IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v22y2011i3p7-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pension Adequacy and the Pension Review

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Saunders
  • Melissa Wong

Abstract

It has long been accepted that the adequacy of payments is a key objective of any social security system, where adequacy is defined as the ability of a payment to support a basic acceptable standard of living that is consistent with prevailing community standards. The 2009 Harmer Pension Review directed attention to the adequacy of the pension, an issue that has not been systematically examined in Australia for several decades. This article reviews alternative definitions of adequacy and shows that its basic features have been consistently recognised in official reports conducted over a long period. The deprivation approach is then described and shown to produce estimates that have a direct bearing on this conception of income adequacy. Using the results from two recent surveys, conducted in 2006 and 2010, the article compares levels of deprivation among groups defined on the basis of their principal source of income, including those dependent on an Age Pension and several other forms of social security payment. The results indicate that the adequacy of the Age Pension in 2006 was above that of payments awarded on the basis of disability, unemployment or sole parenthood, and also that the pension increase awarded following the Pension Review reduced deprivation among those who received it. However, the increase was not well targeted to those groups who required further assistance, as indicated by the levels of deprivation they were facing. Further application of the deprivation approach would provide new insights into the nature and extent of existing income inadequacies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Saunders & Melissa Wong, 2011. "Pension Adequacy and the Pension Review," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 22(3), pages 7-26, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:22:y:2011:i:3:p:7-26
    DOI: 10.1177/103530461102200302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/103530461102200302
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/103530461102200302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:22:y:2011:i:3:p:7-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.