The Benefits of Hindsight: Lessons from the QPP for Other Pension Plans
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Quebec Pension Plan was born of a compromise. The contribution rate set at inception was too low, which resulted in the plan’s being undercapitalized in the early years. The demographic outlook came as no surprise: it was long known that there would be weak growth in the number of contributors and a sharp increase in beneficiaries in the years ahead, and these factors are particularly acute in Quebec. Adjustments to the contribution rate were too late in coming, and the plan was therefore insufficiently capitalized. Our retrospective analysis shows the gains that would have been realized by listening to actuaries and other experts sooner. The plan’s assets react strongly to a change in the contribution rate. Had the initial rate been 4 percent (as an interministerial committee proposed) instead of 3.6 percent from 1966 to 1987, the plan’s assets at the end of 2011 would have been almost 80 percent higher. The paper underscores basic policy questions for public pension schemes, such as whether these plans are needed, how to avoid inter-generational subsidies and how to minimize political risk. Based on the QPP experience, the authors draw lessons for other pension plans. First, evaluate the relevancy of creating or enhancing a public pension plan. Specific needs might not be addressed efficiently by imposing compulsory contributions on all workers. Improving financial literacy among workers might provide better results at a lower cost. Second, introduce full capitalization and gradually increase benefits. Benefits should be fully effective only once the plan has reached full maturity. Plans need to be fully funded in order to be equitable among cohorts. Third, implement automatic adjustment mechanisms. Adjustments should be triggered once certain levels of funding ratios are attained. Certain parameters of the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, such as retirement benefits, earlier or later commencement of retirement benefits and indexation, should be flexible and prone to automatic mechanisms if underfunding or returns discrepancies are expected. Additionally, parameters of the mechanism should be set by experts independent of political influence. Fourth, assess the performance of the plan. A performance evaluation of any public pension plan should be mandatory. Surprisingly, however, public plans do not seem to be subject to any such evaluation. A critical aspect of public pension plans is not measured – namely, the ability of the fund to deliver homogeneous real expected returns to various cohorts of retirees, and thus to provide equitable net asset values to all its members. These measures would allow a public pension plan to be a true insurance system in which capitalized contributions equate to actuarial benefits. The QPP, in contrast, has come to be both a pension plan and an implicit wealth-transfer system among cohorts of retirees.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».