fiscal and pension sustainability present and future issues in eu countries

8/7/2019 Fiscal and Pension Sustainability Present and Future Issues in EU Countries

1/17

EuropEan CEntrE EuropisChEs ZEntrum CEntrE EuropEn

poliCy BriE EBruary 2010

Fiscal and Pension Sustainability:Present and Future Issuesin EU Countriesby Asghar Zaidi

Introductiont Be exe e c b bc ce Eue, d ke wd ge e ke ev ece Eu ce, g jec de vbe b e E-e C dg 2009. i exe w e e eee eve e cege c b vefeced e eg e e Eu ce, dcg ve e e e e edbve e ced e c ecve e. tee c--e-e

e e deved e e ce eee e eee, deke b oECD 2009.t beg w ee pc Be (Zd 2010), wced Eu ce ccdg e ve k ced b de (ged 65 e) 2008. The highest poverty risk rates wereobserved in Latvia (51%), Cyprus (49%), Estonia (39%) and Bulgaria (34%),

and the lowest in Hungary (4%), Luxembourg (5%) and the Czech Republic

(7%). tee ce efec b e fece e ced e b ke d degc exeece wkg e

e ecc c ce eee. a e e ee w ce gee wke w e e ce d v-e k d we e ee. t Be ce e, -g e be kwedge ce vbe, e jec d ce eee e eee Eu ce. aee cex ee e execed e e ce e wee e bc ce cege Eu ce ecg, b w d e e. ad, we .

te c d ecc c, wc bece e gb

e 2008, ced ge c-ke eecve e e dec e c Eu ce. te dcce e b c ee g e ec d

Asghar Zaidi Dec reec

e Ee Cee sc Wee

pc d reec, Ve.

Katrin Gasiorvded eec

ce eg g cded

pc Be. Sean Terry,Ricardo

Rodrigues,Alexandre Sidorenko d

Willem Stamatiou vded vbe

ce d ed e.
http://www.euro.centre.org/zaidihttp://www.euro.centre.org/zaidihttp://www.euro.centre.org/zaidi


2/17

Asghar Zaidi Eu isCal anD pEnsion sustainaBility issuEs


2

bg c ke d e ceece gveebwg Eu ce ed ev c eve.te c bee gb eec d ecedeed e exe e ce w e ce g vee Eu ece c be eed w be ecve.

i eve, c e ee e ced bck e c ged ce,1 wc eg g edce,be w d c, bc edg d deb. ag f ce ee e, ge e c eee e e. exe, e ce e wdwg ve

eg ee, dced cee e e d edce c dec bwg. te e ecve e c ce, ee d e w ee c ee e x evee be cg dwde. te k Geeceg de veeg deb2 (dg eb 2010) be ev debed Ee ce (pg di, d b s d ied, gve e w ec eccgw), e ce cg, w be cg.

We ee c cege e b ce d ee, e c e

ceed b geg e eve e e d cve, dexe gc dd ded e bc bdge. secc,gev g, execed be 7-8 e ve e ex 50 e, ge-ecc exede (eed e d e d cce) w cve gee d eee d cegge be ee. g e e w ed kg wk-g ge Ee ce, wc w exe eg-ve ee Ee ce e b ecc gw(eec gc vee ee e d/dcv e cg).

agee, ce e ee e e ccewd e bc dce b w Ee ce c c b w bc ce d c ew eevg e dec c bee. a eeze geg-eed exede, c e, c be execed, bc ce e be d be . t e de bewee ce c e d e e c -b e c-ke ce.

te e cege e kg be bc c cce, weve e g be, d e geeg bc bckg e

The current adverse budgetaryposition combined with

long-term demands on public

resources generated by ageing

o population are sources

o fscal challenges

throughout the EU.

As the level o public debts sur-

passes previous historic levels,

awareness o the need or

credible austerity plans

is gaining momentum.

There are serious concerns in

the public discourse about how

EU countries can attain fscal

sustainability while also

maintaining the adequacy

o pension incomes.


