Most U.S. public school teachers participate in defined benefit retirement plans, which base benefits on years of service and their last few years of salary. These plans are often backloaded and include sharp economic incentives. We consider the implications of transitioning to a cost-equivalent defined benefit plan under which teachers would earn benefits more evenly across their careers. We show that new teachers who are risk averse would prefer the alternative plan. The magnitude is often substantial. For example, for an entering teacher the certainty equivalent for the CB plan is about 2.1 times the certainty equivalent for the respective FAS plan in New York City and 29 times larger than the respective heavily backloaded FAS plan in Philadelphia.
BackesB.GoldhaberD.GroutC.KoedelC.NiS.PodgurskyM.XiangP. B.XuZ. (2016). Benefit or burden? On the intergenerational inequity of teacher pension plans. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 367–377.
2.
BowenD. H.BuckS.DeckC.MillsJ. N.ShulsJ. V. (2013). Risky business: An analysis of teacher risk preferences (EDRE Working Paper 2013-01). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform.
3.
BrainardK.BrownA. (2016). Significant reforms to state retirement systems. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
4.
BrownK. M. (2013). The link between pensions and retirement timing: Lessons from California teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 1–14.
5.
ChettyR. (2006). A new method of estimating risk aversion. American Economic Review, 96, 1821–1834.
6.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2015). Which teachers choose a defined contribution pension plan? Evidence from the Florida retirement system. Education Finance and Policy, 10, 193–222.
7.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.
8.
CostrellR.PodgurskyM. (2009). Peaks, cliffs, and valleys: The peculiar incentives in teacher retirement systems and their consequences for school staffing. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 175–211.
9.
DeArmondM.GoldhaberD. (2010). Scrambling the nest egg: How well do teachers understand their pensions and what do they think about alternative pension structures. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 558–586.
10.
FitzpatrickM. (2015). How much do public school teachers value their pension benefits?American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7, 165–188.
11.
GlaeserE. L.PonzettoG. A. (2014). Shrouded costs of government: The political economy of state and local public pensions. Journal of Public Economics, 116, 89–105.
12.
GoldhaberD.GroutC.PennucciA.BignellW. (2012). Teacher pension choice: Surveying the landscape in Washington State (CEDR Working Paper 2012-8). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for Education Data & Research.
13.
GordonR.KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2006, April). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. (The Hamilton Project, Discussion Paper 2006-01). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www3.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf
14.
GustmanA. L.MitchellO. S.SteinmeierT. L. (1994). The role of pensions in the labor market: A survey of the literature. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 47, 417–438.
15.
HanushekE. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.
16.
HanushekE. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98.
17.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.O’BrienD. M.RivkinS. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality (No. w11154). National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
KoedelC.PodgurskyM.ShiS. (2013). Teacher pension systems, the composition of the teaching workforce, and teacher quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 574–596.
19.
KoedelC.XiangP. B. (2017). Pension enhancements and the retention of public employees. ILR Review, 70(2), 519–551.
20.
LazearE. P. (1986). Incentive contracts (NBER Working Paper No. 1917). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
McCarthyD. (2003). A lifecycle analysis of defined benefit pension plans (Working Paper No. WP 2003-053). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Retirement Research Center.
22.
McGeeJ.CostrellR. (2010). Teacher pension incentives, retirement behavior, and potential for reform in Arkansas. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 492–518.
23.
McGeeJ.WintersM. A. (2017). How pensions contribute to the premium paid to experienced public school teachers. Educational Researcher, 46, 250–258.
24.
NiS.PodgurskyM. (2016). How teachers respond to pension system incentives: New estimates and policy implications. Journal of Labor Economics, 34, 1075–1104.
25.
Novy-MarxR.RauhJ. (2014). The revenue demands of public employee pension promises. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6, 193–229.
PoterbaJ.RauhJ.VentiS.WiseD. (2007). Defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans, and the accumulation of retirement wealth. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 2062–2086.
28.
PoterbaJ. M.RauhJ.VentiS. F.WiseD. A. (2009). Lifecycle asset allocation strategies and the distribution of 401(k) retirement wealth. In Developments in the Economics of Aging (pp. 15–50). University of Chicago Press.
29.
RothschildM.StiglitzJ. E. (1970). Increasing risk: I. A definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 225–243.
30.
SchragerA. (2009). The decline of defined benefit plans and job tenure. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 8, 259–290.
31.
WintersM. A.McGeeJ. (2014). Better pay, fairer pensions II: Modeling preferences between defined-benefit teacher compensation plans. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
