Early Retirement by J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz* Vincenzo Galasso ** DOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO 2003-03

March 2003

* FEDEA, 28001 Madrid, Spain. ** IGIER - Università Bocconi, 20136 Milan, Italy. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28903 Getafe, Spain and CEPR, London, U.K.

Los Documentos de Trabajo se distribuyen gratuitamente a las Universidades e Instituciones de Investigación que lo solicitan. No obstante están disponibles en texto completo a través de Internet: http://www.fedea.es/hojas/publicaciones.html#Documentos de Trabajo

These Working Documents are distributed free of charge to University Department and other Research Centres. They are also available through Internet: http://www.fedea.es/hojas/publicaciones.html#Documentos de Trabajo

Early Retirement∗

J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz FEDEA, 28001 Madrid, Spain, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08005 Barcelona, Spain

Vincenzo Galasso IGIER - Università Bocconi, 20136 Milan, Italy Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28903 Getafe, Spain and CEPR, London, U.K.

May 2002

∗Corresponding author: Vincenzo Galasso, Istituto di Economia Politica, Università Bocconi, via Gobbi 5, 20136 Milano, tel: +39-02-5836-5319, fax: +39-02-5836-5343, vincenzo.galasso@uni-bocconi.it.

Abstract

Generous early retirement provisions account for a large proportion of the drop in the labor force participation of elderly workers. The aim of this paper is to provide a positive theory of early retirement. We suggest that the political support for generous early retirement provisions relies on: (i) the existence of a significant group of elderly workers with incomplete working history, who are not entitled to an old age pension; and (ii) the intragenerational redistribution built in this provision via the utility from leisure that induces low-ability workers to retire early. The majority which supports early retirement in a bidimensional voting game is composed of elderly with incomplete working history and lowability workers; social security is supported by retirees and low-ability workers.

Keywords: Social Security, Policy Persistence, Structure-Induced Equilibrium.

JEL Classification: H53, H55, D72.

⁰J. I. Conde-Ruiz, FEDEA, c/ Jorge Juan, 48, 28001 Madrid, tel: +34-91-4359020, fax: tel: +34-91-5779575, conderuiz@fedea.es. We thank Marco Celentani for his help and support throughout the entire project. We are also grateful for useful comments to Michele Boldrin, Francesco Giavazzi, Sergi Jimenez-Martin, Eliana La Ferrara, David K. Levine, Franco Peracchi, J. Victor Rios-Rull, Kjetil Storesletten, Guido Tabellini and participants at IGIER- Università Bocconi seminar, at CEPR-CEMFI workshop, at PET 2000 and at the 2000 meetings of the Society of Economic Dynamics. All remaining errors are ours. Vincenzo Galasso acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education DGICYT PB96-0118 and from Fundacion BBVA. Part of this paper was written while J.I. Conde Ruiz was at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

1. Introduction

Generous early retirement provisions are largely responsible for the dramatic drop in the labor force participation among middle-aged and elderly workers of the last thirty years (see Gruber and Wise, 1999, and Blöndal and Scarpetta, 1998). The generosity of these provisions — measured by the implicit tax on continuing to work (Gruber and Wise, 1999) or by the replacement rate (Blöndal and Scarpetta, 1998) — has induced workers, in particular, low-educated ones, to retire early. Early retirement has thus complemented the aging process in increasing the ratio of retirees per worker — the dependency ratio. As argued in many studies (see Gruber and Wise, 1999, Blöndal and Scarpetta, 1998, and Boldrin et al., 1999, among others), this phenomenon has rapidly become the crucial — endogenous — problem for the financial sustainability of the unfunded pension systems. Due to early retirement, in fact, fewer workers are required to finance the (generous) pensions of more retirees.

The aim of this paper is to provide a positive theory of early retirement. We propose a politico-economic explanation of the adoption of generous early retirement provisions. Why did a majority of voters, in most industrialized countries, decide to award large pensions to middle aged workers with incomplete working history? We suggest that the political support in favor of early retirement hinges on two crucial conditions. First, the appearance of a large group of redundant or unemployed elderly workers with incomplete working history, who are not entitled to an old-age pension. The introduction of early retirement awards them a pension transfer. Second, the existence in the early retirement provision of an element of intragenerational redistribution via the utility from leisure. In fact, while leisure is equally valued across ability types, the foregone labor income is lower for less productive types, who therefore find more convenient to retire early. This retirement behavior gives rise to an endogenous group of workers with incomplete working history, which guarantees the future constituency for this provision¹.

The main contribution of the paper is to demonstrate that under these two conditions, a social security system with early retirement arises and is sustained as a politico-economic equilibrium outcome of a dynamic majoritarian voting game. The voting majority which supports early retirement is composed of elderly with incomplete working history and low-ability young, who expect to retire early. The size of the social security system is determined by a voting majority of all retirees and low ability young. Although several studies have analyzed the economic determinants of the early retirement decisions (see among others, Feldstein, 1974, Boskin and Hurd, 1978, Diamond and Mirrless, 1978, Lazear, 1979, Crawford and Lilien, 1981), to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a theoretical explanation of the introduction of (generous) early retirement provisions.

Our analysis is motivated by two observations. First, in most European countries, between 1961 and 1977, generous early pathways from the labor market were made available to redundant or unemployed elderly workers under a wide array of early retirement schemes. These included special pensions to unemployed elderly workers (in Austria, Finland and Germany), special contracted pensions for redundant workers (in Austria, Belgium, France and Germany) and disability benefits awarded on the basis of labor market considerations (in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden). During the 70s and 80s, these eligibility criteria were typically relaxed and early retirement provisions became more widely available to elderly workers. More emphasis was then put on programs that allowed early retirement in exchange for the employment of young unemployed workers. Second, a large majority of the workers who, over the years, have taken advantage of these early retirement provisions is composed of less educated workers.

We introduce a dynamically eficient overlapping generations economy with storage technology. Young workers may be two ability types, low and high. They decide when to retire and their labor income depends on their retirement decision and on their initial ability. Old age retirement is mandatory. The social security system consists of a PAYG scheme. Young workers contribute a fixed proportion of their labor income to the system, and the proceedings are divided lump sum among the retirees. There may exist an early retirement provision, in which case workers who exit the labor market at an early stage, i.e., with an incomplete working history, are awarded an early retirement pension. Individuals who retire at mandatory age receive the full pension.

The social security system is determined in a bidimensional majoritarian voting game played by young and old agents. Voters cast a ballot over the payroll tax rate, which finances the social security system, and over the existence of an early retirement provision, which entitles agents with incomplete working history to a full pension. This political game displays two important features. First, because of the bidimensionality of the issue space, a Nash equilibrium of this majoritarian voting game may not exist. To overcome this problem, we use Shepsle’s (1979) notion of structure induced equilibrium. In other words, we introduce a set of institutional restrictions which reduces our game to an issue-by-issue voting game. Second, in absence of a commitment device which restricts future policies, a social security system may not be politically sustainable. In fact, young workers may refuse to transfer resources to current retirees, as they have no guarantee of being rewarded with a corresponding pension in their old age. To deal with this feature, we consider an implicit contract among successive generations, and thus concentrate on subgame perfect equilibrium outcomes². To summarize, we introduce a notion of stationary subgame perfect structure induced equilibrium which applies the idea of subgame perfection to the concept of structure induced equilibrium, introduced by Shepsle (1979).

The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 presents some relevant facts on early retirement. Section 3 introduces the economic model and the social security system, while section 4 analyzes the voting game and our notion of equilibrium. Section 5 characterizes the politico-economic equilibria, and section 6 concludes. All formal definitions and proofs are in the appendix.

