Suchergebnisse

Abstract"Risk" is a word that has become common currency in the financial services industry in general, and in the pensions industry in particular. This article critically examines its use in the context of the current debate about UK pension reform. "Risk" is used by a broad spectrum of interests to discuss a wide range of pension issues in a variety of contexts. The article outlines key theoretical perspectives on the nature and construction, or conceptualization, of risk. Their relevance to debate and policy initiatives, particularly public pension policy, is examined. It is suggested that current government policy is failing to carry with it those to whom the policy applies; that reforms implicitly, if not explicitly, underestimate the importance of "security"; and that failure to conduct a much broader debate about the fundamental notions of work, retirement, saving and security may simply condemn the UK to interminable pension reform.

The government, in its 1998 pensions Green Paper, has set out to establish a `New Insurance Contract'. It promises security in retirement for those who cannot afford to provide for themselves and a strengthened private pensions framework for those who can. In return, it expects individuals, wherever possible, to provide for their own retirement. This article argues that the security promised amounts to little more than greater means testing and complexity, and that the government's `strengthening' of private pensions actually results in greater risk being transferred to individual savers. The government recognizes some of the problems this approach creates, but its attempts to remedy them are not very credible. Nevertheless, the government will continue on its path because of its determination to reduce the state's role in pension provision. This article suggests that the `New Insurance Contract' is one that individual savers do not fully understand and may ultimately reject.

English
This article discusses the nature of trust and its importance for pensions policy. Trust in the financial services sector has suffered in the face of a 'pensions crisis'. Government's response focuses on 'empowering' consumers through education, information and pensions simplification, to create a domain of 'active trust' (Giddens, 1994). This approach is likely to fail many, and government must focus on rebuilding trust in its own ability to manage long-term pensions policy. It is argued that this should involve a greater role for government as a provider, but in any event the first step is a meaningful dialogue with the public.

Across the European Union, national governments are re-assessing the institutional mechanisms through which pension provision is delivered. This articles sets the debate within the wider context of the 'pillared' structural analysis often adopted by international institutions when discussing pensions reform. It then sets out a detailed discussion of developments in the UK, arguing that the UK is moving towards a model of reform akin to that promoted by the World Bank – referred to here as 'pillared-privatisation'. The themes of this model indicate more means-testing, greater private provision, and a shift of the burden of risk from the government to individuals. An assessment is then made of the implications of UK developments for other EU countries. It is suggested that while there are strong reasons to think that other countries will not travel as far down the road of 'pillared-privatisation' as the UK, this should not be taken as a 'given'.

The retirement challenge / Jonquil Lowe -- The state and pensions / Jonquil Lowe -- Risk and private pension provision / Patrick J. Ring -- Individuals and the retirement challenge / Lien Luu -- Empowering savers: saving for retirement and government policies / Lien Luu.

AbstractBoard directing is a continuous process of risk analysis and control in response to the duality of risk as threat and opportunity. Judgments are made and remade to simultaneously reduce the potential for damaging threats (e.g., fraud, reputation damage), while exploiting opportunities (e.g., new product development, mergers and acquisitions). Adopting an institutional logics approach, we explore this process of risk analysis and control through the varied subject identities (e.g., directorial roles), risk management practices (the procedures and tools used to identify, assess, and control risk), and risk objects (the product of risk identification, assessment, and control, e.g., a risk matrix or register) of boards. We argue that the contingent interaction between these identities, practices, and objects inform the "risk logic" of a board, which may draw attention to the notion of risk as threat, risk as opportunity, or both threat and opportunity. Using the testimony of 30 executive and nonexecutive directors that represent 62 companies from a range of public, private, and third‐sector organizations, we contribute to the literature on the microfoundations of risk analysis in organizations by shining a light on how board directors understand, assess, control, and ultimately govern risk in organizations.

This study examines the motives, entry mode choice, and challenges of the international expansion in an emerging country context. Data were collected via interviews from 30 senior managers based on a sample of 10 Chinese commercial banks (CCBs) involved in international expansion over the period of 2001–2013. This study finds greenfield and mergers and acquisitions are the most popular foreign entry mode used by CCBs. The motives of emerging market banks' internationalization appear to be intrinsically linked to market development to serve customers operating in overseas market, government policies, and strategic knowledge sourcing. In terms of challenges, the study finds lack of management resources/technical capacity, culture, adapting to the host country regulatory environment, and lack of experience to be the main challenges to bank internationalization.