Total Reward, the Great Recession and the Proposed Public Sector Pension Reforms: Evidence from the Public vs. Private Sectors in the UK

Lead Research Organisation: University of Sussex
Department Name: Sch of Business Management & Economics

Abstract

After three decades of steady and strong growth, real wages in the UK peaked in 2009 to fall since then as inflation outstripped nominal wage gains. Although by no means being the main cause of the UK's crisis of (public) pension funding, the Great Recession has accelerated the need for immediate pension reform. The Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR) brought benefit entitlements under scrutiny, as unsustainable levels of public debt must be cut back. As a result, radical changes have been announced to pension schemes across the public sector from April 2015. Both the temporary decline in hourly wages and the permanent manipulation of pension generosity will have lasting and sizeable effects on the total lifetime remuneration of affected cohorts of workers and hence prompts a number of questions: How will the proposed pension changes affect the remuneration in public vs. private sector jobs in the UK and who will be most affected? How do these occupations compare in terms of the negotiated pensions across the NHS, teachers', Local Government and Civil Service schemes? How will these changes affect the relative remuneration of the public vs. private sector and hence impact the public sector's ability to attract and retain an adequate supply of suitable able and qualified staff? Will the reforms induce sector switching of employees from the public to the private sector or change the quality of new entrants to the public sector? How will these changes interact with the recent declines in earnings in various occupations during the Great Recession? How will these results change once we take into account the possibility that members in different pensions schemes change their opt-out behaviour from their public sector plans after the reforms?
This research project will answer these questions combining the concept of Total Reward, a recently developed methodology to value various components of job remuneration over the lifecycle, with simulation methods that are fed with the proposed changes to the parameter setting. This conceptual method for the measurement of Total Reward makes average careers in specific occupations and sectors comparable in monetary terms and allows us to simulate the impact of policy changes on absolute and relative remuneration as well as on switching behaviour of employees across sectors. Total Reward includes conditions of work (hours of work, paid holidays, the likelihood of unemployment) and all direct financial remuneration when working (earnings, bonuses, employer provided health insurance) and deferred as pension payments in the future.
We will undertake comparisons between employees of specific educational groups in the public and private sector on average and compare the public vs. the private sector within occupations, whenever applicable. When possible, we will also take into consideration gender differences and will explore the extent of regional inequality in terms of total remuneration.

Planned Impact

The research undertaken and its findings will be of interest and/or benefit to:
1. Government departments and other bodies with interest in monitoring total reward and pension reforms. These include: the Office of Manpower Economics (OME) and the Public Sector Pay Review Board, the Department of work and Pensions (DWP), the Low Pay Commission (LPC) and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
2. The Local Government Association and Devolved Governments of the UK. They will be interested particularly in the spatial distribution of economic prosperity.
3. The Government Equalities Office (GEO) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). They will be interested particularly in the gender distribution of economic prosperity.
4. Representatives of workers in the UK, and in particular the TUC, as well as representatives of employers in the UK, and in particular the CBI.
5. The research also impacts on the wider public, in particular UK residents affected by the pension reforms.
These bodies will benefit from this research by increasing their understanding of how the recession and the pension reform will influence:
- wealth and income distribution between public and private sector and between low and high income earners.
- sorting into to public and private sector and switching behaviour across sectors.
- wealth and income distribution between London and the South-east and the rest of the UK (especially the Local Government association and Devolved Governments of the UK).
- gender specific wealth and income distribution (especially the GEO).
More generally the wider public will benefit from this research by increasing their understanding of:
- the severity of the reform and whether it will lower or increase inequality.

Publications

10 25 50
publication icon
Danzer A (2016) Who wins? Evaluating the impact of UK public sector pension scheme reforms in National Institute Economic Review

publication icon
Danzer A (2016) The Future of Pensions: Reforms and their Consequences - Introduction in National Institute Economic Review