2. Some Facts on Early Retirement

In last thirty years, most OECD countries have experienced a dramatic drop in the labor force participation of their middle aged and elderly workers. In the OECD countries, the average labor force participation rate of male workers aged between 55 and 64 years has decreased from 84.2% in 1960 to 63.2% in 1990. This phenomenon has been stronger in Belgium, Finland, France, Italy and the Netherlands, where the participation rate, which in the 60s was well above 80%, has decreased in the year 2000 to around — or even below — 50%, as shown in table I. This reduction has been less remarkable in other countries, such as Canada, Denmark, Spain, the UK and the US; however only in Japan, Norway and Sweden the participation rate has remained above 70%.

The extent to which male elderly workers have decreased their participation in the labor market may also be captured by the reduction in the average retirement age, as defined by Latulippe (1996), or in the average age of transition to inactivity, as calculated by Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998). Latulippe (1996) estimates that the average retirement age for males in the OECD countries has dropped from 67.9 years in 1950 to 61.7 in 1990 (see table I for data on several OECD countries). Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998) obtain similar estimates. For instance, they suggest that in 1950 French male workers moved into inactivity on average at age 66.1, while in 1995 this transition occurred at age 59.2. The average age of transition for Japanese workers, on the other hand, is virtually unchanged: 66.7 years in 1950 and 66.5 in 1995.

A comprehensive study on eleven OECD countries edited by Gruber and Wise (1999) suggests that generous early retirement provisions are largely responsible for this drop in the (male) participation rates. Gruber and Wise (1999) and a parallel study by Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998) identify two features of the early retirement provisions, which display a strong correlation with the departure of the elderly workers from the labor force: the early (and normal) retirement age and the tax burden which is imposed on the labor income of the individuals who continue to work after reaching the early retirement age.

These studies find that in most OECD countries the conditional probability for the male workers to exit the labor force (the hazard rate) peaks at the early (and at the normal) retirement age. In other words, most individuals leave the labor market as soon as they are entitled to collect a pension benefit. While this retirement behavior may be partially due to health considerations or to a large valuation of the leisure by the elderly, Gruber and Wise (1999) and Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998) argue that individuals are often induced to retire early because of the large implicit tax imposed on continuing to work after early retirement age. Agent’s early retirement decision thus represents the optimal response to the economic incentives provided by the social security system. Interestingly, both studies stress that in several countries, such as Germany, Sweden or the Netherlands, the early exit from the labor market is achieved by drawing on disability or unemployment benefits — whose eligibility is often made contingent on labor market conditions — rather than on the oficial early retirement pension. For instance, Gruber and Wise (1999) report that the proportion of men receiving disability or unemployment benefits at age 59 — which is typically below the early retirement age — is 21% in France, 22% in Belgium, 24% in Sweden, 27% in the Netherlands, 33% in the UK and 37% in Germany, as opposed to only about 12% in Japan and the US.

Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998) have also analyzed the characteristics of the workers who have used these early pathways from the labor market, in terms of their educational obtainments and of the sector they last worked in. In all the OECD countries shown in table II — except the UK, where there is virtually no variation — the proportion of early retirees is higher among the low and intermediate educational group. Unsurprisingly, the sectorial breakdown shows that early retirement is more common in manufacturing — where in 1995, among the males aged 55 to 64, the number of retirees exceeded the number of workers in every OECD country — in construction and in mining, while being least used in such sectors as wholesale and retail trade, hotels and restaurants, real estate and financial intermediation.

Much less research has been devoted to explaining why there has been such a wide spread adoption of the early retirement, although this provision has been proved to be largely responsible for the decrease in the labor force participation of their middle aged and elderly workers, which — together with the aging process — has created financial distress to the social security system. Some explanations have however emerged in the debate. Gruber and Wise (1999), for instance, have suggested — albeit not endorsed — that early retirement may have been created to encourage elderly people to withdraw from the labor force in order to provide more job opportunities for young workers — a popular justification among politicians — or, alternatively, that this provision has been adopted to accommodate a secular pattern of decreasing labor force participation. An alternative view, in the spirit of Caballero and Hammour (1998), is that early retirements have represented an instrument to increase the share of the production appropriated by the labor factor — a phenomenon that took place in the late sixties, when Europe experienced a period of tensions and strikes. Our explanation is that the adoption of early retirement was due to the appearance of a significant group of redundant or unemployed elderly workers, who were not yet entitled to an old age pension. Several measures — such as the introduction of formal early retirement provisions, the weakening of the eligibility criterion for disability pensions or the institution of “unemployment pensions” to be awarded to unemployed elderly workers — allowed this mass of redundant or unemployed elderly to withdraw from the labor market on a pension transfer.

To discriminate among these explanations, we use data provided in 1986 by the Economic Commission for Europe at the United Nations on the institutional details — such as the retirement age and the eligibility criterion — of the first early retirement provisions to be introduced in fifteen OECD countries (see also Mirkin, 1987). These features are reported in table III. These institutional characteristics suggest that almost everywhere in Europe, between 1961 and 1977, generous early pathways from the labor market were ofered to redundant or unemployed elderly workers, who were allowed to collect benefits under a wide array of welfare schemes.

These early retirement programs can be categorized according to their eligibility requirements as (i) special pensions to unemployed elderly workers (PU in table III) initially used in Austria, Finland and Germany, (ii) disability benefits awarded on the basis of labor market considerations (DU in table III) in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, and (iii) special contracted pensions for redundant workers (RW in table III) in Austria, Belgium, France and Germany. During the 70s and 80s, these eligibility criteria were typically relaxed to allow for more general early retirement provisions, often in exchange for the employment of young unemployed worker (YE in table III). On the other hand, general early retirement provisions — to be used by all elderly workers, regardless of their employment status — were made available from the beginning in Canada, Japan and the US. In the UK and the US, (private) firm’s pension plan played a crucial role in helping workers to withdraw from the labor marker (see Casey, 1992). Public programs were less relevant in the US, whereas in the UK they aimed at replacing elderly workers with young unemployed workers (YE in table III). Finally, Italy represents a peculiar case in this scenario. In fact, despite Italy had a general early retirement provision already in 1965, most early exits from the labor market draw on the more generous disability benefits, rather than on the early retirement pensions.

3. The Economic Environment

We consider a two period overlapping generations model with storage technology. Every period two generations are alive: Young and Old. Population grows at a constant rate, . There are two types of agents: low and high ability, in proportions and . Their working abilities are respectively and , with

\[w ^ {L} < w ^ {H}.\]

Young agents decide when to exit the labor market. They may decide to work during the entire working period, i.e., until they reach mandatory retirement age, or they may retire early. Old agents do not work. They receive a pension transfers, whose amount depends on when they retired. Let be the pension awarded at time t to an old agent who retired at mandatory age (we will refer to as the full pension). Let be the percentage of the full pension transfer awarded at time to a type-j old agent born at time t, then

\[\Gamma_ {t + 1} \left(\phi_ {t} ^ {j}\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \alpha & \text {if} \Theta \leq \phi_ {t} ^ {j} < 1 \\ 1 & \text {if} \phi_ {t} ^ {j} = 1 \end{array} \right.\tag{3.1}\]

where subscripts indicate the calendar time, represents the retirement age of a type j agent, i.e., the proportion of the working period she spent working, Θ is the minimum retirement age to be eligible for a pension, i.e., the minimum length of the working period, and α is the proportion of the full pension transfer to be paid to an agent who retires early.

A production function transforms the work of any type worker weighted by her ability, , into the only consumption good, according to the duration of her working period, , with . A storage technology coverts a unit of today’s consumption into units of tomorrow’s consumption. All private intertemporal transfers of resources into the future are assumed to take place through this technology. Additionally, we assume that , and thus that the economy is dynamically eficient.

