Growth and Productivity in East Asia / Edition 2

Hardcover (Print)
Buy New
Buy New from
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $3.28
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 96%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (8) from $3.28   
  • New (5) from $16.25   
  • Used (3) from $3.28   


Considering the examples of Australia and the Pacific Rim, Growth and Productivity in East Asia offers a contemporary explanation for national productivity that measures contributions not only from capital and labor, but also from economic activities and relevant changes in policy, education, and technology.

Takatoshi Ito and Andrew K. Rose have organized a group of collaborators from several Asian countries, the United States, and other parts of the globe who ably balance both macroeconomic and microeconomic study with theoretical and empirical approaches. Growth and Productivity in East Asia gives special attention to the causes for the unusual success of Australia, one of the few nations to maintain unprecedented economic growth despite the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2001 global downturn. A new database comprising eighty-four Japanese sectors reveals new findings for the last thirty years of sectoral productivity and growth in Japan. Studies focusing on Indonesia, Taiwan, and Korea also consider productivity and its relationship to research and development, foreign ownership, and policy reform in such industries as manufacturing, automobile production, and information technology.

Read More Show Less

Product Details

Meet the Author

Takatoshi Ito is a professor of economics at the University of Tokyo and a research associate of the NBER. Andrew K. Rose is the Bernard T. Rocca Jr. Professor of International Trade and director of the Clausen Center for International for Business and Policy at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, and a research associate of the NBER.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Perspectives on the Economics of Aging

The University of Chicago Press
Copyright © 2004 National Bureau of Economic Research
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-226-38680-5

Chapter One
The Transition to Personal Accounts and Increasing Retirement Wealth Macro- and Microevidence James M. Poterba, Steven F. Venti, and David A. Wise

The transition from employer managed defined benefit pensions to retirement saving plans that are largely managed and controlled by employees has been the most striking change in retirement saving over the last two decades. Individual managed and controlled retirement accounts, particularly 401(k) plans but also 403(b) plans for nonprofit organizations, 457 plans for state and local employees, the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees, Keogh plans for self-employed workers, and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), have grown enormously. Employer-provided defined benefit (DB) pension plans have declined in importance. In 1980, 92 percent of private retirement saving contributions were to employer-based plans; 64 percent of these contributions were to DB plans. In 1999, about 85 percent of private contributions were to accounts in which individuals controlled how much to contribute to the plan, how to invest plan assets, and how and when to withdraw money from the plans.

We consider the changes in the magnitude and the composition of saving for retirement over the last two decades. We begin with an analysis of aggregate data on retirement plan contributions. We then turn to micro-data, describe patterns in these data, and try to reconcile these patterns with the aggregate data. We document the changes in aggregate retirement saving over the past twenty-five years and describe how these changes are related to the shift from employer-sponsored defined benefit plans to individual-controlled retirement saving. We then investigate whether the shift toward individual retirement saving, and the accumulation of retirement assets in these accounts, has been offset by a reduction in the assets in other retirement saving plans.

In a series of earlier papers, summarized in Poterba, Venti, and Wise (hereafter PVW, 1996, 1998b), we found large net saving effects of IRAs and 401(k)s. We emphasized the potential offsets between saving in self-directed retirement accounts, other forms of financial asset saving, and the accumulation of home equity. On balance we found little, if any, offset in these cases. More recently, Benjamin (2003) and Pence (2001) have also found little or no offset between 401(k) contributions and non-401(k) financial asset saving, although the latter study also found little evidence that 401(k)s increased total wealth. Recent work by Engen and Gale (2000) finds little offset among low earners, but more substantial offsets among high earners.

Much less attention has been directed to the possible offset of personal retirement assets by a reduction in the assets in DB pension plans. Engen, Gale, and Scholz (1994) found a negative relationship between participation in DB pension plans and 401(k) plan assets in the 1987 and 1991 Surveys of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Papke (1999) concluded that between 1985 and 1992 about one-fifth of ongoing sponsors of DB plans terminated their plans and adopted or retained a conventional defined contribution (DC) or a 401(k) plan. It is not clear from her analysis, however, whether the growth in 401(k) plans displaced DB plans. Papke, Petersen, and Poterba (1996) surveyed firms with 401(k)s and found that very few had terminated a preexisting DB plan when they instituted their 401(k) plan. Their sample, however, may not have been representative of the broader population of firms.

More recently, Ippolito and Thompson (2000) combined Form 5500 data with information from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) to study within-firm changes in plans over time. They found little firm-level displacement of DB plans by 401(k) plans, and concluded that the replacement of a DB plan by a 401(k) is rare. Engelhardt (2000), basing his findings on data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), concludes that households eligible for a 401(k) have higher non-DB assets than households not eligible for a 401(k), but have the same level of assets when DB wealth is included. He interprets this as evidence of firm-level substitution of 401(k)s for DB pensions. However, as we explain later, the HRS does not allow accurate categorization of individuals into 401(k) eligible and noneligible status.

