arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

To insure or to smooth? Paternalistic rationales for mandatory retirement funding

Daniel Halliday

Economics and Philosophy2026https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267126100674article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

It is often thought that compulsory retirement funding gains support from paternalistic considerations. This paper examines this claim. I argue that compulsory retirement funding is more coherent when understood as an attempt at temporal smoothing than counterfactual insurance. An implication is that any paternalistic case for retirement funding faces problems that are more severe than they would be if compulsory retirement funding were insurance. I label these the problems of ‘inverted bias’ and of the ‘arbitrariness of income from labour’. The paper then makes some suggestions about how these points about paternalism bear on the problem of justice in retirement funding.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267126100674

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{daniel2026,
  title        = {{To insure or to smooth? Paternalistic rationales for mandatory retirement funding}},
  author       = {Daniel Halliday},
  journal      = {Economics and Philosophy},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267126100674},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

To insure or to smooth? Paternalistic rationales for mandatory retirement funding

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.