Young agents have to decide the length of their working period, , that is, whether they retire early or at mandatory age. They pay a proportional tax on their labor income, and save all their resources for old age consumption through the storage technology. Old agents take no relevant economic decision; they simply consume all their wealth. The intertemporal budget constraint of a type j agent born at time t is thus:

\[c _ {t + 1} ^ {j} = w ^ {j} \phi_ {t} ^ {j} (1 - \tau_ {t}) (1 + r) + \Gamma_ {t + 1} (\phi_ {t} ^ {j}) p _ {t + 1}.\tag{3.2}\]

Agents value leisure in their working period and old age consumption, according to a linear utility function: , where is the individual time discount factor, which we assume to be equal to the inverse of the real interest factor, . We interpret the utility that an agent attaches to leisure as the utility associated to the free time which becomes available after an early exit from the labor market, i.e., after early retirement. We assume that, in absence of a social security system, any agent prefers working to an early exit from the labor market: . We abstract from consumption in youth. This assumption greatly simplifies the analysis, but at a cost, since we disregard a relevant element for social security: the saving decision³.

The linearity of the utility function and the shape of the function Γ (.) (see eq. 3.1) induce a binary retirement decision, which is consistent with the evidence reported in Gruber and Wise (1999). At time t, a type-j young agent retires early if her ability is below a threshold level , or at mandatory retirement age, if it is above:

\[\phi_ {t} ^ {j} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \Theta \text {if} w ^ {j} \leq w _ {t} ^ {R} \\ 1 \text {if} w ^ {j} > w _ {t} ^ {R} \end{array} \right.\tag{3.3}\]

where

\[w _ {t} ^ {R} = \frac {d}{(1 - \tau_ {t})} - \frac {(1 - \alpha_ {t + 1}) p _ {t + 1}}{(1 - \tau_ {t}) (1 - \Theta) (1 + r)}\tag{3.4}\]

It is crucial to notice that, in every period but the initial one, , the threshold ability level, , and thus the mass of young agents who retire early, is endogenous. An increase in the agents’ valuation of their leisure, in the generosity of the early retirement provision , or in the current tax burden, , increases the utility from retiring early, and thus the threshold ability level, (see eq. 3.4). On the other hand, for , i.e., when early retirement pensions are penalized, an increase in the future full pension transfer, , raises the cost of retiring early, and thus reduces the threshold ability level,

In its initial period, , our economy is instead endowed with an initial distribution of retired people: a fraction of them — of which are low ability and are high ability, with — have incomplete working history, i.e., they retired early. The remaining fraction have complete working history, since they retired at mandatory retirement age. These proportions are exogenous and represent the initial condition of our economy.

3.1. The Social Security System

We consider a pay as you go (PAYG) social security system, in which workers contribute a fixed proportion of their labor income to the system, and the proceedings are divided among the old. A retired person receives a lump sum pension which may depend on the length of her working period, but not on her labor income. The system is assumed to be balanced every period, so that the sum of all awarded pensions is equal the sum of all received contributions. The full pension transfer which balances the budget constraint can easily be obtained:

\[p _ {t} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \frac {(1 + n) [ q \phi_ {t} ^ {L} w ^ {L} + (1 - q) \phi_ {t} ^ {H} w ^ {H} ]}{\rho \alpha_ {t} + (1 - \rho)} \tau_ {t} & t = 1 \\ \frac {(1 + n) [ q \phi_ {t} ^ {L} w ^ {L} + (1 - q) \phi_ {t} ^ {H} w ^ {H} ]}{q \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {L}) + (1 - q) \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {H})} \tau_ {t} & t > 1 \end{array} \right.\tag{3.5}\]

Because of dynamic eficiency, , the social security system is — on average — a dominated saving device. In fact, its average internal rate of return relative to the other available saving technology is . However, it is important to highlight that, due to the combination of a proportional labor income tax and of a lump sum pension, the system entails an element of within cohorts redistribution, from the rich to the poor. As in Tabellini (2000) and in Conde-Ruiz and Galasso (1999), this feature is crucial in our political game, because it may induce low ability young to support the social security system⁴.

In every period, the social security system can be characterized by a quadruple: the exogenous minimum retirement age, the payroll tax rate, the full pension, and the percentage of the full pension awarded to the early retirees, . It greatly simplifies the analysis to assume that early retirees are either awarded the full pension or nothing at all, . Since α is determined by all electors in the voting game, this amounts to restrict the choice over α to whether to introduce the institution of a generous early retirement (which would pay the full pension) or not⁵.

For a given minimum retirement age, Θ, the budget constraint in eq. 3.5 can be used to obtain the full pension as a function of the other two policy parameters, , since by eq. 3.1 only takes two values: . We can then examine the relation between the social security tax rate and the pension transfer, with and without early retirement provision. For , no early retirement provision exists and the pension transfer is strictly increasing in τ. In any period but the initial one, , the full pension transfer is where is the average wage in the economy. In the initial period, , there is an initial endowment of elderly with incomplete working history, who do not receive the pension, and thus the pension transfer becomes

For , early retirement is available. Agents take their retirement decisions according to eq. 3.3 and 3.4, where since the threshold ability level only depends on the value of the leisure, and on the current tax rate, . Thus, for low tax rates, nobody retires early; when the tax rate passes a certain threshold, , low-ability agents retire early; while also high-ability workers retire early if the tax rate reaches a higher threshold, . Clearly, these retirement decisions afect the tax base — by changing the composition of the workers who contribute to the system — and thus the pension transfers. Specifically, we have that:

\[p _ {t} \left(\tau_ {t}, 1\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c c c} (1 + n) \overline {{w}} \tau_ {t} & \text { if } & \tau_ {t} \leq \tau_ {A} \\ (1 + n) \left(\overline {{w}} - q w ^ {L} (1 - \Theta)\right) \tau_ {t} & \text { if } & \tau_ {A} < \tau_ {t} \leq \tau_ {B} \\ (1 + n) \Theta \overline {{w}} \tau_ {t} & \text { if } & \tau_ {t} > \tau_ {B} \end{array} \right.\]

Figure 1 characterizes these relations between pension transfers and tax rates. In the case of early retirement, , this relation may resemble a Lafer curve, with the maximum pension transfer being obtained for an interior solution of the tax rate. This is because, for a low tax rate, , nobody retires early and thus an increase in the tax rate leads to an unambiguous increases in the pension transfer. As the tax rate increases above , all low ability types retire early thereby provoking a drop in the tax base, and thus in the pension benefits. Further increases in the tax rate lead exclusively to an increase in the benefits, until passes the next threshold, , and all high ability types retire early thus provoking a new drop in the tax base and in the pension benefits. From this point, all agents have retired early, and further increases in τ may only increase the pension benefits. To select the case which is more interesting to our analysis, in which the maximum pension transfer occurs when only the low-ability agents retire early, we impose some restrictions on the leisure parameter, d. In particular, it is easy to show that if , where and , then the pension transfer, , is maximized for

3.2. The Economic Equilibrium

The following definition introduces the economic equilibrium, given the values of the social security system, which will be determined in the political game.