Most recently, LeBlanc (2001) has estimated the reduction in contributions to the Registered Retirement Saving Program (RRSP) in Canada when persons are newly covered by an employer-provided DB plan. Based on a longitudinal panel of individual tax data, and using a difference-in-difference estimation procedure, he finds that for a dollar of DB plan saving, RRSP contributions are reduced by only about $0.15.

Our analysis of these issues is divided into six sections. In section 1.1 we consider aggregate data on the total stock of retirement wealth. The very large increase in total retirement assets relative to income over the past twenty-five years strongly suggests that the enormous growth in individual retirement assets has more than offset any displacement of asset growth in traditional DB pension plans.

In section 1.2 we show that the "retirement plan contribution rate" is much greater than the personal saving rate reported in the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) in recent years. Our retirement plan contribution rate is determined by the retirement saving of current employees. The NIPA saving rate, in contrast, depends on the saving and consumption patterns of retirees as well as those who are currently working. We document the substantial growth over time in contributions to self-directed retirement saving programs, such as 401(k) plans. We also suggest that the retirement plan contribution rate was reduced by legislation restricting contributions to DB pension plans, as well as by the strong stock market performance of the late 1980s and 1990s and the associated reduction in required DB plan contributions.

In section 1.3, we distinguish between retirement saving from the standpoint of an employee, and employer contributions to retirement saving plans. We argue that from the perspective of the employee, 401(k) retirement saving is likely to be much greater than traditional DB plan saving at most ages. We use data on accruing DB plan liabilities to compare 401(k) and DB plan saving rates, and conclude that the saving rate under a typical 401(k) plan is about twice that under a typical DB plan.

In section 1.4 we begin to explore the possible substitution between different types of retirement plans. We use data from both the Department of Labor Form 5500 filings, and from the SIPP. We find no evidence of strong substitution patterns between 401(k) participation and other retirement plans. Section 1.5 shows that further analysis of substitution, using data from the HRS, supports the results in section 1.4.

A brief conclusion summarizes our findings.

1.1 Aggregate Data on Assets in Retirement Saving Plans

1.1.1 Retirement Account Assets

While it is not possible to link particular assets with particular motives for saving, for many households assets in retirement saving accounts are the best single indicator of the amount that they have saved for retirement. A number of factors are likely to contribute to variation in retirement assets. For example, one would expect that households with higher earnings would have more retirement assets. For a given level of aggregate earnings, a larger share of the working population near retirement age is likely to be associated with greater retirement assets. Variation in life expectancy and in the typical retirement age can also affect the stock of retirement assets. The "adequacy" of any given level of assets depends on the years of support the assets are expected to provide.

Our analysis begins with measures of aggregate retirement assets that are not adjusted for demographic trends. We then explain the likely effect of adjustment for demographic changes. Figure 1.1 shows the ratio of assets in all private retirement accounts-including DB plans, 401(k), other DC plans, IRAs, 403(b) plans, and Keogh plans-to private wage and salary earnings. This ratio increased more than fivefold between 1975 and 1998, from 0.39 to 2.02. The figure shows modest growth in the ratio of retirement assets to earnings through 1981; more rapid growth between 1982 and 1994, after the introduction of IRAs and 401(k) plans and during a period of positive stock market returns; and rapidly accelerated growth beginning in 1995, corresponding to large increases in equity market returns. Figure 1.1 also shows the ratio of assets in all retirement plans, the private plans as well as public sector plans, to wages and salaries. The trend is very similar to that for private plan assets alone.

Figure 1.2 shows private retirement assets disaggregated into several components. It shows that assets in DB plans continued to grow after the introduction of 401(k) and IRA plans, but that the bulk of the gain was in individual accounts. In this figure, 401(k) assets are included with other DC plans. There is no evidence of a decline in the assets in conventional employer-provided plans during the time period when assets in individual accounts were growing most rapidly.

The foregoing data alone cannot rule out the possibility of substitution, because we do not have data on the time path that other retirement plan assets would have followed in the absence of the growth in DC assets. To place the growth in DC assets into perspective, however, we note that if all contributions to personal retirement accounts between 1985 and 1998 had come at the expense of DB contributions, DB assets would have grown by a factor of 8.4 instead of 2.7.

The private retirement assets in figure 1.2 exclude assets in federal, state, and local retirement plans, and assets held by life insurance companies in retirement plans that are also part of the retirement asset pool. Figure 1.3 shows the assets in private plans as well as the assets in these other plans. In 1999, about 40 percent of all retirement assets were in federal, state, and local and insurance plan funds.

Retirement account assets support current retirees as well as future retirees. Although we are unable to distinguish the assets held by current retirees from those held by the working-age population, we suspect that the increase in these assets represents a large upward trend in the assets of future retirees.

1.1.2 Housing and Other Nonretirement Assets

Aside from promised Social Security benefits, housing equity is the most important asset of a large fraction of Americans. Unlike the increase in retirement account assets, however, there has been no increase in housing equity relative to income over the past two and one-half decades. Figure 1.4 shows housing equity as a fraction of disposable income from 1975 to 1998. The ratio increased about 25 percent between 1975 and 1989, but by 1999 it was essentially at the same level as in 1975. The figure also shows non-retirement, nonhome equity net worth as a share of disposable income. This ratio decreased and then increased between 1985 and 1999. The increase between 1975 and 1999, 27 percent, was not nearly as great as the increase in retirement assets over this period.

