[雙語翻譯]養(yǎng)老金改革外文翻譯--改革后的養(yǎng)老金對白俄羅斯，哈薩克斯坦和俄羅斯的對比分析（英文）

1、 Procedia Economics and Finance 36 ( 2016 ) 3 – 9 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com2212-5671 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

2、 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of SCIJOUR-Scientific Journals Publisher doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30010-7 ScienceDirect1st International Conference on Applied Ec

3、onomics and Business, ICAEB 2015 Pensions after pension reforms: A comparative analysis of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia Natalia Grishchenkoa,? aAltay State University, Lenina pr., 61, 656049, Barnaul, Russia Abstract

4、 The pension systems of the post-Soviet space, which had in the background one of the best in the world USSR PAYG (pay-as-you- go) basis, currently continue to evolve and improve. Some of the countries have made major pe

5、nsion changes, while others start their first reforms. How implemented various pension reforms impact on the retirement benefits and wealth of pensioners: pensions, their indexation, pension ages, and life expectancy?

6、 In this article we consider the results of pension reforms on the example of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, which entered three different pension models: PAYG, fully-funded, and mixed, respectively. We found that PAY

7、G pension system is more suitable and beneficial now for pensioners. However, the advantages of other pension models may appear in the future due to demographic and economic reasons. © 2015 The Authors. Published

8、by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of SCIJOUR-Scientific Journals Publisher. Keywords: pension system, pension reform, pensions, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia. 1. Introduction The pension system has several

9、 goals, the most important of which is to ensure an adequate source of income for retirees. This and other objects are depend on the model, environment, and the results of each of the pension system. The research intere

10、st in the evaluation of the level of pension security and wealth of pensioners as a result of pension reforms is connected with countries from former Soviet Union, which was providing one of the best social ? Correspondi

11、ng author. Tel.: +7-903-911-7291; fax: +7-385-229-6539. E-mail address: natalia.b.grishchenko@gmail.com © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

12、http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of SCIJOUR-Scientific Journals Publisher5Natalia Grishchenko / Procedia Economics and Finance 36 ( 2016 ) 3 – 9 pension benefit

13、s are financed; and (iii) whether the system is managed by public or private institutions (Table 2). Table 1. The Features of Pension Systems of the Former Soviet Union States.1 Year of creation Country Pillar 0 Pill

14、ar 1 Pillar 2 States with PAYG systems and steps for future pension reforms 1) State (budget) pensions without connection with earnings 2003 Georgia U 2) PAYG (solidary) system with the elements of public and pr

15、ivate-sector pension insurance 1997 Belarus DB 1998 Moldova DB 2013 Tajikistan DB DC (Co.) 2013 Turkmenistan DB 3) Two pillars PAYG (solidary) system with the elements of public and private-sector pension insuran

16、ce 2003 Ukraine T DB 2005 Uzbekistan T DB States with insurance pension systems and complemen- tary funded accounts 4) Defined Benefit Scheme (DB) with basis pensions and complementary private elements 2002

17、 Estonia B DB DC (Co.) 2004 Lithuania B DB DC (Co.) 5) Notional Defined Contribution Scheme (NDC) with targeted pensions and complementary private elements 2001 Latvia T NDC DC (Co.) 2002 Russia T NDC DC

18、 (Co.) 6) “Mixed” Defined Benefit Scheme (DB) with Notional Defined Scheme (NDC) with targeted (basic) pensions and complementary private elements 2006 Azerbaijan T DB, NDC DC (Co.), planned 2008 Kyrgyz Republic

19、B DB, NDC DC (Co.) States with fully-funded pension individual accounts 7) Mandatory privately fully-funded managed schemes (DC) with universal (targeted) pensions for previous generation of pensioners 1998 Kaza

20、khstan U DB DC 2014 Armenia T DB DC Source: The World Bank Database; www.worldbank.org; author’s classification According to these criteria and the duration of the reforms we can determine representative country f

21、rom each groups: Belarus – the First Pillar, PAYG, Unfunded, Public management; Kazakhstan – DB, Funded, Public and Private Management; Russia – NDC, Partially Funded, Public Management. Only three countries from OECD

22、states use NDC pension schemes as Russia: Italy, Poland and Sweden, and it shows a certain decrease in attention to the notional pension accounts (NDC). A limited number of countries also are using the mandatory DC sch

23、emes as Kazakhstan: Australia, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic. Kazakhstan is compared by the main indicator: fully-funded DC pension scheme and other pension pillars also represent in comparative countries. In contrast, mos

24、t countries in Europe and Central Asia, and the highly developed countries of the OECD use the DB schemes as in Belarus. Kazakhstan has introduced the most radical pension reform on the whole post-Soviet territory. Mand

25、atory fully funded pension system operates in the country since 1998 with fixed payments: 10% of salary. The solidarity system is preserved only for those, who already have work experience or retired. Recent changes hav

26、e been made in Kazakhstan in 2013 when all private pension funds were united into one, which manages by National bank. 1 According to the classification of World Bank, OECD, and other world organizations: First pillar o

27、r pillar 0 form as some variations of social (targeted – T, basic – B, and universal – U) pensions, which provide minimal or basic level of income to the pensioners. Second pillar includes some variations of mandatory

28、publicly managed schemes as defined-benefit (DB) or notional defined-contribution (NDC) schemes which depend on incomes of retirement pensioners and notional interest credited to individual accounts. And third pillar in