{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02737226277372263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004562043795620438, 'mean_word_length': 5.730061349693251, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Towards an index of private pension provision

Privatization entails a number of quite different aspects that overlap only to some extent: (1) responsibility in provision; (2) possibilities of exit from statutory plans; (3) the transfer of the administration and management of schemes from public bodies acting in a unitary non-competitive administrative environment to private sector actors acting in a more fragmented competitive market based environment; (4) the transfer of the risks of retirement from the collective to the individual; and (5) the ‘recommodification’ and ‘financialization’ of retirement risks. The paper develops a compound index of private pension provision based on a number of quantifiable variables (theoretical replacement rates of public plans, assets of funded pension schemes, private pension expenditure and coverage by private pension plans) that tries to tap into these different aspects. It can be used to empirically categorize the extent to which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have privatized their pension provision.