1.1.3 Retirement Assets and Demographic Trends

The growth of retirement assets relative to income may be explained by a number of changes. These include the advent of new retirement saving vehicles as well as other factors, such as demographic change. Changes in three features of the population-demographic composition, mortality rates, and labor force participation-have likely contributed to the rise in retirement assets relative to income. We describe each of these changes, although we do not attempt a formal adjustment of retirement wealth to correct for these changes.

The increase in life expectancy at retirement age is the first substantial change that may have contributed to rising retirement assets. In 1975, life expectancy for a U.S. man at age sixty-two was 15.5 years, while that for a woman was 20.3 years. By 1997, male life expectancy at age sixty-two had increased to 17.6 years, while female life expectancy had risen to 21.4 years. For men, this implies a 13.5 percent increase in the number of years that need to be supported with retirement resources, beginning at age sixty-two. For women, the change was 5.4 percent. These proportional changes provide a crude measure-crude, because they do not reflect the potential role of risk and the prospect of drawing down resources too quickly-of the increase in retirement resources that would be needed to offset improved longevity. These changes might account for an increase in resources of roughly 10 percent, much less than the actual growth of retirement assets relative to income.

The second important demographic change that might have contributed to rising retirement assets was the aging of the labor force. Translating information on the age structure of the population into predictions about the wealth-income ratio requires detailed information on saving by age, yet there is no agreement on the relative importance of life-cycle, precautionary, and other factors in saving decisions. In 1975, the average age of those over the age of twenty in the U.S. population was 44.6 years. For men, the average age was 43.9 years. Between 1975 and 1985, the average age of those over twenty actually declined to 44.3 years for the entire population and 43.5 years for the male population. This reflected the entry of the "baby boom" cohorts into the 20-plus age group. By 1998, the working age population had grown older, the average age of all 20-plus persons was 45.5 years, and that of 20-plus men was 44.8 years. Thus between 1985 and 1998, the average age of the adult population rose by just over one year. Similarly, the average age of those in the labor force in 1985 was 38.5 years, whereas in 1998, it was 40.3 years.

These data on the population and labor force age structure suggest that by the late 1990s, those who were in their earning years were older and had fewer remaining years of work to accumulate assets for retirement than those in the working population in the 1970s and early 1980s. This also may have induced a rise in retirement assets.

The final change that may have affected retirement assets is the shifting age of retirement in the U.S. population. During the 1980s and 1990s, these changes were modest by comparison to earlier decades. Burtless and Quinn (2000) present detailed information on age-specific labor force participation rates for U.S. men in 1970, 1984-85, and 1998-89. Their data show a sharp decline in labor force participation rates between 1970 and 1984-85, but relatively little decline subsequently. The participation rates for 1998-99 were virtually identical to those in 1984-85. At ages above sixty-five, the labor force participation rate in the late 1990s was greater than that in the mid-1980s. There is no systematic difference in labor force participation rates at younger ages. Labor force participation rates for women in their early sixties increased between the mid-1980s and the late 1990s as cohorts of women with greater labor force participation rates when they were younger entered the retirement-age cohort.

Changes in retirement ages are therefore not likely to account for substantial changes in retirement wealth relative to income during the last two decades. Demographic factors-shifting age structure and lengthening life expectancy-seem likely to account for modest increases in retirement assets, but are unlikely to account for more than a small fraction of the large changes we observe.

1.2 Plan Contributions and the Retirement Plan Contribution Rate

The accumulation of retirement assets depends on the inflow of contributions, the payout of benefits, and the return on invested assets. Panel A of figure 1.5 shows private pension plan contributions, which increased almost six-fold between 1975 and 1999, while panel B of figure 1.5 shows contributions to all retirement plans. Neither of the series includes contributions to privately held pension plans administered by insurance companies, which hold about 9 percent of the assets in all pension plans. Private plans include self-directed plans such as 401(k) plans and IRAs. IRA contributions exclude rollovers, while IRA assets include assets rolled in to these accounts.


Excerpted from Perspectives on the Economics of Aging Copyright © 2004 by National Bureau of Economic Research. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

1. Ideas and Education: Level or Growth Effects and Their Implications for Australia
2. Australia's 1990s Productivity Surge and Its Determinants
3. Institutions, Volatility, and Crises
4. GATT/WTO Accession and Productivity
5. The Contribution of FDI Flows to Domestic Investment in Capacity, and Vice Versa
6. Sectoral Productivity and Economic Growth in Japan, 1970-98: An Empirical Analysis
Based on JIP Database
7. Foreign Ownership and Productivity in Indonesian Autobile Industry: Evidence from Established Data for 1990-99
8. Productivity Growth and R&D Expenditure in Taiwan's Manufacturing Firms
9. Bankruptcy Policy Reform and Total Factor Productivity Dynamics in Korea: Evidence from Microdata
10. Information Technology and Firm Performance in Korea
11. How Important Is Discrete Adjustment in Aggregate Fluctuations?

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)