APA 6th Edition Bežovan, G. (2019). Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 26 (1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545
MLA 8th Edition Bežovan, Gojko. "Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj." Revija za socijalnu politiku, vol. 26, br. 1, 2019, str. 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545. Citirano 19.01.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Bežovan, Gojko. "Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj." Revija za socijalnu politiku 26, br. 1 (2019): 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545
Harvard Bežovan, G. (2019). 'Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj', Revija za socijalnu politiku, 26(1), str. 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545
Vancouver Bežovan G. Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj. Revija za socijalnu politiku [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 19.01.2020.];26(1):1-35. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545
IEEE G. Bežovan, "Evaluacija procesa privatizacije mirovinskog sustava u Hrvatskoj", Revija za socijalnu politiku, vol.26, br. 1, str. 1-35, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v26i1.1545
Sažetak In 2002 Croatia implemented a radical pension system reform through privatization of a part of the public system, the so-called second pillar of defined contributions and the introduction of the third voluntary pillar. The reform was implemented according to the World Bank model, similarly as in other countries in transition. Unlike other countries in transition, the Croatian system survived the crisis and no other significant additional reform was undertaken in it.
The text analyses the use and need of conducting an evaluation of such comprehensive reforms as a policy development based on evidence. In that context, the paper examines pension reforms in the Visegrád Group countries (Poland, Slovakia and Hungary) where the mandatory participation in the second pillar was cancelled due to the crisis. With regard to pension reform policies, these countries are undergoing a convergence process.
Discussions about the pension system privatization date back to the first part of the 1990s, and the introduction of the mandatory second pillar opened debates about the capital market development, stimulation of economic growth, new employment and larger pensions. Although there were some political plans to temporarily halt payments to the second pillar, it survived the crisis. Faced with the pensions from the first and second pillars for voluntary second tier participants that were smaller than the pensions from the first pillar only, the government gave an increase to the second tier participants returning to the first pillar. The 2018 reform provided a considerable part of the increase for the mandatory second tier participants. The public discourse analysis shows that main daily newspapers serve as a part of the media campaign of the mandatory pension funds, actually pension fund management companies, and there is no place for different opinions about the second pillar in them. The paper analyses the operative costs of pension fund management companies, dominant investments in government bonds which increases public debt and, bearing in mind publicly available data, the costs of transition.
Finally, pension reform aims are assessed against evaluation findings that point to the unsustainable second pillar and its reform similar to the reforms in aforementioned countries.