour market (labour demand). Participation of households in non-state pension provision is possible only in the long run, after meeting the priority investment objectives, such as \"for the rainy day\" savings, the purchase of expensive durable goods, etc. Increasing competition in the labour market would encourage employers to have a range of HR tools, including a social package with additional pension provision.","PeriodicalId":212761,"journal":{"name":"Economy and Forecasting","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economy and Forecasting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/EIP2017.03.031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The article examines the evolution of approaches for the construction of a multi-level pension provision model proposed by the leading international financial institutions and organizations. This model must meet the criteria of sufficiency, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and reliability. It underlies of the concept of pension reform in Ukraine, which involves the implementation of measures of parametric and systemic character. Non-state pension provision, as an integral component of the pension system, is intended for the voluntary accumulation of savings for the additional pensions. The basic legislation on non-state pension provision came into force in Ukraine in 2004, but the amount of funds attracted by non-state pension funds remains insignificant at this time. Till 2008, an extensive growth of the non-state pension provision market was taking place: against the backdrop of a low base, the value of non-state pension funds assets actually doubled, the number of non-state pension funds, their contributors and participants increased dynamically. After the crisis of 2008-2009, annual growth rates of assets of non-state pension funds stabilized at the level of 25-30%, reaching, at the end of 2014, UAH 2 469.2 million, while the number of contributors and participants remained almost unchanged, and the number of non-state pension funds began to decrease, which is explained by the beginning of consolidation in this market. As a result of the crisis of 2014-2015, a decapitalization of non-state pension funds took place and their total assets at the beginning of 2016 decreased to UAH 1,980.0 million. The two main forms of decapitalization were net outflow of capital (exceeding the amount of pension payments above the amount of pension contributions) and loss-making activities (depreciation of securities, loss of deposits in banks and assets in the Crimea and in the east of the country). In 2016, despite the fact that the net outflow of capital continued, the process of growth of the non-state pension funds assets resumed. The two main categories of non-state pension fund contributors are individuals (households) and corporations (employers). Till 2015, in the total contributions, the share of the former was from 3 to 6%, and that of the latter from 94 to 97% (the phenomenon of growth of the share of individuals in 2016 in the total contributions to 16.4% requires additional study, but there is a high probability that such an increase occurred under the influence of employers, who prompted employees to co-finance corporate pension schemes). According to sociological surveys, only 10% of households in Ukraine saved part of their income, while giving preference to short-term investments, and about 40% of households indicated that they were forced to direct all income received to current needs. Statistics from other countries confirm the thesis of a direct relationship between household income and their inclination to save on an additional pension. Corporations (employers) are considering the introduction of supplementary pension schemes as a manifestation of corporate social responsibility and as an effective HR tool. As a rule, corporations of those sectors of the economy, where there is a higher level of competition in the labour market (labour demand), resort to such programs, and there is a need to expand the tools for stimulating personnel through a social package: the financial sector, telecommunications, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Cross-country comparisons make it possible to conclude that other motivational factors and incentives, such as the use of retirement assets as sources of investment resources and the creation of a favourable tax regime, have a limited impact on employer participation in supplementary pension provision programs. Consequently, prospects for the development of non-state pension provision are primarily associated with an increase in incomes and increased competition in the labour market (labour demand). Participation of households in non-state pension provision is possible only in the long run, after meeting the priority investment objectives, such as "for the rainy day" savings, the purchase of expensive durable goods, etc. Increasing competition in the labour market would encourage employers to have a range of HR tools, including a social package with additional pension provision.
乌克兰非国家养老金预支的发展
本文考察了国际主要金融机构和组织提出的多层次养老金供给模式构建方法的演变。这种模式必须满足充分性、成本效益、可持续性和可靠性的标准。它是乌克兰养恤金改革概念的基础,其中涉及执行参数和系统性质的措施。非国家养恤金的提供,作为养恤金制度的一个组成部分,是为了自愿积累额外养恤金的储蓄。乌克兰关于非国有养老金规定的基本立法于2004年生效,但此时非国有养老金吸引的资金数额仍然微不足道。直到2008年,非国有养老保险市场出现了广泛的增长:在低基数的背景下,非国有养老保险基金的资产价值实际上翻了一番,非国有养老保险基金的数量、缴纳人和参与者都在动态增长。2008-2009年金融危机后,非国有养老基金的资产年增长率稳定在25-30%的水平,2014年底达到24.692亿澳元,而缴费人数和参保人数几乎没有变化,非国有养老基金的数量开始减少,这可以解释为该市场开始整合。由于2014-2015年的危机,非国有养老基金发生了资本减值,其总资产在2016年初减少到19.8亿阿联酋元。资本化的两种主要形式是资本净流出(养恤金支付额超过养恤金缴款额)和亏损活动(证券贬值、在克里米亚和该国东部的银行存款和资产损失)。2016年,尽管资本净流出仍在继续,但非国有养老基金资产的增长过程恢复了。非国家养老基金的两类主要贡献者是个人(家庭)和公司(雇主)。截至2015年,个人缴费占总缴费比例从3%上升到6%,个人缴费占总缴费比例从94%上升到97%(2016年个人缴费占总缴费比例上升到16.4%的现象需要进一步研究,但这种上升很有可能是在雇主的影响下发生的,雇主促使员工共同出资企业养老金计划)。根据社会学调查,乌克兰只有10%的家庭将部分收入储蓄起来,同时优先考虑短期投资,约40%的家庭表示,他们被迫将所有收入用于当前需求。其他国家的统计数字证实了家庭收入与他们储蓄额外养恤金的倾向之间存在直接关系的论点。作为企业社会责任的体现和有效的人力资源工具,企业(雇主)正在考虑引入补充养老金制度。通常,在劳动力市场(劳动力需求)竞争水平较高的那些经济部门的公司会采用这种方案,并且有必要扩大通过社会一揽子计划来刺激人才的工具:金融部门、电信、制药工业等。跨国比较可以得出这样的结论:其他激励因素和激励措施,如使用退休资产作为投资资源来源和建立有利的税收制度,对雇主参与补充养老金提供计划的影响有限。因此,发展非国家养恤金的前景主要与收入的增加和劳动力市场竞争的增加(劳动力需求)有关。从长远来看,只有在满足优先投资目标(如“未雨绸缪”储蓄、购买昂贵的耐用品等)之后,家庭才有可能参与非国家养老金的提供。劳动力市场竞争的加剧将鼓励雇主拥有一系列人力资源工具,包括提供额外养老金的社会福利计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信