Definition 3.1. For a given sequence , an early retirement age, Θ, an exogenous interest and the function defined in eq. 3.1, an economic equilibrium is a sequence of allocations, , such that:

In every period agents solve the consumer problem, i.e., every type young individual maximizes her utility function with respect to and subject to eq. 3.2;

The social security budget constraint is balanced every period, i.e. eq. 3.5 holds;

The good market clears in the initial period,

\[\sum_ {j = \{L, H \}} \left[ \rho^ {j} c _ {t, \rho} ^ {j} + (1 - \rho^ {j}) c _ {t, 1 - \rho} ^ {j} \right] = \sum_ {j = \{L, H \}} \left[ \rho^ {j} w ^ {j} \Theta + (1 - \rho^ {j}) w ^ {j} \right] *\]

\[(1 + r) (1 - \tau_ {t - 1}) + (1 + n) \tau_ {t} [ q \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {L}) w ^ {L} + (1 - q) \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {H}) w ^ {H} ]\]

and in all successive periods,

\[\begin{array}{c} q c _ {t} ^ {L} + (1 - q) c _ {t} ^ {H} = (1 + r) (1 - \tau_ {t - 1}) [ q \phi_ {t - 1} ^ {L} w ^ {L} + (1 - q) \phi_ {t - 1} ^ {H} w ^ {H} ] \\ + (1 + n) \tau_ {t} [ q \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {L}) w ^ {L} + (1 - q) \Gamma_ {t} (\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {H}) w ^ {H} ] \end{array}\]

where notice that and represent the old-age consumption of at of a type-j agent who retired respectively early and at normal retirement

The life-time utility obtained in equilibrium by a type j young agent and the remaining life-time utility for a type j old agent are represented respectively by the following indirect utility functions:

\[v _ {t} ^ {y, j} \left(\tau_ {t}, \alpha_ {t}, \tau_ {t + 1}, \alpha_ {t + 1}\right) = \max \left\{v _ {t} ^ {M, j}, v _ {t} ^ {E, j} \right\}\tag{3.6}\]

\[v _ {t} ^ {o, j} \left(\tau_ {t}, \alpha_ {t}\right) = K _ {t} ^ {j} (1 + r) + \Gamma_ {t} \left(\phi_ {t - 1} ^ {j}\right) p _ {t}\tag{3.7}\]

where

\[v _ {t} ^ {M, j} \left(\tau_ {t}, \alpha_ {t}, \tau_ {t + 1}, \alpha_ {t + 1}\right) = \left(1 - \tau_ {t}\right) w ^ {j} + \frac {p _ {t + 1}}{1 + r}\tag{3.8}\]

and

\[v _ {t} ^ {E, j} \left(\tau_ {t}, \alpha_ {t}, \tau_ {t + 1}, \alpha_ {t + 1}\right) = \Theta \left(1 - \tau_ {t}\right) w ^ {j} + (1 - \Theta) d + \frac {\alpha_ {t + 1} p _ {t + 1}}{1 + r}.\tag{3.9}\]

and represent respectively the utility of a type young individual when she retires at mandatory age and when she retires early, and is a constant which does not depend on current or future values of the social security system⁶.

4. The Voting Game

The size and the composition of the social security system are determined through a political process which aggregates agents’ preferences over the payroll tax rate, , and over the existence of early retirement, . We consider a political system of majoritarian voting. Elections take place every period. All persons alive, young and old, cast a ballot over τ and α. However, since every agent has zero mass, no individual vote could afect the outcome of the election. Therefore, we assume sincere voting.

Two features of this majoritarian voting game are worth noticing. First, because of the bidimensionality of the issue space, , Condorcet cycles may arise and a Nash equilibrium of this majoritarian voting game may not exist. To deal with this issue, we adopt the notion of structure induced equilibrium introduced by Shepsle (1979). He shows that under appropriate institutional restrictions, a multidimensional voting game can efectively be transformed into an issue by issue voting game, in which a (structure induced) equilibrium always exists. In our bidimensional election, this amounts to vote over τ for a given α, and over α for a given τ. A suficient condition for to be a structure induced equilibrium outcome of the voting game (see Shepsle, 1979) is that represents the outcome of a majority voting over the when the other dimension is fixed at its level and viceversa.

A second feature of our voting game is that, if no commitment device is available to restrict future policies, young people may refuse to transfer resources to current retirees, since there is no guarantee that this young-to-old transfer policy will be kept in the future. This represents a common element to most voting models of intergenerational transfers (see Galasso and Profeta, 2002). As others (see Cooley and Soares, 1999, Galasso, 1999, Boldrin and Rustichini, 2000, and Azariadis and Galasso, 2002), we consider subgame perfect equilibrium outcomes. If young agents expect their current vote to have no impact on future policies, they will vote for a zero social security tax rate, or they will incur in a net cost. However, young agents may believe that their current voting decision will influence future voters. In this case, as initially suggested by Hammond (1975), an implicit contract may arise among successive generations of voters, and young workers may agree to vote a pension to the current old as they expect to be rewarded in their old age with a corresponding pension.

These two features are captured in our notion of equilibrium, which we call stationary subgame perfect structure induced equilibrium (SSPSIE). In a SSPSIE, agents vote according to a stationary strategy profile, which is subgame perfect — and therefore allows them to take into account the efects of their current voting decisions on future ones — and which, in every period, is associated with the structure induced equilibrium of the static voting game. A formal description of the voting game and the definition of our equilibrium concept are provided in the appendix.

5. Politico-Economic Equilibria

In this section, we analyze the voting behavior of the agents over the existence of the early retirement provision, α, and over the size of the social security system, τ . At every time t, young and old agents vote simultaneously, issue-by-issue over α and τ. In other words, we calculate the social security tax rate, which is most preferred by each voter, with and without early retirement provision, . And, for every value of the social security tax rate, we examine whether voters would favor or oppose the introduction of early retirement, . Voters’ preferences over each issue are aggregated at simple majority. Thus, for each α, we identify the median vote for τ, and, for each τ, we identify the median vote for α. The points at which these median functions intersect, , represent (structure induced) equilibrium outcomes of the game.

Notice that the voting behavior of the young depends on how they expect their current voting decision to influence future voters. For instance, if they believe their current decision over the size of the social security system to bear no impact on the future size, they should vote for a zero tax rate. We consider the case in which young voters expect to choose a policy which will not be modified by future voters. Clearly, future voters will agree not to change the inherited policy, only if this is in their best interest. Proposition 5.1 will provide the conditions under which these expectations are consistent in equilibrium.

5.1. Voting on the Social Security Tax Rate

Consider first the case of no early retirement provision, . Old with incomplete working history, that is, those who retired early in the previous period, are not entitled to a pension transfer, and are thus indiferent over the size of the system. Old with complete working history, on the other hand, will choose the tax rate that maximizes their pension transfer, and thus

Among the young, high ability ones oppose the social security system, both because of its intragenerational redistributive component and of its low internal return as saving device. They vote for . Low ability young, on the other hand, support a positive social security system if the within cohort redistribution compensates the low average internal return. In particular, they vote for if , and otherwise.

Consider now that a generous early retirement provision exists, . Regardless of their working history, the old receive a pension, , and thus vote for the tax rate that maximizes this transfer: (see figure 1). The high ability young will again oppose any social security system and vote for Notice that, although for a high enough tax rate, , they would choose to retire early, they are still better of with no pension system, due to its low average return and to its within cohort redistributive element.

Let now examine the low ability young. If they do not expect to retire early, i.e., for , they will support the social security system if its intragenerational redistributive component dominates the low average return. In particular, they vote for , if , and otherwise. If, on the other hand, they expect to retire early, i.e., for , they also take into account the leisure associated with an early exit from the labor market. It is important to stress that, in this environment, leisure represents an additional element of redistribution in favor of the low ability young. In fact, while leisure is equally valued across ability types, the foregone labor income varies. This induces the low ability young to vote in favor of social security for an even lower average internal return from the system. Specifically, they vote for , if , and otherwise.

