Liquidity in Retirement Savings Systems: An International Comparison
![Thumbnail](/bitstream/handle/1/30403718/53915264.pdf.jpg?sequence=4&isAllowed=y)
View/ Open
Author
Choi, James J.
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151004Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Beshears, John, James J. Choi, Joshua Hurwitz, David Laibson, and Brigitte C. Madrian. 2015. “Liquidity in Retirement Savings Systems: An International Comparison.” American Economic Review 105 (5) (May): 420–425. doi:10.1257/aer.p20151004.Abstract
We compare the liquidity that six developed countries have built into their employer-based defined contribution (DC) retirement schemes. In Germany, Singapore, and the UK, withdrawals are essentially banned no matter what kind of transitory income shock the household realizes. By contrast, in Canada and Australia, liquidity is state-contingent. For a middle-income household, DC accounts are completely illiquid unless annual income falls substantially, in which case DC assets become highly liquid. The US stands alone in the universally high liquidity of its DC system: whether or not income falls, the penalties for early withdrawal are low or non-existent.Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30403718
Collections
- FAS Scholarly Articles [18304]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)