Nearing Retirement, July 2008

IPERS provides the security you need through guaranteed benefits. With IPERS, unlike other retirement plans, benefits aren’t tied to the performance of the stock market and you don’t need to be an experienced investor to make your retirement dreams a reality. Your IPERS benefits are only one part of your overall retirement savings. Your total retirement income will come from a combination of your IPERS benefits, social security, personal savings, and any other retirement plan benefits.

For Members Retiring, July 2008

IPERS provides the security you need through guaranteed benefits. With IPERS, unlike other retirement plans, benefits aren’t tied to the performance of the stock market and you don’t need to be an experienced investor to make your retirement dreams a reality. Your IPERS benefits are only one part of your overall retirement savings. Your total retirement income will come from a combination of your IPERS benefits, social security, personal savings, and any other retirement plan benefits.

Disabilities Benefits for Special Services Disability, July 2008

IPERS provides the security you need through guaranteed benefits. With IPERS, unlike other retirement plans, benefits aren’t tied to the performance of the stock market and you don’t need to be an experienced investor to make your retirement dreams a reality. Your IPERS benefits are only one part of your overall retirement savings. Your total retirement income will come from a combination of your IPERS benefits, social security, personal savings, and any other retirement plan benefits.

Disabilities Benefits for Special Services Disability, July 2008

IPERS provides the security you need through guaranteed benefits. With IPERS, unlike other retirement plans, benefits aren’t tied to the performance of the stock market and you don’t need to be an experienced investor to make your retirement dreams a reality. Your IPERS benefits are only one part of your overall retirement savings. Your total retirement income will come from a combination of your IPERS benefits, social security, personal savings, and any other retirement plan benefits.

The determinants of social spending in Spain (1880-1960): Is Lindert right?

[spa] El principal objetivo de este artículo se centra en analizar los orígenes del Estado de Bienestar en España a partir del marco teórico elaborado por Peter Lindert. Con este fin, se ofrece un análisis econométrico de los factores que determinaron la evolución del gasto social público en este país entre 1880 y 1960. Utilizando nueva evidencia cuantitativa, se construyó un panel de datos por quinquenios con el porcentaje de gasto social respecto al PIB desagregado en tres partidas: sanidad, seguridad social y beneficencia. El análisis permite insertar el caso español en el debate internacional y los resultados revelan interesantes singularidades de este país.

Viabilidad del sistema de pensiones y reformas por el lado de los ingresos: una aproximación intergeneracional

Este artículo, mediante el método de la Contabilidad Generacional, examina la viabilidad a largo plazo y los efectos sobre la redistribución intergeneracional de la renta del sistema de pensiones español. Dado la enorme deuda acumulada, que se traslada a las generaciones futuras, se explora la posibilidad de introducir políticas de reforma por el lado de los ingresos que pretenden mitigar la fuerte dependencia demográfica de las finanzas de la Seguridad Social. El principal resultado obtenido es que la gravedad de la crisis demográfica hace que estos tipos de medidas estudiadas sean claramente insuficientes para restaurar el equilibrio intergeneracional.

Transitional effects of a pension system change in Spain

This paper studies the output effects, transition costs and the change in pension benefits derived from the substitution of the current unfunded pension system by a fully funded pension system financed through mandatory savings.These effects are estimated by using reduced versions of the neoclassical and endogenous growth frameworks. Because of the greater capital accumulation during the transition phase, final output increases by 23,6% (neoclassicalframework); and a 24,5-31,5% (endogenous growth framework). The initial revenue loss for the government would represent a 4,8% of the GDP, raising very slowly during the transition period. Given the new growth rates, rates of return ofphysical capital, and financial intermediation costs, we have that the capitalization pension benefits obtained by all 30-contribution-year worker would be more than twice than those that guarantee the financial sustainability of thepublic pension system

Legislators’ Guide of IPERBS, January 2006

For more than 50 years, IPERS has provided a core retirement plan covering most Iowa local and state public employees. With approximately 300,000 members and almost 2,400 covered employers, IPERS is the largest public retirement system in Iowa. The Legislature designed IPERS to provide monthly lifetime annuities that supplement social security benefits and personal savings, enabling public employees to care for themselves in retirement. The Legislature also intended for IPERS to be an employee benefit that would help Iowa’s public employers recruit and retain qualified personnel. As a defined benefit plan, the monthly benefit IPERS members receive is calculated using a formula. A member’s benefit increases as his or her years of service and salary increase. Because IPERS is a defined benefit plan, the Legislature is assured that the money contributed by public employees and their employers for retirement is used as intended. The benefit is paid as a lifetime monthly annuity. IPERS members cannot borrow or withdraw their money while in public employment.

The determinants of social spending in Spain (1880-1960): Is Lindert right?

[spa] El principal objetivo de este artículo se centra en analizar los orígenes del Estado de Bienestar en España a partir del marco teórico elaborado por Peter Lindert. Con este fin, se ofrece un análisis econométrico de los factores que determinaron la evolución del gasto social público en este país entre 1880 y 1960. Utilizando nueva evidencia cuantitativa, se construyó un panel de datos por quinquenios con el porcentaje de gasto social respecto al PIB desagregado en tres partidas: sanidad, seguridad social y beneficencia. El análisis permite insertar el caso español en el debate internacional y los resultados revelan interesantes singularidades de este país.

