The international
seminar ‘Pensions for the 21st century’, organized by the Polish
Pension Group of the Warsaw School of Economics (PPG-SGH) with logistical
support of Institute for Structural Research and financial support of the
Polish Confederation Lewiatan, took place at SGH on 25-26th
September 2014.
The event had an
experimental character. Instead of a standardized program, presentations,
key-note speakers and after-conference publication etc., we risked a free-flowing discussion on fundamental issues
of pension economics. No assumptions, no intellectual restrictions, just a
simple debate on how much knowledge and experiences of 20th century
may be applied to the fundamentally different situation in 21st
century. The discussion referred to even the most basic concepts, definitions and
classifications. This initiative was needed because in the discourse on pension
issues participants (not only journalists, but also economists) formulate views
as if these issues were obvious and not worth any further consideration. The
discussion was possible due to the fact that the PPG seminar included persons
of outstanding research achievements
and, capable of thinking outside the box. They would refrain from making the
problems ideological, and respect the variety of opinions.
The list of
participants with global research and policy-making achievements in the broad
area of pensions proves the elite character of the event. It included Nicholas
Barr, Axel Börsch-Supan, Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak, Elsa Fornero, Vincenzo
Galasso, Marek Góra, Robert Holzmann, Irena E. Kotowska, Bernd Marin, John
Martin, Heikki Oksanen, Wojciech Otto, Robert Palacios, Edward Palmer, Ryszard Rapacki,
Michał Rutkowski, Istvan Szekely, Salvador Valdes-Prieto. Doubtlessly, each
person alone could be a ‘scientific highlight’ of a highly-valued international
conference. Worth noting is that during the seminar each of us relinquished
affiliations, titles etc. – the quality of discussion was all that mattered.
It was structured by
sets of fundamental problems-questions divided into 4 groups. Instead of
presentations, sessions were initiated by 3 short speeches that organized
issues and introduced to the hours-long discussions on the topics in each
group. The themes were as follows:
· what is the essence of
a pension system and what in fact do we know about it?
· how useful are common typologies (e.g. PAYG vs. funded
systems) and to what extent they mislead
us?
· how to link period of activity and period of old age
in the life cycle, to achieve positive effects in both stages?
· how to cope with the fact that pension economics
issues are often counterintuitive (even
economists are misled on occasions), and at the same time they are subjects of
wide popular discussions and, much more seldom of knowledge-based political
decisions?
Prior to the seminar it
had not been clear whether the
experiment would work. Many invited guests were anxious, as there had been no seminar like
this before. However, we succeeded in assembling a group of people with remarkable
expertise, sequestered for hours to challenge their knowledge, reframe it, search
for new research inspirations, and reject all typical boundaries.
Finally, it
must be noted that the meeting had no utilitarian goals such as a publication of after- conference
proceedings worth x points, and leading to an adequate reference in the annual
report. After the seminar it was clear to all that the experiment succeeded. In
times in which conferences are often organized ‘to score points’ (as a result of an
administrative approach to research), the seminar was a breath of fresh air
thanks to the successful implementation of the new formula of rigorous but policy-oriented
meeting and experience exchange. A
restricted number of attendees allowed
to reach an effect of intimate, direct
and extraordinarily interesting
discussion, which for sure inspired participants to further inquiry. The quality of discussion, and the commitment and
passion of participants confirmed that research seminars
are worth organizing in this formula.