We now have to examine whether the low ability young are better of retiring at mandatory retirement age, with a tax rate equal to , or retiring early, with a tax rate equal to . This will clearly depend on the average internal return of the system, N, and on the utility that the agents obtain from retiring early, d. The low ability voting decision over for , can be summarized as follows:

\[\tau = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \tau_ {B} & \text {if} N \geq \frac {w _ {L}}{\overline {{w}}} \qquad \text {and} d \geq d _ {A} \text {or} \\ \tau_ {A} & \text {if} N \geq \frac {w _ {L}}{\overline {{w}}} \qquad \text {and} d < d _ {A} \\ 0 & \text {otherwise} \end{array} \right.\]

\[\text {where} d _ {A} = \frac {(1 - \Theta) q N w _ {L} w _ {H}}{(1 - \Theta) q N w _ {L} + \left(\frac {\overline {{w}} N}{w _ {L}} - \Theta\right) (w _ {H} - w _ {L})} \text {and} d _ {B} = \frac {w _ {H} [ w _ {L} (1 + q N (1 - \Theta)) - N \overline {{w}} ]}{w _ {L} (\Theta + q N (1 - \Theta)) - N \overline {{w}} + (1 - \Theta) w _ {H}}.\]

Therefore, if their return from the system is suficiently high, low ability young are always willing to vote in favor of social security. If the return is lower, however, they support the system only if they expect to retire early, and the leisure associated to an early exit from the labor market is suficiently large. In all other cases, they oppose the system.

5.2. Voting on the Existence of Early Retirement

The elderly have a simple decision. In absence of an early retirement provision, the resources collected from the current workers are exclusively shared among the old with complete working history. The institution of an early retirement provision entitles all the elderly, regardless of their working history, to an equal pension transfer. Therefore, old with complete working history oppose this provision, since, for a given tax rate, the entitlement of a pension to additional retirees would reduce their pension transfer, and vote ; while old with incomplete working history, who retired early in the previous period, vote

In analyzing the voting behavior of the young over the existence of early retirement, we have to take into account that — depending on the value of the tax rate — they may or may not take advantage of the early retirement provision. This decision is summarized at . 3.3 and 3.4, where now α can only take two values:

Consider the decision of a high ability young first. If early retirement exists, for low values of the tax rate, , nobody would retire early, and thus she would be indiferent between voting . For intermediate values of the tax rate, , only the low ability young would retire early. Since this leads to a reduction in the future pension transfer, due to the decrease in the tax base (see figure 1), the high ability young would oppose the provision, . Finally, for large tax rates, , all agents retire early. In this case, the high ability young have to compare the leisure obtained from retiring early with the decrease in the pension transfer due to the further reduction in the tax base. They vote for if . The voting behavior of the high ability young can thus be summarized as follows:

\[\alpha = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 0 \text {or} 1 & \text {for} \tau \leq \tau_ {A} \\ 0 & \text {for} \tau_ {A} < \tau \leq \tau_ {B} \text {and for} \tau > \tau_ {B} \text {if} d < N \overline {{w}} \end{array} \right.\]

Consider now the low ability young. For , nobody retires early, and thus they are indiferent between voting . For higher values of the tax rate, , low ability young would retire early. Thus, in deciding over the existence of the early retirement provision, they have to consider that early retirement provides them with additional leisure, but it decreases the pension transfer by reducing the tax base (see and in figure 1). A suficiently large valuation of their leisure (a large d) would clearly induce them to vote for . For example, for the tax rate that maximizes the pension benefit under early retirement — low ability young would support the existence of an early retirement provision if . For , the pension transfer are further reduced due to the early retirement of the high ability young. To vote for , low ability young would then need to have an even larger valuation of their leisure. For instance, for , they would vote for , only if A useful example of the voting behavior of the low ability young is the following. If 2

\[\alpha = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 0 \text {or} 1 & \text {for} \tau \leq \tau_ {A} \\ 0 & \text {for} \tau_ {A} < \tau < \tau_ {B} \text {and} \tau > \tau_ {B} \\ 1 & \text {for} \tau = \tau_ {B} \end{array} \right.\]

Clearly, a higher valuation of their leisure, , would induce them to vote for for same other values of , since the higher value of the leisure would compensate the reduction in the pension transfer.

5.3. The Equilibria

We now aggregate the votes over the two issues, α and as characterized in the previous sections, to describe the politico-economic equilibria of the voting game.

It is useful to begin with the analysis of the initial period and to concentrate⁷on a suficiently large average internal return, . As in the previous sections, we consider that young voters expect to choose a policy which will not be modified by future voters. Whether the initial young expectations are correct depends on the voting behavior of the future young in the successive periods. We will analyze this aspect next.

Recall that, at , the proportion of elderly with incomplete working history is exogenously given. It represents an initial condition of our economy and is equal to If no early retirement provision exists, elderly with incomplete working history, who are not entitled to a pension, are indiferent over the social security tax rate. Then, the median vote is , provided that there are enough complete working history old and low-ability young: . If early retirement exists, all the elderly vote in favor of social security and thus fewer low-ability young are needed to support the system: . These low ability young vote in favor of social security and retire early if their valuation of leisure is suficiently high, . The median vote is then (see figure 1).

When aggregating preferences over the early retirement provision, the existence of elderly with incomplete working history becomes crucial. For intermediate level of the tax rate, if there are enough elderly with incomplete working history — who would not receive a pension unless early retirement is introduced — and enough low-ability young — who favor early retirement because their valuation of leisure is suficiently high, — that is if the median vote is , and early retirement is introduced. No young voters support early retirement for low and high level of the tax . In this case, the median vote is

From this analysis of the initial period, we obtain two voting functions, and , which describe respectively the median vote over for a given α and the median vote over for a given τ. These two functions are drawn in figure 2. Notice that, since α only takes up two values, 0 and 1, the function amounts to two points, and , which we draw as circles. The points in which these two functions intercept, and , are candidates for being equilibrium outcomes of our voting game. To guarantee that they are indeed equilibrium outcomes, we need to ensure that the expectations of the young in the initial period are consistent with the voting behavior of the future young. We thus turn to the analysis of the subsequent periods.

First, notice that after the initial period, , the mass of elderly with incomplete working history is endogenous, and corresponds to the mass of young who, in the previous period, , decided to retire early. If no early retirement exists, there would be no elderly with incomplete working history, since no young would have retired early in the past. Then, every old votes in favor of social security, and the median vote is , provided that there are enough low-ability young: . In this case, the expectations of the initial young voters, who believed their vote, , not to be modified in the future, are validated⁹. If early retirement exists, the voting behavior in the subsequent periods, ， perfectly resembles that of the initial period, : the median vote is , if and

When voting over early retirement, the existence of a mass of elderly with incomplete working history, which is now endogenous, is again crucial. In fact, for intermediate levels of the tax rate, early retirement is sustained, i.e., the median vote is , if the mass of low ability elderly — who retired early in the previous period, and thus have an incomplete working history — and of low-ability young — who favor early retirement because of their high valuation of leisure, — constitutes a majority: . Notice that this condition is necessary to validate the expectation of the previous low-ability young, who retired early and expected to receive a pension in their old age. Finally, for low and high levels of the tax rate, the analysis does not difer from the initial period.

The message of this analysis is that the introduction of social security, with or without early retirement, requires two conditions: the support of a majority of the voters in the initial period, i.e., when there is an exogenous mass of elderly with incomplete working history, and in all future periods, i.e., when the mass of elderly with incomplete working history becomes endogenous, since it depends on the young agents’ retirement decisions. These results have an alternative and more realistic interpretation. Consider that an economy with a pre-existing social security system, but no early retirement provision, is hit by a shock which gives rise to a mass of elderly people with incomplete working history. In this case, our two conditions would represent the initial response to the shock and the long term dynamics.

