Mandatory Pension System and Redistribution: The Comparative Analysis of Institutions in Baltic States

Open access


Mandatory pension systems occupy a central role in the system of social security because of the share of social expenditure in national economies. One of the goals of pension system is to redistribute incomes among individuals. However, it is not clear how the intentions to redistribute incomes coincide with the outcomes. In this paper, we will study the difference between the intentions as they are articulated within institutions, with the outcomes that are generated by them. We use the method of comparative institutional analysis in order to find out the differences. Our comparative institutional analysis is based on the grammar of institutions that is proposed by Crawford and Ostrom. Also, in order to understand the differences, we will compare the institutions in relatively similar cases – the Baltic States. The results show that there is a gap between the intentions and outcomes to redistribute incomes among individuals. The findings from the comparative institutional analysis suggest that the most redistributive old age pension system is in Estonia. However, according to the factual information from Eurostat, the greatest distributive effect is produced by the mandatory pension system of Lithuania.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aidukaite J. (2006). The formation of social insurance institutions of the Baltic States in the post-socialist era. Journal of European Social Policy 16(3) 259-270.

  • Atkinson A. B. (2003). Income inequality in OECD countries: Data and explanations. CESifo Economic Studies 49(4) 479-513.

  • Barr N. A. (1998). The economics of the welfare state. Stanford University Press.

  • Basurto X. Kingsley G. McQueen K. Smith M. & Weible C. M. (2009). A systematic approach to institutional analysis: applying Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar. Political Research Quarterly63(3) 523–537.

  • Casey B. H. (2004). Pension Reform in the Baltic States: Convergence with ‘Europe’ or with’ the World’? International Social Security Review 57(1) 19-45.

  • Cerami A. (2011). Ageing and the politics of pension reforms in Central Europe South-Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. International Journal of Social Welfare 20(4) 331-343.

  • Clement F. & Amezaga J. M. (2009). Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: analysing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy 26(2) 458-470.

  • Cranmer S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 31(2) 169-184.

  • Crawford S. E. & Ostrom E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review 89(03) 582-600.

  • Eurostat (2016). EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) methodology – distribution of incomes. Retrieved from:

  • Gillwald A. (2005). Good intentions poor outcomes: Telecommunications reform in South Africa. Telecommunications Policy 29(7) 469-491.

  • Hwang S. J. (2016). Public Pensions as the Great Equalizer? Decomposition of Old-Age Income Inequality in South Korea 1998–2010. Journal of aging & social policy28(2) 81-97.

  • Lazutka R. (2003). Gyventojų pajamų nelygybė [Population’s income inequality]. Filosofija. Sociologija 2 22-29.

  • Lazutka R. (2007). Pensijų sistemų raida Lietuvoje [Development of pension schemes in Lithuania]. Filosofija. Sociologija 18(2) 64-80.

  • Le Grand J. (2003). Motivation agency and public policy: of knights and knaves pawns and queens. Oxford University Press.

  • Lithuania Department of Statistics (2015). Economic and social development in Lithuania Latvia and Estonia. Retrieved from:

  • Mahoney J. & Thelen K. (2009). A theory of gradual institutional change. In Mahoney J. & Thelen K. (Eds.) Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity agency and power (pp. 1-37). Cambridge University Press.

  • Mattil B. (2006). Pensions Systems. Sustainability and Distributional Effects in Germany and the United Kingdom. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

  • Müller K. (2002) Old-age security in the Baltics: legacy early reforms and recent trends. Europe-Asia Studies 54(5) 725-748.

  • Neckerman K. M. & Torche F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol.33 335-357.

  • Norkus Z. (2012). On Baltic Slovenia and Adriatic Lithuania: a qualitative comparative analysis of patterns in post-communist transformation. Central European University Press.

  • OECD. (2011). Pensions at a Glance 2011: Retirement-income Systems in OECD and G20 Countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  • Orenstein M. A. (2013). Pension privatization: evolution of a paradigm. Governance26(2) 259-281.

  • Ostrom E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton university press.

  • Ostrom E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39(1) 7-27.

  • Philipov D. (2009). Fertility intentions and outcomes: the role of policies to close the gap. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie 25(4) 355-361.

  • Ragin C. C. (1989). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.

  • Rajevska O. (2013). Equity criterion in pension system assessment and its manifestation in Estonian and Latvian pension schemes. Journal of Economic and Management Research2 118-130.

  • Rajevska O. &Rajevska F. (2014). Notional Defined Contribution pension scheme experience in Latvia: some lessons. Studia Humanistyczne AGH13(4) 185-197.

  • Rajevska O. (2015). Sustainability of pension systems in the Baltic States. Entrepreneurial Business and Economic Review3(4) 139-153.

  • Rajevska O. (2016). Theoretical old-age pension benefits and replacement rates in the Baltic States: A retrospective simulation. Economics and Business28 13-19.

  • Reynolds M. & Smolensky E. (1977). Public expenditures taxes and the distribution of income: The United States 1950 1961 1970. Academic Press.

  • Skučienė D. & Gataūlinas A. (2011). Lietuvos socialinio draudimo kompensuojamoji gerovė lyginant su ES šalimis [Compensatory welfare of Lithuanian social insurance system among EU member states]. Socialinis darbas(02) 301-314.

  • Skučienė D. (2008). Pajamų nelygybė Lietuvoje [Income inequality in Lithuania]. Filosofija. Sociologija 4 22-33.

  • Statistics Estonia (2016). Statistical yearbook of Estonia. Statistics Estonia Tallinn.

  • Whitehouse E. (2004). Comparing the new pension systems of the Baltic States Pension Reform in the Baltic Countries Private Pensions Series(5) 25-58.

  • Žalimienė L. & Dunajevas E. (2014). Lietuvos socialinės paramos struktūra kliento autonomijos – paternalizmo požiuriu [Structure of social assistance in Lithuania from the perspective of the client’s autonomy and paternalism]. Socialinis Darbas: Patirtis ir Metodai 14(2) 37-54.

  • AB SEB bankas. (2016). Pension calculator for Lithuania. Retrieved from:

  • AS SEB Pank.(2016). Pension plan. Retrieved from:

  • Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2016). Database. Retrieved from:

  • Eurostat (2016). Database. Retrieved from:

  • MISSOC (2016). Database. Retrieved from:

  • SEB finanšu centrs. (2016). Pensijas prognozes kalkulators [Pension calculator for Latvia]. Retrieved from:

  • SODRA.(2016). Database. Retrieved from:

  • TAX LT. (2016). Atlyginimų ir mokesčių skaičiuoklė [Tax calculator for Lithuania]. Retrieved from:

  • Taxes in Europe Database v2. (2016). Database. Retrieved from:

  • Trinity Capital (2016). Tax calculator for Latvia and Estonia. Retrieved from:

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.156
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.430

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 402 248 5
PDF Downloads 169 110 0