Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

The Regulatory Welfare State in Pension Markets: Mitigating High Charges for Low-Income Savers in the United Kingdom and Israel

  • AVISHAI BENISH (a1), HANAN HABER (a2) and ROTEM ELIAHOU (a3)

Abstract

How does the rising ‘regulatory welfare state’ address social policy concerns in pension markets? This study examines this question by comparing the regulatory responses to high charges paid by low-income workers in pension markets in the UK and Israel. In the UK, with the recognition that the market would not cater to low-income workers, the regulatory response was the creation of a publicly operated low-cost pension fund (NEST), a ‘public option’ within the market. This allowed low-income workers access to a low level of charges, previously reserved for high-income and organised workers. In Israel, regulation sought to empower consumers, while providing minimal social protection by capping pension charges at a relatively high level, thereby leaving most of the responsibility for reducing the charges with the individual saver. By comparing these two cases, the article develops an analytical framework for the study of the regulatory welfare state, making two contributions. First, it highlights different types of regulatory citizenship: minimal regulatory social protection as opposed to a more egalitarian approach. Second, it identifies an overlooked regulatory welfare state strategy: creating ‘public option’ arrangements, whereby a state-run (but not funded) service operates within the market.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Regulatory Welfare State in Pension Markets: Mitigating High Charges for Low-Income Savers in the United Kingdom and Israel
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Regulatory Welfare State in Pension Markets: Mitigating High Charges for Low-Income Savers in the United Kingdom and Israel
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Regulatory Welfare State in Pension Markets: Mitigating High Charges for Low-Income Savers in the United Kingdom and Israel
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
Amsterdamsky, S. (2013), ‘We are the 66% who pay for 10% of the savers for pension’, Calcalist, Israel. (Hebrew)
Arlozerov, M. (2014), ‘The 750 thousand suckers who pay the highest management charges in pension’, The Marker, Israel. (Hebrew)
Benish, A. (2010), ‘Re-bureaucratizing welfare administration,Social Service Review, 84 (1): 77101.
Benish, A. (2014), ‘Outsourcing, Discretion, and Administrative Justice: Exploring the Acceptability of Privatized Decision Making. Law & Policy, 36: 2, 113133.
Benish, A. and Levi-Faur, D. (2012), ‘New forms of administrative law in the age of third-party government,’ Public Administration 90: 4, 886900.
Haber, H. (2011), ‘Regulating-for-Welfare: A Comparative Study of “Regulatory Welfare Regimes” in the Israeli, British, and Swedish Electricity Sectors’, Law & Policy, 33: 1, 116148.
Haber, H. (2015), ‘Regulation as Social Policy: Home Evictions and Repossessions in The UK and Sweden’, Public Administration, 93: 3, 806821.
Haber, H. (2016), ‘Rise of the Regulatory Welfare State? Social Regulation in Utilities in Israel’, Social Policy & Administration.
Berner, F. (2011), ‘New Private Pensions in Germany: A Pension Market or a Branch of the Welfare State? Contested Regulatory Issues’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bindman, R. (2011), ‘Inequality in pension savings: The strong save, small companies' workers pay’, Calcalist, Israel. (Hebrew)
Dean, H. (2015), Social Rights and Human Welfare, London: Routledge.
DWP (2006), Security in Retirement: Towards a New Pensions System, London: DWP.
DWP (2013), Supporting automatic enrolment, London: DWP.
Ebbinghaus, B. (ed.) (2011), The Varieties of Pension Governance: Pension Privatization in Europe, New York: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Frericks, P. (2013), “Strengthening Market Principles in Welfare Institutions: How Hybrid Pension Systems Impact on Social-risk Spreading”, Journal of Social Policy, 42: 4, 665683.
Gal, J. (2002), ‘How well does a partnership in pensions really work?’, Ageing and Society, 22: 2, 161183.
Gal, J. (2010), ‘Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20: 4, 283300.
Gilbert, N. (2005), ‘The “Enabling State?” from Public to Private Responsibility for Social Protection’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, Working Paper No. 26, OECD.
Le Grand, J. (1991), ‘Quasi-Markets and Social Policy’, The Economic Journal, 101: 408, 12561267.
Leimgruber, M. (2012), ‘The Historical Roots of a Diffusion Process: The Three-Pillar Doctrine and European Pension Debates (1972–1994)’, Global Social Policy, 12: 1, 2444.