3/17



3

b g wee. ne, exe, e c de ceced b Ee ce egdg b ke ce, cfc bewee e ede ee g e eccdw d e g-e eecve eg be eccd c ce. a cve c ve bc ce,ed e e g dec, cee e eg eeege, d ecge de wke exed e wkg cee.sc e cee e cb be, we edcg e d- eee dg wc e bee e d, d ee d beec c e. hweve, e ce s,e ce c e g ee eed, d

ge ee be ed, eve e exee g de wke e eee. a c cve c ced e eee, cce de ge e b c,3 ke ve ge-e e, ed edg e cee bc edg e d cceg c-ege w eec e b bc ce e e.te be eee ce be bc ed-g d g deb, b deee c edce kg ecec, , c cce dc ecc ccce.

t Be d w. i vde e cex b ggge e c b cege ced b Eu ce. te, e e devee e ce Eu ce e -e wc e ee pc Be. sezg dcd cc e gve e ed.

Context: Fiscal sustainability challenges

aced by EU countries

c b e g-e b e gvee ee

e c bg ked w ce d e exeded deb. a e eec, wee c be ce ede exede cdg deb evcg, w ed -vec. Geece ce eekg exe vd deg deb, d pg d s e g k wg dwwd ed. W gc b ecc gw, eEe ce k d e eed d ced-be c cd . Gve e ecve be eg, edec edc w ve ce edg c, d dg ebce wc vd e cg egve ce e ve-

be g, we vdg x cee cd dge eed vee.

The real challenge or EU policy-

makers is to have the political

oresight and courage to make

the most appropriate, how-

ever unpopular, policy choices;

balancing between the easing o

the immediate pressures arising

rom the economic downturn

and the longer term

priorities or economic

and social policies.

The more high-quality and

independent data is admitted

to this debate, the easier it

becomes to persuade the public

about the need or and the

consequence o policy reorms.


4/17



4

i g c b k, e c dc e cb g s2, vded e 2009 sb re eEcc pc Cee. t dc ee e g ( e % GDp) be ced ee e gvee be ce bc bg e e e. te s2 dc cbe bee ded b w ke ce: e InitialBudgetary Position (iBp), wc dec ce, ge de ecc dw exeeced dg 2008-2009, d e Long TermChanges (ltC) e e eed degc cge d eedexede e, ece d g-e ce. ne eb g e eeed ee ce e c

e c e iBp , b e ltC e e e e-e d GDp gw e e-c ed.

ge 1 w e wde v c ce w eec ec b g. Ce e dvded cege g,ed d w k, w 13 Eu ce beg cdeedg k ce. ag e, ied, Geece, e ued Kgd,sve d s ve e cege ed, e bg exce 10% GDp. lv, r d C e bed, j bew 10%.

Ireland, Greece, the United

Kingdom, Slovenia and Spain

ace serious challenges as their

fnancial sustainability gap is in

excess o 10% o GDP. Latvia,

Romania and Cyprus are not ar

behind, at just below 10%.

Figure 1:

sb g dcs2 d w ce

i Bdge p (iBp)d lg te Cge (ltC)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 %

IEELUKSIESLVROCYSKCZLTMTNLLUFRPTBEATDEPLITHUFISEEEBGDK

IBPS2 - Total LTC

6.5

3.33.2

Low Medium High

Percentage

ofGDP

sce:

sb re 2009, . 35

Given that the recovery rom

the current economic downturn

seems to be altering, it is im-

portant that any spending cuts

or tax increases do not impact

negatively on societys more

vulnerable groups.


5/17



5

Future pension policy will

eature strong incentives to-

wards continued employment

and longer working careers, im-

proved public pension coverage

or working age populations, and

the provision o suitable ways to

enhance private personal sav-

ings. A more realistic revision opension benefts, with guaran-

teed minimum provisions, to

improve aordability o public

pension schemes, may also

be necessary.

a e Eu27 eve, e cb w ce s2 e e: 3.2% e iBp d 3.3% e ltC. Ce deekb e cb e iBp d e ltC. W eg k ce, e cb e ltC c g Geece, sve, C, m d e need d e cb e iBp ge e ued Kgd, lv d svk. W eg ed d w k ce, lxebg d d d Beg d Ge d ge cb e ltC.a e iBp cb, pd be, b ce dpg.

te e w c-ke g be edg ee

cege? a e geec eve, e c de ce ve e, b ke d e ce. W e bd e - ce, ce eed (ce ) vde ceve wdge e e, cbg wd wg dw ed kg wkg ge . te c dve w e e b ke ce w be ece e ee e ewkg ge , eec e w d bee c wee g (e.g. e w g cde, de wke,d dbed e w edced cbe).

