Voluntary Job Separations and Traditional versus Flexible Workplace Savings Plans: Evidence from Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this article, we provide new insights into the longstanding empirical issue of whether the type of workplace savings plan offered by employers affects voluntary job separations by employees. In particular, we compare traditional registered pension plans (RPPs)—commonly DB plans with lock-in provisions and benefit schedules that are back-loaded in job tenure—and flexible group registered retirement savings plans (group RRSPs)—low-cost, portable, DC plans, as well as plans that offer a hybrid arrangement of the two. To this end, we use a Canadian employer–employee matched dataset that provides information on both job transitions and the types of workplace savings plans held by employees and offered by employers. This dataset makes it possible to control directly for a potential confounder that besets the related literature, namely that workers with different propensities to stay in their jobs may self-select into firms on the basis of the type of savings plan offered, by accounting for firm-level provisions and including firm fixed effects. The standard prediction from implicit contract theory is that traditional pensions reduce quit rates but flexible plans have little effect because of their portability. The results are partially consistent with this prediction. In particular, not having a workplace savings plan increases the quit rate by around 1.5 percentage points—an approximately 20 percent increase relative to belonging to a traditional pension plan. We observed little difference between having a flexible plan versus no coverage at all, on average, although imprecision of the estimator means the possibility that flexible plans induce staying behaviour also cannot be rejected. We found that hybrid arrangements, which are relatively common in Canada compared with flexible plans and are designed to jointly offer elements of traditional coverage and greater flexibility to workers, affect quitting the same as traditional pensions only. The results are robust to using different estimation techniques and controlling for the possibility that workers do not fully understand their plan type by accounting for the availability of plans within firms as reported by employers. Implications of these findings for current public policy are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».