Book Reviews

496

Social Security and Pension Reform: International Perspectives. Edited by Marek Szczepański and John A. Turner. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, 2014. 345pp., $20.00. ISBN: 978-880994675. John R. Moreau University of Missouri-Kansas City

Countries across the world are pursing reforms to their social security and pension systems. These reforms provide the motivation and central subject for Social Security and Pension Reform: International Perspectives, edited by Marek Szczepański and John A. Turner. The editors sourced some papers from a 2012 conference focused on Central and Eastern Europe but also added additional studies to provide a broader international scope. A majority of the papers look at a single nation or region, including several Western European nations, Poland, China, Australia, and East Africa. The Authors address staterun social security programs, employer-provided benefits, and voluntary pension schemes. Although some essays include longer histories of the subject countries, all essays cover contemporary benefit programs. Social Security and Pension Reform will appeal to readers interested in pension reform, public finance, and comparative international studies. None of the authors assume that the reader has in-depth knowledge of either the subject countries or pension mechanics. As such it would make a good introduction for many general readers with some background in economics and finance. Szczepański and Turner have chosen a broad survey on a range of issues and nations. This choice does limit the scope of possible class adoption to mainly specialized reading courses. However, this book would make an excellent resource for students writing term papers in classes on international economics, public finance, and economic policy. As such, faculty teaching those courses should consider recommending it to their university library. The publisher, Upjohn Press, also offers individual chapters through their website; this option could be useful for courses focused on a particular nation or region. For professional economists, this book might not appeal to those working in industry, but would be relevant to economists working in the government and non-profit sectors. Consistent with the book’s survey approach, most essays favor historical narrative over quantitative analysis. The majority of the authors focus on policy changes and the effects of those changes. That scope does not include the political history behind those reforms, such as the positions of specific politicians and political parties. This choice enables readers unfamiliar with the subject countries to recognize common themes among the reforms, such as low enrollment rates in voluntary retirement programs. Topics include measuring the success of privatization reforms, the decline in provident funds (pooled investment funds for defined contribution plans), and transitions from pay-as-you-go systems to pre-funded plans. Chapter 5 on Portugal stands out because it makes a critical policy argument about recent reforms in that country. The author, Maria Clara Murteira, argues that policy reforms rooted in the New Classical paradigm changed the focus of policy debates from social welfare outcomes to the fiscal goal of balanced budgets. Rather than a limited reduction in benefit levels, she sees those changes as part of a broad EU policy agenda that promoted structural changes to national pension schemes. Both would-be reformers and their opponents should consider how Murteira assembles her augments. She examines the reform in terms of its intellectual motivation, presenting an interesting challenge to reformers. Some people campaigning for pension changes might focus on the means of pension policy rather than the end goal of old-age provisioning; answering that charge Eastern Economic Journal 2016 42

Book Reviews

497

could strengthen the case for reform. For opponents, that critique reframes the discussion from one of budgetary constraints to a debate over the goals of pension policy. Overall, Social Security and Pension Reform has a number of admirable successes including, the use of nationally specific terminology, the inclusion of less-commonly consider countries, and coverage of a broad swath of issues.The Authors do a good job defining terms specific to a particular country. One example, from chapter 9, is that in Australia a private pension fund is called a superannuation fund. Local terms like superannuation are explicitly defined and used with care. Such usage balances the need for specific detail against the ease of understanding for a general audience. Szczepański and Turner have included many countries less frequently represented in American mass media. Because of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, countries such as Greece, Germany, and France have received considerable media coverage. The European chapters do not address these nations, instead looking at Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Norway, Poland, and a survey of Central and Eastern European countries. By venturing further, to Africa, Asia, and the Americas, the book exposes the reader to pension and social security issues in developing economies. Readers might be surprised to learn, for example, that many provinces in China have different pension schemes for urban residents, rural residents, and rural migrants working in urban areas. The scope of nations considered leads to a wide range of issues. No one paper covers every issue for a particular nation. Instead, each paper presents an interesting issue important to that country or region. Szczepański and Turner end the book with two chapters on pension fund governance and financial literacy. These chapters draw from multiple countries to illustrate the common threads running through national policy debates. Taken as a collected volume, Social Security and Pension Reform: International Perspectives introduces readers to major issues facing policy makers around the globe through specific national studies and broader thematic overviews. Eastern Economic Journal (2016) 42, 496–497. doi:10.1057/eej.2014.70; published online 4 May 2015

Eastern Economic Journal 2016 42