pe c w eed cee d b kec ve, w ceve wd ee d ge wk-g cee eedg be egeed, ed vee ecvege bc e cee wkg ge , ev be w-c ec ecge ve evg d, wee be, e ec ev e beev ve db bc e cee. a eee e ec e, d pc Be vde ge w e ce gee w be cgg e e w eEu ce.

rece e e Eu ce ve bee ed b e w-g c ee: tightening eligibility conditions (particularly for early retirement and

db e cee); scaling down the level of public pension benets and their growth (in

e wge); d moving towards increasing the ofcial retirement age.

a dec ceece ee e e exec ee

w exed e wkg cee we eekg geee geeve e vg. sc bev ee c be ex-


6/17



6

eced wke bece we-ed e e ec d wg d wd-kg eecve. W c eec d e bee bev ee, eed eeee ce w be cg c e e ce.sc c cce, .e. e gee de e edg e e e e e , w e gve-e ee ce de evee c ee dcee e cee e eve d ve e dd vg ee, e ee ged 65 e e execed be j Eu ce, kg e we eec ce.sc cce, be eeed e ce b c-ege, e b e e pc Be.

Pension income sustainability challenges

pe c e cde v dee eve eeece ee ee d ed vg ve e d ge. a w e ee Be (Zd 2010), dg 2008eg Eu ce wee ed deed cg e cege de g ve k g e ede . te deke bew gg w e ce gee wke e execed e w eec e ce d ve

k we e w be eg.

o e b vbe, ee be w c be ded exe e ev e ce Eu ce: To examine changes in the benet ratio that measures the generosity

vege bc e bee e e vege wge; eed de cde bewee 2007 d 2060.

To analyse the changes expected in the average rst pension as a

e vege wge; e e ed ed e e bee .

To discuss what impact pension reforms are likely to have on pensionce ecee w, vege d bve vege wge wke.tee e, e wke w ee ee d-g 2006, w e cve eec e eed vee 10-15 e ed ce wke w e e cee wkg.

tee ee e vde g w e ce e eee e gg be eced. ne ee ee ewee ced bee e e e c, e ee e -

e dje e jec e e edg we ec GDp d ee.

The need or pension literacy

is not limited to policy-makers:

the traditional patterns o lie

course or all people

the duration o working and

retirement lives, diversity in sav-

ing mechanisms or retirement

and their associated risks have

been irrevocably aected by lie

expectancy gains. In the absence

o rational responses by workers

o longer working careers and

greater private pension savings,

there is a risk that their

pension incomes will be

unsustainably low.


7/17



7

Beneft ratio

te bee eec dce e devee e eve ve e vege e (bc e edg dvded b be e-e) w eec e vege wge (xed b e GDp e wked). a e g eg c, dece e bee w w e gee bc e, we edcg ec geg bc ce, d vce ve.4

te ece ceed ee geg eed bc exedeb e Ee C gge e jeced bee

w be decg e j Eu ce, ve e ed 2007-2060 (Ecc pc Cee, 2009, . 111). tee e eeeed ge 2, wc k ce g e ccdg e deceg eve -k--ve e dg 2008 ( w Zd 2010, ge 1). Ke e c be deed w:

In countries with a high at-risk-of-poverty rate during 2008, the mag-de e dece e bee e g Ed lv. hweve, b ce, e execed dece w bee b e ew ve e, g dece b 18%

execed E. t, E execed be cg k cg be g ve k c de e e.

In countries with a low at-risk-of-poverty rate during 2008, the decline

e bee e g pd (-54%), swede (-39%),a (-30%), svk (-27%) d ce (-25%). W e exce svk, e dece bc e gee w be eb e d e cee bece e e bee w be e 20%. t, e bece ce-cg c cge, e eee pd, swede, a d

ce e k beg e e e ce w. In the middle group, Portugal could be identied as the country where

e ve k e ede execed be ge e e, bece g bee . i i, e e d,e bee e g e ge 2060, dee e beved dg e ed 2007-2060.

Greece is in a league of its own, as it remains the country with by far

e ge bee , dee dg e ed e.s d C e ce w ce ve gbee e e. i c be execed e e,

ec bc edg ee ce, w cee ek e eee w ee c e e ece.

