Population Aging, Intergenerational Transfers, and the Economy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Population Aging, Intergenerational Transfers, and the Economy

Amonthep Chawla

Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) November 8, 2010 Prepared for a Presentation at Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division, ESCAP

2

Background and Motivation

• Changes in population age structure

– Decreasing total fertility and rising life expectancy.

• Economic lifecycle

– Extended periods of dependency.

• Complex and varied intergenerational economic

systems

– Families, firms, markets, the state, and civil society all play a role. – Important implications for poverty, economic growth, and generational equity.

3

Objectives

• Develop a system of economic accounts that

quantifies intergenerational flows in a comprehensive fashion.

• Estimate the accounts with historical depth for

economies with different cultures, levels of development, economic systems and policies.

• Analyze and explain

– variation in the economic lifecycle and the intergenerational economic systems. – macroeconomic effects of population aging.

• Improve policy related to pensions, health care,

education, and fertility.

4

Importance of National Transfer Accounts

• Goal: Develop policies that respond

effectively to the population age transition

• Requirement: a comprehensive and deep

understanding of the generational economy:

– Social and economic institutions – Economic flows across age groups – System of public and private obligations

5

Outline

I. National Transfer Account

• Basic Concepts
• Economic Lifecycle
• Age reallocations

II. Changes in Age Structure and Economic Growth: Demographic Dividends

• I. National Transfer Account

7

National Transfer Accounts

• Measure economic flows across age groups in

a systematic and comprehensive way.

• Flows are identified by the economic

mechanisms and the mediating institutions.

• Accounts complement the UN System of

National Accounts and are constructed in a manner consistent with macroeconomic aggregates.

8

The Flow Account Identity

• Inflows

– Labor Income – Asset Income – Transfer Received

• Outflows

– Consumption – Saving – Transfers Paid

Inflows Outflows

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

l a

Y a Y a a C a S a a τ τ

+ −

+ + = + + 144424443 144 4 2444 3

Lifecycle Deficit Asset-based Reallocations Net Transfers Age Reallocations

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

l a

C a Y a Y a S a a a τ τ

+ −

− = − + − 14 4 244 3 14 4 244 3 14 4 244 3 144444 244444 3

9

Data

1. Aggregate Controls of the NT Flow Account are drawn from the National Income of Thailand (NESDB): 1981‐2004. 2. Age Profiles are estimated, relying on information from the household socio‐economic survey (SES):

• NSO. 11 survey years 1981, 1986, 1988, 1990,

1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004. 3. Data for the population by age are from population estimates and projections by the United Nations (UN): 1950‐2050.

10 Compensation of Employees 1,353 Public Consumption Expenditure 470 Operating Surplus 2,041 Education 144 Income from Unincorporated Enterprises 1,065 Health 44 Income from Private Corporations and Property 846 Other 281 Property Income 476 Private Consumption Expenditure 2,480 Less: Interest Payment on Consumer Debt 62 Education 22 Less: Interest Payment on Public Debt 9 Health 164 Saving of Private Corporations 252 Housing 147 Corporate Income Tax 176 Other 2,147 Corporate Transfer Payment 13 Net Saving 1,026 Income from Public Enterprises and Property 130 Households 278 Corporations 252 General Government 431 Saving of Government Enterprises 65 Government Enterprises 65 Less: Indirect Taxes 573 Subsidies 12 Less: Net Public Current Transfers from ROW 2 Less: Net Private Current Transfers from ROW 18 3,394 3,394 Income Approach National Income Expenditure Approach National Expenditure Government Income from Property and Entrepreneurship 66

National Income Account of Thailand in 1996 (Billions of Baht)

