Abstract
I compare the welfare implications of Bismarckian (earnings‐dependent benefits) and Beveridgean (universal benefits) social security systems. Agents are better off with a Beveridgean system than with a comparable Bismarckian system. In an environment with intragenerational homogeneity, the latter results in a larger decrease in net wages; with intragenerational skill heterogeneity, most agents benefit from the more redistributive Beveridgean system. When agents vote for the replacement rates, with intragenerational homogeneity, the resulting Bismarckian system is larger than the Beveridgean system. With intragenerational skill heterogeneity, the Beveridgean system is larger. Overall, agents are worse off with the larger system.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