In Estonia, Poland, Sweden,

Austria, France and Portugal,

the average pensions o uture

retirees will all (relative to

average wages), leaving their

citizens acing pension sustain-

ability risks. Curiously, none o

these countries have high-risk

fscal sustainability issues, andmost have implemented

pension reorms recently.


8/17


9/17



9

Public pensions only Public + Private pensions

2007 2060 % cge 2007 2060 % cge

Beg 45 42 -7%

Czec rebc 33 27 -18% 33 27 -18%

Dek 33 33 0% 71 84 18%

E 28 16 -43% 28 31 11%

Geece 61 67 10%

i 67 49 -27%

lv 33 22 -33% 33 33 0%

l 32 29 -9% 32 37 16%

lxebg 53 62 17%

hg 49 38 -22% 49 43 -12%

a 49 38 -22%pg 58 56 -3%

r 36 44 22% 36 49 36%

swede 49 31 -37%

tee cge e Grr gge e vege bc ew be we ve Eu ce, efecg e c e execc g dced e cc e bee.

hweve, eed bve, e ce e ce c

ke e we e bc cee. t ce- e ee Bc se, wee ce ve ecee execed e e bc e.hweve, eve we e ve e e cced , eGrr jeced e Czec rebc d hg ( evece vdg e ve e). tee e cce e ece c d ecc c ve deed ge e e ve vg, d e eg c g be g jeced b e Ee C Ecc pc Cee.

tee e e c w ce . exe, c be execed vew g ecee e ee w be edec exed wkg ve d ece e eee -ce. neee, e cb g e bccee d e we e e ve e cee, g-de e ee e bc e dex e wce, bd e ve k g e eee.

Impact o pension reorms on uture pension incomes

ae ve w e e cge e e ce e ne recee r (nrr) bee d e e

Table 1:

G avege receere ( %) eeced

Eu ce d edbewee 2007-2060

ne:

te G avege recee re

cced e vege e

e e ec-wde

vege wge.

sce:

te 2009 ageg re, . 111.

Sweden, Italy, Austria, the

Czech Republic and Hungaryshow a considerable decline

in the value o frst pensions

during the period between

2007 and 2060 raising pension

sustainability concerns

in these countries.


10/17



10

e. tee e e exced pe Gce (oECD,2009: ce 2) d e e ew dee e e ed b e Ee C tbe 1. re 12Eu ce e cded tbe a.1 (aex a1) d e e ec e e wke w eeed e b ke 2006. te ce e e w e ceede e eed e e w e bee wd vebee eceved d e e bee cged.

te e w e eed e e ecee e: , e ve e e eee, e xe, ced w e

eve eg we wkg, e xe d cb. ecc, e w w e w ee: wke eg50% e ec-wde vege ec e e ee wkg e.te ecd w w e e ecee e vege eed e d w bve vege ee (wke eg 150% e vege).

Deedg e eec e e e e eeece wke dee eg eve, ce c be dvded ee g: ce w e eced w ee,

ce w e egeed e k bewee eg dcb, d ce w e eed c-e-bd c bee.

Recent pension reorms have

wrought structural changes in

EU pension systems: the United

Kingdom, Belgium, Germany,

France and Finland have pro-

tected low earners; in Poland,

Hungary and Slovakia, the link

between earnings and contribu-

tions have been strengthened;

and Portugal, Italy and Austria

have resulted in across-the-

board cuts in pension benefts.

Figure 3:

ic e e e ecee e beg eve eec

ce eced

w ee

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

20

110

Netreplacementrates

GermanyFrance FinlandUnited KingdomBelgiumCzech Republic

Half the average Average Twice the average

Rates after reform and direction of change

sce:

oECD (2009), . 80.


11/17


12/17



12

i pd, ee g dece e e eee ew e w ee: -22%. i c, e e eee ex-eced g vege ee d ee g eve be e g ee (+8%). te e c svk g ee e beved pd, b e dece e e ee-e w ee e (-13%) d e e beved gee cdeb ge (+22.7%).

te c e e hg e e e ued Kgd d Beg: e e w be eg e e eee c e bd. hweve, hg, e e

e e eee w ee c e beved wke w ge eg.

te e ce e ceg wc e w e c bee b w, vege d bve-vegeee (ee ge 5). tee ce beve c-e-bd c e bee. pg ke beve e ge dece eecee e, wed b i d a. Dee ee c-e-bd c, ee ce w ce e eveg e ecee e.

