Equidad en las reformas de la seguridad social en América Latina : una evaluación crítica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lo largo del último cuarto de siglo se acometieron en América Latina reformas en los sistemas de pensiones que introdujeron esquemas de capitalización privados de carácter obligatorio. En este trabajo se articulan algunas críticas contra la teoría y la práctica de los nuevos sistemas. Desde el punto de vista de la equidad intergeneracional se sostiene que los nuevos sistemas no resuelven parte de los problemas atribuidos a los sistemas públicos e introducen nuevas distorsiones en las tasas de retorno que recibe cada generación. Desde una óptica de equidad intrageneracional, se justifica que las reformas son susceptibles de deteriorar aún más la ya escasa capacidad redistributiva de los sistemas. Por último, se presentan recomendaciones de política económica para abordar estos problemas. \n_______________________________________Along the last quarter of the century, pension reforms which introduced private and mandatory capitalization schemes were implemented in Latin America. In this paper, the author states some criticisms against the theory and the practise of the new systems. From the point of view of intergenerational equity, it is argued that the new systems not only do not solve some of the problems attributed to public systems but also introduce new distortions in the rates of return which each generation receives. From the optic of intragenerational equity, the paper justifies that reforms are susceptible to worsen the poor redistributive capacity of the present systems. Finally, the author offers several policy implications for dealing with these problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".