 
Description KEY FINDINGS
The Great Recession of 2008-14 accelerated the need for pension reform in the UK. The Public Sector Net Cash Requirement brought benefit entitlements and contribution rates under scrutiny, as unsustainable levels of public debt are cut back. As a result, radical changes have been implemented to pension schemes across the public sector from April 2015. Following the Hutton Report (2011), the reforms of 2015 affected public sector pensions fundamentally. Importantly, the Defined Benefit structure of public sector pension has now been linked to the Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE), rather than the scheme member's final salary. Concomitant with the scrutiny of pension payments has been a more wide ranging policy discussion of the 'Total Reward' on offer in each public sector remuneration package. This scrutiny has included the value of pension benefits and other conditions of employment.
The Key Findings of this project are:
1. The Total Reward methodology as set out in Danzer and Dolton (2012) (which compared the whole public sector with the whole private sector, in terms of lifetime earnings and pensions and the whole remuneration package) has been extended and adapted to look at separate occupations. We do this by gender and education level in each occupation taking into account all the differences in each occupational pension scheme.
2. We calculated the Accumulated Lifetime Total Reward (ALTR) and its components for different public sector occupations (nurses, teachers, financial managers and accountants, scientists and engineers) and compare it with their private sector counterparts. We find that until recently, the (ALTR) of a worker in the public vs. private sectors differed substantially. Specifically nurses and teachers, accumulated substantially greater ALTR throughout their working career. Women in the other two public sector occupations (financial managers & accountants and scientists & engineers) had a small ALTR advantage if their stayed in their sector for the entire working life. Importantly, their private sector peers have a hypothetical advantage at least in their 40s. Male public sector scientists & engineers ended up with a slight ALTR disadvantage at retirement, while male public sector financial managers & accountants were substantially worse off than their private sector peers.
3. We simulated how the recent public sector reforms of the NHS, Teachers, Local Government and Civil Service pension schemes affect the public vs. private ALTR for these occupations. We find that a substantial premium of working in the public sector is still exists for nurses and teachers, despite the reforms. For financial managers and accountants the situation in the public sector deteriorated (for men: further), but the magnitudes are small. This is also true for female public sector scientists and engineers who, have a greater ALTR than their private sector peers. The situation in the public sector is less promising for male scientists & engineers who had already a lower ALTR compared to private sector members before the reform, but now accumulate considerably less over the life cycle. Our results suggest that the Total Reward gap between sectors has shrunk in one of the largest public sector occupations, namely teachers. The reform effect was almost negligible for nurses due to their relatively flat age-earnings profiles, which made the transition from final salary based pension computation to CARE less costly.
4. We examined the pension component of our ALTR simulation approach to perform a detailed analysis of the value of each occupation's public sector pension under the old system - before the reforms of 2015 - compared with what has now been implemented. Specifically, we defined and calculated what is meant by DB pension wealth accumulated over the lifetime for each public sector pension scheme and examined what the ratified changes to the pension system mean in various public sector schemes. We find that public sector workers are, on average, worse off in the recently introduced CARE pension schemes. However, the average masks substantial occupational variation: Those in the Local Government and NHS schemes are getting by far the best deals, Police and Fire Services are much worse off, while Teachers and those in Civil Service schemes are located somewhere in between the two extremes. When we disaggregate our analysis by the highly educated and those with lower educational qualification, we find that educational background seems to matter, with higher educated workers (1) seeing a relative pension wealth loss under the reform and (2) being worse off than those with lower qualifications in all but the Local Government scheme. Differences in education are, at least in part, driven by the fact that educated workers have steeper earnings profiles and therefore tend to be more disadvantaged by a CARE pension scheme compared to a final salary one.
Exploitation Route 1. HM Treasury in evaluating the impact of CARE pension reforms in the public sector. (We have made presentations to them directly.)
2. Government Actuaries Department in the financial calculation and valuation of pensions in the public sector. (We have made presentations to them directly.)
3. The Office of Manpower Economics in their making of recommendations on pay and conditions in various public sector occupations. (We have made presentations to them directly.)
4. Public Sector unions in education, health, police, fire service, local government and the Civil Service. (They were invited to our conference.)
5. Public policy making bodies interested in remuneration and gender equality - Specifically the Low Pay Commission, and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Sectors Education,Financial Services, and Management Consultancy,Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice

URL http://www.niesr.ac.uk/projects/total-reward-great-recession-and-public-pension-reforms-evidence-uk
 
Description We have been in several advisory meetings with OME We have had two meetings with HMTreasury and the Government Actuary Department to advise them about our methods and results This project has now been extended to be updated with a grant from the Office of Manpower Economics.
Sector Education,Financial Services, and Management Consultancy,Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice
Impact Types Economic

 
Description The Future of Pensions: Reforms and their Consequences. Conference at NIESR 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Industry/Business
Results and Impact This was a conference organised at NIESR for a whole day.
We presented our paper as a cornerstone of the conference.
But we also had academics from other institutions give related papers and then general discussion and debate.
The event was also attended by members of government departments - notably BIS, OME, HMT.

The event had good media coverage and made a main article int he Financial Times
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015