Figure 5:

ic e e e ecee e b

eg eve eec ce eed

c-e-bd c

e bee

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

20

110

Netreplacementrates

AustriaPortugal Italy

Half the average Average Twice the average

Rates after reform and direction of change

sce:

oECD (2009), . 80.


13/17



13

Conclusionste cege c b Eu ce ce e we dc-eed, d e c jb ddeg e. B, e c c e w e e e e d ce e eee e ce deeed. t pc Be ddeed e. E, e eed ed c eede e c-e ecc ce wde ecged. a e e e, e eec c ke w e e e c d c cegeg ked. t Be eze c-ke e eed bewe e c dec c c e e ece d ce gee e ee.

pc dec eed ke e dece bce bewee ce e-cve ege d e b bc ce d e.Ce d bd c c cce e eed gve-e, deve cedbe eg edce bc deb, b wcg e ec ce d e weee c e deged ec e de gee.te e cce e eee e e bee b w ce gee, d/ ce e-e edg ege ecve ce c, eve ee, d weve , eed be eed e bece

de c eed.

te ex ew e w dbed be cc e Eu gv-ee k e gc e e cve eccce wc ege e ecve e c, b e ee ce e dge vec. a e e e,e cc eee vd e dge e gee wd be e e e ed e e -b. t bce e eed d de ee, b ce de, w e c ce c ce d e e

c eve. c e ce c eed ee e vdce ce c ce de egdwk e, e bgge, c ce. acevg b-ce ee e c w ke g c dec,b e b ede e bc w ee ee ke e ce cce ee e b e c e.

te c d e e dced Be c be ed w:

Financial sustainability challenges. te s2 dc e Eccpc Cee 13 Eu ce g e g k ce,


14/17



14

c, ied, Geece, e ued Kgd, sve d se e k w b g exce 10% GDp. lv, r d C, w e bew 10%, w cebed.

Pension sustainability concerns: pensions vs wages. Ce jec- bc e d wge e ed 2007-2060 g-ge e e ee E, pd, swede, a, ced pg e g k we eve e. i cve e e ee ce ee vg g-k cb e, d e ve eed ge e e d-g e decde.

Pension sustainability concerns: frst pension indicator. sx cew cdebe dece e ve e dg eed bewee 2007 d 2060: swede, i, a, d e Czecrebc d hg. te eec ece c d eccce e ve vg gge E d lv, db l, w be dded . t we e ee ce, ed w ce dex, dc eeee ee ce e g k beg e e ve.

Structural changes in pension systems due to pension reorms.

a ce e evdece cge e e weec e eee edb d/ kge cb e eee. pe e e ceve eced w ee e ued Kgd, Beg, Ge-, ce d d. i e ce, e k bewee egd cb ve bee egeed pd, hg d s-vk. , e e ve eed c-e-bd c e bee pg, i d a.

tg e e ed ee k bek, eed be e-

ed e ce eege e, , e c de.t bece e bk e w d ed ee w ceced e e e ce ecc c, d eeg ece w e eved jec wd be, we djed e w e ecc ee e gvee deb d ()ee jec e eegg e c. te c e b bc ce e gg e eed eee e d e deedece e evdece be wcdec e de: e e g- evdece ded debe e cceed g dc w d ex,

e ee bece e c ee d ede ebc b e eed , d e ceece cge.


15/17



15

Notes

1 exe, e ued Kgd, edg ec, cdg e ce ec e im d e de Gve e Bk Egd, w e c e c bdgedec w e ee e ex e cd gge cdece, ee e, dee e d d eee ecve e ece (Sunday Times, 14 eb 2010).

2 te e ee bd ed b e gvee eg cece; e wed e de eveeg bd ced veeg deb.

3 see Ke e . (2004) e dc e.

4 oe e c wd be wee e geg ebc edg ve cged dg e ed e, d ec ed Be.

Reerences

Ecc pc Cee (2009) te 2009 ageg re: Eccd Bdge pjec e Eu-27 mebe se (2008-2060),J re eed b e Ee C (DG ECin) de Ecc pc Cee (aWG), European Economy2|2009.

Ecc pc Cee (2009b) sb re 2009,European Economy9|2009.Ke, a. / Kwj, a. / Zd, a. (2004) te m Wkg,

Labour Economics 11: 293-313.oECD (2009) Pensions at a Glance 2009: Retirement-Income Systems in

OECD Countries, p.Zd, a. (2010), pve rk ode pee Eu Ce a

ude, pc Be J (ii), Ee Cee sc Weepc d reec, Ve.


16/17



16

"

!""#$%!&'%()*)+,)+-*.%)*/.#,%

Table A.1: Impact of pension reforms on net replacement rates by earnings level, stylisedestimates from OECD for full career workers, 2009

Countries Earnings level Before After%age point

differenceChange (%)

Reforms that protected low earners

Germany Half the average 56.4 59.2 2.8 5%

Average 66.6 61.3 -5.3 -8%

Twice the average 66.4 60.3 -6.1 -9%

France Half the average 79.7 76.2 -3.5 -4%

Average 78.2 65.7 -12.5 -16%


Finland Half the average 75.9 73.2 -2.7 -4%

Average 71.4 62.4 -9.0 -13%


UK Half the average 51.9 63.8 11.9 23%

Average 39.8 40.9 1.1 3%

Twice the average 28.3 29.2 0.9 3%

Belgium Half the average 74.2 78.7 4.5 6%

Average 62.1 63.7 1.6 3%


Czech Repub. Half the average 86.7 95.3 8.6 10%

Average 58.1 64.1 6.0 10%Twice the average 44.6 49.4 4.8 11%

Reforms that strengthened the link between contributions and earnings

Poland Half the average 97.1 74.4 -22.7 -23%

Average 76.9 74.9 -2.0 -3%


Slovakia Half the average 76.4 66.3 -10.1 -13%

Average 75.9 72.7 -3.2 -4%


Hungary Half the average 85.9 94.3 8.4 10%

Average 83.2 105.5 22.3 27%

Twice the average 79.1 99.2 20.1 25%Across-the-board cuts in benefits

Austria Half the average 98.4 90.5 -7.9 -8%

Average 99.2 90.3 -8.9 -9%


Italy Half the average 99.1 74.8 -24.3 -25%

Average 99.1 74.8 -24.3 -25%


Portugal Half the average 106.1 63.7 -42.4 -40%

Average 112.0 69.6 -42.4 -38%


Source: OECD 2009, pp.80


17/17


EuropEan CEntrE EuropisChEs ZEntrum CEntrE EuropEnor soCial WElarE poliCy anD rEsEarCh r Wohl ahrts pol itiK unD soZia lo rsCh unG DE rEC hErC hE En po lit iqu E soC ial

About the European Centreor Social Welare Policy and Research

Core Functions An international centre of applied social science and comparative

ec eec c c d wee An information and knowledge centre providing social science-

ed c c egece g k-e A platform initiating future-oriented public policy debates on social welfare

e w e un-Ee reg

Research Focuste Ee Cee vde exee e ed wee d cc devee bd ee c e wee -edc ce, eged ce d e-ec ce ced .Ee Cee exee cde e degc devee,wk d ee, ce, ve d c exc, cec, g d c eg, ec, ce, e dwe-beg g e v bc gd d e evce. tec e e c-ecc devee w ,

bc ce, e e d -kd bee, eedd e bce g d bg.

European Centre Publications Book Series Public Policy and Social Welfare (Ashgate, Aldershot),

Eg Book Series Wohlfahrtspolitik und Sozialforschung (Campus Verlag, Frank-

/new yk), Ge Other Book Publications, books or special reports published outside the above

ee, w ve ebed bg e d v gge.

Occasional Reports, contain conference or expert meeting syntheses, re- eg jec, ec. , Eg / ec / Ge

The European Centre Newsletter, in English

Geographical Domaina gvee se e ebe e ued n, ce ce e un-Ee reg, e ved ce dcbe e cve e Ee Cee. t e geg-c d e mebe Ce e 50 Ee we e ued se aec, Cd d ie.

te Ee Cee

un-ed egvee

gz cceed w

ec c wee c d

eec.

me :

://www.e.cee.g

Ee Cee

sc Wee

pc d reec

Begge 17

a 1090 Ve

te: +43 / 1 / 319 45 05 - 0

x: +43 / 1 / 319 45 05 - 19

E: [email protected]
http://www.euro.centre.org/http://www.euro.centre.org/http://www.euro.centre.org/

fiscal and pension sustainability present and future issues in eu countries

Documents