About IPERS, October 2011

It’s never too early to start thinking about retirement. Regardless of your retirement plans or anticipated retirement age, you want a financially secure retirement. IPERS provides the security you need through guaranteed benefits. With IPERS, unlike other retirement plans, benefits aren’t tied to the performance of the stock market and you don’t need to be an experienced investor to make your retirement dreams a reality. Remember, your IPERS benefits are only one part of your overall retirement savings. Your total retirement income will come from a combination of your IPERS benefits, social security, personal savings, and any other retirement plan benefits.

Viabilidad del sistema de pensiones y reformas por el lado de los ingresos: una aproximación intergeneracional

Este artículo, mediante el método de la Contabilidad Generacional, examina la viabilidad a largo plazo y los efectos sobre la redistribución intergeneracional de la renta del sistema de pensiones español. Dado la enorme deuda acumulada, que se traslada a las generaciones futuras, se explora la posibilidad de introducir políticas de reforma por el lado de los ingresos que pretenden mitigar la fuerte dependencia demográfica de las finanzas de la Seguridad Social. El principal resultado obtenido es que la gravedad de la crisis demográfica hace que estos tipos de medidas estudiadas sean claramente insuficientes para restaurar el equilibrio intergeneracional.

Transitional effects of a pension system change in Spain

This paper studies the output effects, transition costs and the change in pension benefits derived from the substitution of the current unfunded pension system by a fully funded pension system financed through mandatory savings.These effects are estimated by using reduced versions of the neoclassical and endogenous growth frameworks. Because of the greater capital accumulation during the transition phase, final output increases by 23,6% (neoclassicalframework); and a 24,5-31,5% (endogenous growth framework). The initial revenue loss for the government would represent a 4,8% of the GDP, raising very slowly during the transition period. Given the new growth rates, rates of return ofphysical capital, and financial intermediation costs, we have that the capitalization pension benefits obtained by all 30-contribution-year worker would be more than twice than those that guarantee the financial sustainability of thepublic pension system

Social entrepreneurship – Believe in it or not!

The practice of social entrepreneurship already exists for a long time but the concept is quite new and has more recently raised a growing interest among academics. However, the majority of researches and considerations about the subject have taken a strong positive concern by omitting some sort of a critical reflection. The idea of this study is to consider the gap between the very optimistic and the more precautious concerns about social entrepreneurship. It means presenting the advantages and downsides connected to the topic in the business, public and third sector. The aim is to help the reader building his/her own belief on social entrepreneurship by considering the positive and negative sides of social entrepreneurship. Hence, the research is intended to take a critical step and aims to answer to the following research questions:  Shall we believe in social entrepreneurship?  What are the reasons for believing or not in social entrepreneurship taking into account the advantages and possible risks of it in the business, public, and third sector? The theoretical framework consists of the comparison between the promising and precautious sides about social entrepreneurship for private, public and non-governmental organizations including the actors or participants inside these sectors. The empirical part is conducted using a qualitative method. Personal interviews of experts in the fields of business, public and third sectors were handled. The purpose of this approach is to compare the critics in theory with the experience of persons dealing with social entrepreneurship. The results from the interviews revealed that in general, reasons for believing in social entrepreneurship prevail over critics about the subject. Social entrepreneurship may not yet represent a full performing business. Concerns for weakening the public power and putting aside the interests of communities in need may exist too. Furthermore, naïve and extra liberal ways of thinking or doing can lead to practices going in opposition with initial social objectives. Nevertheless, problems about social entrepreneurship would be mainly due to the young age of the movement. Time and experience would give better foundations and results to social entrepreneurs. Critics about social entrepreneurship could also easily be done to any sorts of business. Overall, the positive considerations of social entrepreneurship with skillful, motivated and responsible actors could represent some useful tools for enterprises, governments and charities. Some tools among many other possibilities to help people in need.

Social Opportunities and Individual Responsibility: The Capability Approach and the Third Way

The fashionable widespreading of Sen’s ideas coincides with a new mood in the shaping of public policies in affluent societies. In Europe indeed, an “opportunity”-based approach to social security has been implemented through the European Employment Strategy. Public action tends to rely on a procedural concern with individual opportunities or potentialities in the labour market. The underlying ethics is that individuals are then responsible to use these background opportunities in order to lead the kind of life they value most. More broadly, the discourse and practice of the so-called “Third Way” shares with the capability approach an appeal for a procedural and enabling depiction of the role of the State. The paper intends to clarify the relation between procedural and opportunity-based approaches to social justice, among them the capability approach, and these new patterns of public action. Our vision goes in the way of a yet renewed, but deeper action of the welfare state, where social agency is envisaged as the very condition of individual agency. Drawing on the various critics of mainstream equality of opportunity, two opposed approaches to responsibility are identified: on the one hand, responsibility is conceived of as i) a “luck vs. choice” fixed starting point, ii) a backward-looking conception and iii) a highly individualistic framework. On the other hand, responsibility is envisaged as i) an outcome of public policies rather than a starting point, ii) a forward-looking conception, and iii) a combined institutional-individual framework. We situate here Sen’s capability approach, as well as critics of the luck egalitarianism path. The Third Way rhetoric is assessed against both these perspectives. The issue eventually boils down to an ethical reflection on the articulation of responsibilities, and to a pragmatic and substantial concern for the content of what providing security should mean in practice.

Allergies and asthma: employing principles of social justice as a guide in public health policy development

This article is an excellent example of applied ethics in public health policy development.