The next proposition characterizes the politico-economic equilibrium outcomes of our voting game.

Proposition 5.1. There exists a SSPSIE of the voting game such that:

For and

For

\[\left(\tau^ {*} = \tau_ {B}, \alpha^ {*} = 1\right) i f \left\{ \begin{array}{c} d \geq d _ {B} \\ q \geq 1 / 2 \\ \rho + (1 + n) q > (2 + n) / 2 \end{array} \right.\]

^{(τ ∗ = 0, α∗ =} {^{0, 1}}⁾ otherwise

For

\[\begin{array}{l} \left(\tau^ {*} = \tau_ {B}, \alpha^ {*} = 1\right) i f \left\{ \begin{array}{c} d \geq d _ {C} \\ q \geq 1 / 2 \\ \rho + (1 + n) q > (2 + n) / 2 \end{array} \right. \\ \left(\tau^ {*} = 1, \alpha^ {*} = 0\right) i f \left\{ \begin{array}{c} q \geq n / 2 (1 + n) \\ 1 - \rho + 2 (1 + n) q > 1 + n \end{array} \right. \\ \left(\tau^ {*} = 0, \alpha^ {*} = \{0, 1 \}\right) o t h e r w i s e \end{array}\]

Figure 3 provides a graphic interpretation of the above proposition, which we prove in the appendix. The area delimited by the dashed line represents the combination of and i.e., of the mass of initial elderly with incomplete working history and of low ability young, such that, for , a politicoeconomic equilibrium with social security and no early retirement exists. Notice the relation between the number of elderly with incomplete working history, i.e., of voters who are indiferent regarding the pension and thus abstain from voting, and the minimum number of low ability young needed to sustain social security: if increases, then has to increase as well. However, for a large mass of low ability young, , social security arises regardless of the initial conditions,

The area within the dotted lines displays the combination of and such that an equilibrium with social security and early retirement exists. For an early retirement provision to be introduced, there has to be a suficiently large mass of initial elderly with incomplete working history, who are not entitled to a pension transfer, unless early retirement is instituted, and this provision has to induce a suficiently large number of young — the low ability, to retire early, and thus to become elderly with incomplete working history in the future period. The latter condition requires the low ability young to have a high enough valuation of the leisure that they enjoy when they retire early.

The diference in the areas in figure 3 shows that, for large values of the average return of the system, , an equilibrium with social security and early retirement requires more restrictive conditions on the initial mass of early retirees and of low ability young than one with no early retirement. For a lower average return, , however, social security may be sustained only if the early retirement provision exists. In this case, low ability young are willing to sustain the social security system, despite its low return, because they add to the gain from the within cohort redistribute element, the leisure that they obtain from retiring early.

Finally, notice that for , if and , i.e., in the dotted area in figure 3, there are multiple equilibria, since both a social security system with no early retirement and a tax rate equal to 1, and a social security system with early retirement and a tax rate equal to may be sustained.

6. Conclusions

Generous early retirement provisions exacerbate the financial distress of current unfunded social security systems by increasing the dependency ratio. In fact, by inducing early exits from the labor market, these provisions reduce the number of workers — and thus of contributors to the social security system — while increasing the number of retirees — and thus of recipients from the system.

We introduce the simplest overlapping generations model that is able to reproduce these characteristics, and we analyzed the political determinants which may lead to the adoption of early retirement. In our setting, low and high ability agents decide when to retire in order to maximize a linear utility function, which attributes value to leisure in youth and to old-age consumption. Our qualitative results would however also hold true in a more general model, with several types of agents and a concave — rather than linear — utility function.

The main message of this paper is that the initial political support and the long run political sustainability of early retirement provisions require two conditions: a large initial shock to the labor market that gives rise to a mass of redundant elderly workers and some degree of intragenerational redistribution in the provision.

We argue that the initial adoption of this institution relies heavily on the existence of an initial stock of redundant or unemployed elderly people who exited the labor market with an incomplete working history, and who, therefore, were not entitled to an old age pension. The adoption of early retirement awarded them a pension. An analysis of the eligibility criteria of the initial early retirement provisions to be adopted in Europe between 1961 and 1977 confirms this view. Despite the heterogeneity of these programs across countries already pointed out by Gruber and Wise (1999), these early pathways from the labor market were mainly targeted to redundant and unemployed elderly workers. In fact, they included diferent types of pensions to unemployed elderly workers, special contracted pensions for redundant workers and disability benefits awarded on the basis of labor market considerations. More general early retirement provisions were later introduced.

The long run political sustainability of this institution — we further suggest — is based on the generosity of these provisions and on the existence of an element of within cohort redistribution through the utility from leisure. Early retirement provides generous pension transfers to the middle-aged, and allows them to enjoy additional leisure, which may also be interpreted as the income obtained from working on the black market. Moreover, while leisure has a similar valuation across ability types, the foregone labor income is lower for less productive types, thereby introducing an element of within cohort redistribution. These features induce workers — especially low ability ones — to retire early and thus create an endogenous group of workers with incomplete working history, which guarantees the future support to early retirement. Evidence from Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998) confirm that, over the years, less educated workers have indeed used these provisions more extensively.

A. Appendix

A.1. The Voting Game and the Notion of Equilibrium

In this appendix, we define the voting game and formalize our concept of equilibrium: the stationary subgame perfect structure induced equilibrium.

The public history of the game at time t, is the sequence of social security tax rates and early retirement parameters until , where is the set of all possible history at time t. An action for a type j young individual at time t is a pair of social security tax rate and early retirement parameter, , where . Analogously, an action for a type j old individual at time t is . Thus, at time t every voter chooses a pair . We identify with the action profile of all individuals (young and old) at time t: where and

A strategy for a type j young individual at time t is a mapping from the history of the game into the action space: . Analogously, a strategy for a type j old individual at time t is . We denote with the strategy profile played by all individuals at time where and

For a given action profile at time , let be respectively the median of the distribution of tax rates, and the median of the distribution of the early retirement parameters. We call the outcome function of the voting game at time t. Notice that this outcome function corresponds to the structure induced equilibrium outcome of a voting game at time t in which agents can commit to the future policy.

The history of the game is updated according to the outcome function; at time

For a given sequence of action profiles, , and their corresponding realizations, , the expected payof function for a type j young individual at time t is , according to eq. 3.6, and for a type old agent is , according to eq. 3.7.

Let be the strategy profile at time t for all the young individuals bexcept for the type young individual, and let be the strategy profile bat time t for all the old individuals except for the type bold individual. At time the type young individual maximizes the following function:

\[V _ {t} ^ {y, \widehat {j}} \left(s _ {o},..., \left(s _ {t | \widehat {j}} ^ {y}, s _ {t, \widehat {j}} ^ {y}\right), s _ {t} ^ {o}, s _ {t + 1},...\right) = v _ {t} ^ {y, \widehat {j}} \left(\tau_ {t} ^ {m}, \alpha_ {t} ^ {m}, \tau_ {t + 1} ^ {m}, \alpha_ {t + 1} ^ {m}\right)\]

and a type old individual, at time t, maximizes the following function

\[V _ {t} ^ {o, \widehat {j}} \left(s _ {o},..., \left(s _ {t | \widehat {j}} ^ {o}, s _ {t, \widehat {j}} ^ {o}\right), s _ {t} ^ {y}, s _ {t + 1},...\right) = v _ {t} ^ {o, \widehat {j}} \left(\tau_ {t} ^ {m}, \alpha_ {t} ^ {m}\right)\]

where, according to our previous definition of the outcome function, and are, respectively, the median among the actions over the two parameters of the social security system played at time t and

We can now define a stationary subgame perfect structure induced equilibrium of the voting game as follows:

Definition A.1 (SSPSIE). A stationary voting strategy profile is a Stationary Subgame Perfect Structure Induced Equilibrium (SSPSIE) if the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) s is a subgame perfect equilibrium.

(ii) At every time t, the equilibrium outcome associated to s is a Structure Induced Equilibrium of the static game with commitment over future policy.

A.2. Proof of Proposition 5.1

Consider first a game in which current voters can commit to future policies, and agents thus vote over constant sequences of τ and α. By Shepsle (1979) Thm 4.1, a necessary and suficient condition for to be a SIE outcome of this voting game is that the two (median) voting functions, and , cross at (see figure 2). From the discussion in section 5, it is easy to see that the conditions in this proposition guarantee to be a SIE outcome of the voting game with commitment over future policy, for any

It remains to be shown that these outcomes are also subgame perfect equilibrium outcomes of the game described in this appendix. Let concentrate first on the outcome , for . Define the following sets of realization of the history of the game:

\[H _ {t} ^ {0, 0} = \left\{h _ {t} \in H _ {t} | (\tau_ {s} = 0, \alpha_ {s} = 0) s = 0, \dots , t - 1 \right\}\]

and

\[\begin{array}{r c l} H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 1} & = & \big \{h _ {t} \in H _ {t} | \exists t _ {0} \in \{0, 1,..., t - 1 \}: (\tau_ {s} = 0, \alpha_ {s} = 0) \forall s < t _ {0}, \\ & & (\tau_ {s} = \tau_ {B}, \alpha_ {s} = 1) \forall s \geq t _ {0} \big \} \end{array}\]

notice that

Consider the following voting strategy profile:

for low ability young:

\[s _ {t, L} ^ {y} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} (\tau_ {B}, 1) & \text {if} \quad h _ {t} \in H _ {t} ^ {0, 0} \cup H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 1} \\ (0, 0) & \text {if} \quad h _ {t} \in H _ {t} / \left\{H _ {t} ^ {0, 0} \cup H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 1} \right\} \end{array} \right.\]

for high ability young: 7

for the old with complete working history: 7

and for the old with incomplete working history:

Notice that low ability young have no incentive to deviate from this voting strategy. In fact, their best deviation, , would provide them with a utility level, , which is lower than the utility from following the strategy, , if (notice that for Analogously, it is incentive compatible to punish a previous deviator, since the utility level associated with providing a pension to a deviator, ， is always lower than the utility from punishing her, . Therefore, if is a SIE outcome, it is also a SSPSIE outcome.

Let now examine the SIE with outcome . Define the following set of realization of the history of the game:

\[H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 0} = \left\{h _ {t} \in H _ {t} | \exists t _ {0} \in \{0, 1, \dots , t - 1 \}: \tau_ {s} = 0 \forall s < t _ {0}, \tau_ {s} = 1 \forall s \geq t _ {0}, \alpha = 0 \forall t \right\},\]

notice that

For , consider the following voting strategy profile:

for low ability young:

\[s _ {t, L} ^ {y} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} (1, 0) & \text { if } \quad h _ {t} \in H _ {t} ^ {0, 0} \cup H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 0} \\ (0, 0) & \text { if } \quad h _ {t} \in H _ {t} / \left\{H _ {t} ^ {0, 0} \cup H _ {t} ^ {\tau , 0} \right\} \end{array} \right.\]

for high ability young: 7

for the old with complete working history: , while those with incomplete working history abstain.

It is easy to see that no agent has an incentive to deviate from this voting strategy profile, and thus if is a SIE outcome, it is also a SSPSIE outcome.

References

1. [1] Azariadis, C. and Galasso, V. (2002), “Fiscal Constitutions” Journal of Economic Theory, 103, 255-281.
2. [2] Blöndal, S. and Scarpetta, S. (1998), “The Retirement Decision in OECD Countries”, OECD Working Paper AWP 1.4.
3. [3] Boldrin, M., Dolado, J.J., Jimeno, J.F. and Peracchi, F. (1999) “The Future of Pension Systems in Europe. A Reappraisal,” Economic Policy, 29, 289- 320.
4. [4] Boldrin, M. and Rustichini, A. (2000), “Political Equilibria with Social Security”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 3, 41-78.
5. [5] Boskin, J. M. and Hurd, M. D. (1978) “The Efect of Social Security on Early Retirement”, Journal of Public Economics, 10, 361-377.
6. [6] Boskin, M.J., Kotlikof, L.J., Pufertt, D.J. and Shoven, J.B. (1987), “Social Security: A Financial Appraisal across and within Generations”, National Tax Journal, 40, 19-34.
7. [7] Caballero, R.J and Hammour, M.L. (1998) “The Macroeconomics of Specificity”, Journal of Political Economy, 106, 724-767.
8. [8] Casey, B. (1992) “Redundancy and Early Retirement: The Interaction of Public and Private Policy in Britain, Germany and the USA”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 30, 425-443.
9. [9] Coate, S. and Morris, S. (1999), “Policy Persistence”, American Economic Review, 89, 1327-1336.
10. [10] Conde-Ruiz, J.I. and Galasso V. (1999), “Positive Arithmetic of the Welfare State”, CEPR Discussion Paper # 2202.
11. [11] Cooley T.F. and Soares, J. (1999) “A Positive Theory of Social Security Based on Reputation”, Journal of Political Economy, 107, 135-160.
12. [12] Crawford, V. P. and Lilien, D. M. (1981) “Social Security and the Retirement Decision”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 505-529.
13. [13] Diamond, P.A. and Mirrless, J.A. (1978) “ A Model of Social Insurance with Variable Retirement”, Journal of Public Economics, 10, 295-336.
14. [14] Feldstein, M. (1974) “Social Security, Induced Retirement, and Aggregate Capital Accumulation”, Journal of Political Economy, 82, 905-926.
15. [15] Galasso, V. (1999), “The US Social Security System: What Does Political Sustainability Imply?”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 2, 698-730.
16. [16] Galasso, V. (2002), “The US Social Security: A Financial Appraisal for the Median Voter.”, forthcoming in the Social Security Bulletin .
17. [17] Galasso, V., and P. Profeta (2002), The Political Economy of Social Security: A Survey” European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 1-29.
18. [18] Gruber, J. and Wise, D. (eds.) (1999). Social Security and Retirement Around the World, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
19. [19] Hammond P. (1975) “Charity: Altruism or Cooperative Egoism” in Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory (E.S. Phelps, Ed.), Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
20. [20] Hassler, J., Rodrigugez Mora, J.V., Storesletten, K., and Zilibotti, F. (2001), “The Survival of the Welfare State”, mimeo.
21. [21] Krussell, P., Quadrini, V. and Rios Rull, J.V. (1997), “Politico-Economic Equilibrium and Economic Growth”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 243-72.
22. [22] Latulippe, D. (1996) “Efective Retirement Age and Duration of Retirement in the Industrial Countries between 1950 and 1990”, ILO Issues in Social Protection discussion paper No.2.
23. [23] Lazear, E.P. (1979) “Why is There Mandatory Retirement”, Journal of Political Economy, 87, 1261-1284.
24. [24] Mirkin, B.A. (1987) “Early Retirement as a Labor Force Policy: an International Overview”, Monthly Labor Review, 19-33.
25. [25] OECD, Labor Market Statistics on-line at www.oecd.org
26. [26] Shepsle, K.A. (1979), “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models”, American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27-59.
27. [27] Tabellini, G. (2000), “A Positive Theory of Social Security”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102, 523-545
28. [28] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1986) “Economic Survey of Europe in 1985-1986”.

¹ This result is closely related to the recent literature on policy persistence. As in Coate and Morris (1999) and in Hassler et al. (2001), in our politicoeconomic equilibrium, the introduction of a policy, i.e., the institution of early retirement, induces the (low ability young) agents to undertake certain actions in order to benefit from this policy. These actions, namely the use of the early retirement provision, are crucial to create a new (endogenous) group of elderly with incomplete working history, and thus to guarantee the future sustainability of the policy.

² Cooley and Soares (1999), Galasso (1999), and Boldrin and Rustichini (2000) have applied the notion of subgame perfection to similar social security games. Alternatively, Krussell, Quadrini and Rios-Rull (1997) have concentrated on Markowperfect equilibria of dynamic political games. Azariadis and Galasso (2002) compare the sets of equilibrium outcomes under the diferent equilibrium notions in a simple social security game.

³ In fact, the existence of a PAYG system induces changes in the factor prices of labor and capital, thereby afecting the saving decisions of the agents. In particular, the introduction of a PAYG social security system, by reducing the capital stock, may increase the real interest rate, decrease the wage rate, and thus modify the net wealth of the agents. Our model abstracts from these considerations, which are analyzed in Cooley and Soares (1999), Galasso (1999), and Boldrin and Rustichini (2000). See also Feldstein (1974) for the impact of the early retirement provision on the individual saving decisions.

⁴ Evidence in favor of the existence of this within cohort redistribution can be found in Boskin et al. (1987) and Galasso (2002).

⁵ Notice, however, that this assumption will not afect the result of our voting game. In fact, if given the chance of voting for any , for a given tax rate, agents would still take a binary decision, either . This is due to the fact that (low ability) agents, who would retire early, would have their pension transfer maximized at

⁶ Specifically,

⁷ A characterization of the politico-economic equilibrium outcomes is in Proposition 5.1.

⁸ For low level of the tax rate, nobody would retire early and thus the young would be indiferent whether to introduce this provision or not. For high level of the tax rate, every young would retire early, thereby greatly reducing the tax base and the pension benefits. Every young would then prefer not to introduce the provision to avoid this distortion.

⁹ Clearly, also subsequent generations of young voters have to expect their decisions not to be amended in the future. However, since after the initial period the game becomes stationary and successive generations of voters face the same decision, a stationary voting strategy profile would require all these voters to take the same decision (see the proof of proposition 5.1).

Table I

Note: * age 60-64 Source: OECD - Labour Market Statistics (on-line), Latulippe (1996)

Share of Retirees among Male Workers 55-64 by Level of Education in 1995

Table II

Source: Blöndal and Scarpetta (1998)

Ta b l e I I I Ea rl_y Reti re me nt I nstitutions

Ta b l e I I I Ea rl_y Reti re me nt I nstitutions

Sou rces : Econom i c Com m ision for E u rope ( 1 986 ) G ru ber a nd Wise ( 1 999) Casey ( 1 992 )

Legenda : RW = pension to workers made red u ndant for econom ic reasons U P = award i ng of the pension req u i res a period of u nem ployment D U = d isabi l ity pension awarded also accord i ng to labor market cond itions or to u nem ployed workers AF = actuarial ly fai r E R provision E R = general early reti rement provision F P = fi rms' pe nsion pla ns YE = awa rd i ng of the Pe nsion req u i res the e m ployme nt of a you ng worker

Figure 1 Pension Transfers and Tax Rates

Figure 2 Median Voting Functions

Figure 3 : Politico-Economic Equilibria

Legend

Figure 1: Pension Transfers and Tax Rates

Figure 2: Median Voting Functions

Figure 3: Politico-Economic Equilibria

hat

List of Symbols

DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO

References

1. 2003-03: “Early retirement”, J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz y Vincenzo Galasso.

References

1. 2003-02: “Balance del sistema de pensiones y boom migratorio en España. Nuevas proyecciones del modelo MODPENS a 2050”, Javier Alonso Meseguer y José A. Herce.

References

1. 2003-01: “Convergence in social protection across EU countries, 1970-1999”, Simón Sosvilla-Rivero, José A. Herce y Juan-José. de Lucio.

References

1. 2002-26: “Temporary Employment and Segmentation in the Spanish Labour Market: an Empirical Analysis through the Study of Wage Differentials”, María A. Davia y Virginia Hernanz.

References

1. 2002-25: “Efectos económicos de las inversiones ferroviarias, 1991-2007”, José A. Herce y Simón Sosvilla-Rivero.

References

1. 2002-24: “Assessing self-assessed health data”, Namkee Ahn.

References

1. 2002-23: “Especialización productiva y asimetrías en las fluctuaciones económicas en las regiones europeas”, Jordi Pons Novell y Daniel A. Tirado Fabregat.

References

1. 2002-22: “An Eclectic Approach to Currency Crises: Drawing Lessons from the EMS Experience”, Reyes Maroto, Francisco Pérez y Simón Sosvilla-Rivero.

References

1. 2002-21: “Migration Willingness in Spain: Analysis of Temporal and Regional Differences”, Namkee Ahn, Juan F. Jimeno y Emma García.

References

1. 2002-20: “¿Es relevante el trato fiscal diferencial en el volumen de ahorro de los individuos?”, José A. Herce.

References

1. 2002-19: “Industry Mobility and Concentration in the European Union”, Salvador Barrios y Eric Strobl.

References

1. 2002-18: “The Closed-Form Solution for a Family of Four-Dimension Non-Linear MHDS”, José Ramón Ruiz-Tamarit.

References

1. 2002-17: “Multiplicity, Overtaking and Convergence in the Lucas Two-Sector Growth Model”, José Ramón Ruiz-Tamarit

References

1. 2002-16: “A Matching Model of Crowding-Out and On-the-Job Search (with an application to Spain)”, Juan J. Dolado, Marcel Jansen y Juan F. Jimeno.

References

1. 2002-15: “Youth unemployment in the OECD: Demographic shifts, labour market institutions, and macroeconomic shocks”, Juan F. Jimeno y Diego Rodríguez-Palenzuela

References

1. 2002-14: “Modelling the linkages between US and Latin American stock markets”, José L. Fernández-Serrano y Simón Sosvilla-Rivero

References

1. 2002-13: “Incentivos y desigualdad en el sistema español de pensiones contributivas de jubilación”, Juan F. Jimeno.

References

1. 2002-12: “Price Convergence in the European Union”, Simón Sosvilla-Rivero y Salvador Gil-Pareja.

References

1. 2002-11: “Recent Trends in Occupational Segregation by Gender: A Look Across The Atlantic”, Juan J. Dolado, Florentino Felgueroso y Juan F. Jimeno.

References

1. 2002-10: “Demand- and Supply-Driven Externalities in OECD Countries: A Dynamic Panel Approach”, Salvador Barrios y Federico Trionfetti.

References

1. 2002-09: “Learning by Doing and Spillovers: Evidence from Firm-Level Panel Data”, Salvador Barrios y Eric Strobl.

References

1. 2002-08: “Interdependent Growth in the EU: The Role of Trade”, María García-Vega y José A. Herce.

References

1. 2002-07: “Export market integration in the European Union”, Salvador Gil-Pareja y Simón Sosvilla-Rivero.

References

1. 2002-06: “Early mortality declines at the dawn of modern growth”, Raouf Boucekkine, David de la Croix y Omar Licandro.

References

1. 2002-05: “Nearest-Neighbour Predictions in Foreign Exchange Markets”, Fernando Fernández-Rodríguez, Simón Sosvilla-Rivero y Julián Andrada-Félix