Leisering, L. (2011), ‘Transformation of the State: Comparing the New Regulatory State to the Post-War Provider State’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leisering, L. (2012), ‘Pension privatization in a welfare state environment: socializing private pensions in Germany and the United Kingdom’, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 28: 2, 139151.
Leisering, L. and Mabbett, D. (2011), ‘Introduction: Towards a New Regulatory State in Old-Age Security? Exploring the Issues’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levi-Faur, D. (2013), ‘The Odyssey of the Regulatory State: From a “Thin” Monomorphic Concept to a “Thick” and Polymorphic Concept’, Law and Policy, 35: 1–2, 2950.
Levi-Faur, D. (2014), ‘The Welfare State: A Regulatory Perspective’, Public Administration, 92: 3, 599614.
Levi-Faur, D. and Gilad, S. (2004), ‘The rise of the British regulatory state: Transcending the privatization debate’, Comparative Politics, 37: 1, 105124.
Lurie, L. (2015), ‘The Privatization of the Occupational Pension in Israel’, Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, in Galnoor, I., Paz-Fuchs, A. and Zion, N. (Eds.), Privatization Policy in Israel: State Responsibility and the Boundaries between the Public and the Private, Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute
Mabbett, D. (2010), ‘The Regulatory Rescue of the Welfare State’, in Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), Handbook of the Politics of Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Mabbett, D. (2011), ‘The Regulatory Politics of Private Pensions in the UK and Germany’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mabbett, D. (2012), ‘The Ghost in the Machine Pension Risks and Regulatory Responses in the United States and the United Kingdom’. Politics & Society, 40: 1, 107129.
Majone, G. (1997), ‘From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance’, Journal of Public Policy, 17: 2, 139167.
Malik, S. (2014), ‘State pension service could be privatised under DWP plans’, The Guardian, UK.
Mann, K. (2005), ‘Three Steps to Heaven? Tensions in the Management of Welfare: Retirement Pensions and Active Consumers’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 1, 7796.
Marschallek, C. (2011), ‘Back to the State? The Public Policies of Private and Public Pensions in Britain’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer, T. and Bridgen, P. (2012), ‘Business, Regulation and Welfare Politics in Liberal Capitalism’, Policy & Politics, 40: 3, 387403.
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2010), A Plan to Increase Competition in the Pension Market, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2012a), Annual Report 2011, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2012b), Management Charges in Pension Saving Devices (Financial Institutions Circular 22-9-2012), Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2014a), Annual Report 2013, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2014b), Presentation on Management Charges Calculator, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2015a), Annual Report 2014, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Ministry of Finance, CMISD (2015b), The Pension Guide, Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance. (Hebrew)
Naczyk, M. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2015), ‘Solidarity against All Odds Trade Unions and the Privatization of Pensions in the Age of Dualization’, Politics and Society, 43: 3, 361384.
OECD (2009), Private Pensions Outlook 2008, OECD Publications.
Pensions commission (2005), A New Pension Settlement for the Twenty-First Century, London: TSO.
Schwartz, E. (2010), Management charges in Provident Funds and Pension Funds, Jerusalem: The Research and Information Center of the Knesset. (Hebrew)
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011), ‘Limits to the Regulated Market: The UK Experiment’, in Leisering, L. (ed.), The New Regulatory State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor-Gooby, P., Larsen, T., and Kananen, J. (2004), ‘Market means and welfare ends: the UK welfare state experiment’, Journal of Social Policy, 33: 4, 573592.
The Pensions Regulator (2015), The essential guide to governance standards and charge controls, London: The Pensions Regulator.
Trampusch, C. (2007), ‘Industrial Relations as a Source of Social Policy: A Typology of the Institutional Conditions for Industrial Agreements on Social Benefits’, Social Policy & Administration, 41: 251270.
Work and Pensions Committee (2015), Progress with Automatic Enrolment and Pension Reforms, London: The Stationery Office Limited.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Social Policy
  • ISSN: 0047-2794
  • EISSN: 1469-7823
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-social-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed