In the first part of this study on the capital funded models of pension schemes, the economic concept [in theory] and the Chilean and Argentinian concepts of pensions schemes implemented in those countries were presented. On the one hand, extremely similar to each other, and on the other different with so many detailed solutions that it might as well be said they are completely dissimilar. If we chronologically consider the Chilean system as the primary one, than the Argentinian system is its mirror image, however, reflected in a mirror from the house of mirrors.
It is not an uncommon opinion that these are the only countries in which the capital funded model was implemented, but as it was concluded in the first part of the study, almost all of South America became in its own way an unusual testing ground for the implementation of the capital funded concept of pension insurance.
Just as the Chilean and Argentinian solutions seem apparently similar to each other, the solutions of the remaining countries in the scope of pension insurance have many variations, specific only to them or to the countries on that continent.
To provide a fuller comparison, the tabular summaries will include apart from the two already described countries, the following six countries: Peru, Columbia, Uruguay, Bolivia, Mexico and El Salvador, and also the already described solutions in Chile and Argentina to facilitate a more complete and simple analysis of the presented data.
The two best known and continuously analyzed pension insurance systems in South America are, similarly as the Polish and Swedish concepts, though with a definitely different distribution of accents, the Chilean and Argentinian systems. Both are the execution of the so-called capital funded model. Both were implemented in large capitalistic countries located on the same continent. In both countries, the previous pension system were at the verge of efficiency and their economic situation, economies and budgets were also in a state requiring intervention and repair programs.
It is worth analyzing even in those cases the differences between the implementation and execution methods and procedures of those pension insurance models that are similar in assumption, and what is very important, the effects or lack of effects in those elements of both implemented models with which they differed.