11 Education Health Total 1981 44.4 66.5 127.3 3,757.8 11,894 4.4 1986 45.0 76.4 141.9 4,027.6 10,889 4.1 1988 45.5 53.0 135.7 3,699.9 11,017 3.9 1990 46.3 78.6 181.4 4,938.7 13,162 4.0 1992 46.2 112.2 221.5 6,167.7 13,432 3.7 1994 47.2 134.8 260.6 6,761.2 25,176 3.7 1996 47.8 165.9 331.2 7,936.7 25,069 3.6 1998 48.1 241.4 233.7 8,937.6 23,515 3.7 2000 48.5 244.8 261.5 8,473.2 24,705 3.5 2002 48.6 252.5 249.3 9,496.9 34,735 3.4 2004 49.7 263.8 262.1 10,809.3 34,803 3.3 Mean 47.04 153.62 218.75 6,818.77 20,763.4 3.77 Wage Farm Non-farm Property 1981 25.8 345.0 153.2 244.1 14.7 52,004 1986 27.2 422.2 134.3 227.7 14.6 45,072 1988 27.5 335.8 212.3 140.7 13.7 42,843 1990 28.3 516.4 253.8 217.9 15.2 52,879 1992 28.9 766.0 264.5 313.8 35.8 50,309 1994 30.2 936.0 272.2 402.3 26.6 93,735 1996 30.8 1,220.4 401.7 529.5 40.0 90,133 1998 31.2 1,411.0 429.6 602.0 65.9 85,891 2000 32.5 1,471.2 362.0 595.9 46.4 87,231 2002 32.5 1,677.5 439.3 736.9 51.6 118,550 2004 33.6 1,922.4 515.1 805.0 51.7 116,317 Mean 29.87 1,002.19 312.55 437.77 34.20 75,905.8 Survey Years Individuals Characteristics Age of Individuals (years) Income (Baht/Month)

• No. of

Observations Household Size (persons) Survey Years Household Characteristics Age of Head (years) Consumption (Baht/Month)

• No. of

Households

Micro Data: the Socio-economic Surveys (SES)

12

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of population 1950 2000 2050

Population by Age

13

Method: Constructing NTA

• Private Consumption

– Education: regression – Health: regression and use individual health report of SES 2002 – Other: equivalence scale

• Public Consumption

– Education: enrollment rate & unit cost – Health: inpatient of public hospital (to be revised using NHA) – Other: per capita

14

Method (2)

• Labor Income (tabulate from SES)

– Earnings – Profits from farm & non‐farm (2/3)

• Asset Income (assign to Head – tabulate from

SES)

– Profits from farm & non‐farm (1/3) – Property income: rent, dividend, interest – Other: proportional to property income

15

Method (3)

• Public Transfers

– Inflows: in‐kind & cash ( assign to recipients of benefits) – Outflows: taxes (based on income and consumption)

• Private Transfers

– Inter‐household transfers

• inflows: tabulate from the SES
• outflows: tabulate from the SES

– Intra‐household transfers

• Inflows: disposable inc < cons
• outflows: disposable inc > cons

16

Primary Secondary Higher Education Consumption 71,832 41,798 27,172 3,583 (Million Baht) Number of Students 7,935 3,927 1,333 58,465 (Thousands) Unit Cost 9,052 10,644 20,388 61 (Baht) Formal Education Informal Education

Example: Public Education Consumption of Thailand in 1996

17

Aggregate Public Education Consumption for Thailand in 1996 (Millions of Baht)

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht (Million) Estimated Results Aggregate Control

Public formal education consumption by age is estimated by summing unit cost per student per level weighted by the number

• f students by age in each level

18

Per capita consumption and labor income, Thailand, 2004

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht Consumption Labor Income

Lifecycle surplus Lifecycle deficit Lifecycle deficit The Economic Lifecycle

19

• 60,000
• 40,000
• 20,000

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Per capita lifecycle deficit, Thailand, 2004

Lifecycle deficit is the difference between consumption and labor production at each age Lifecycle Surplus Ages:26-57

20

Per capita private consumption, Thailand, 2004

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Other Consum ption Housing Health Education Private Consum ption

21

Per capita public consumption, Thailand, 2004

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Public Consum ption Health Education Other

22

Classification of Inter‐age Flows

• Economic form

– Asset‐based – Transfers

• Mediating institution

– Public flows are mediated by the government – Private flows are mediated by households, families, NGOs, private individuals, etc.

23

Per capita age reallocations, Thailand, 2004

• 60,000
• 40,000
• 20,000

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Age Reallocations Transfers Asset- based Reallocations

24

Per capita net transfers received, Thailand, 2004

• 60,000
• 40,000
• 20,000

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Transfers Public Private

25

Per capita net intra‐household transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 80,000
• 60,000
• 40,000
• 20,000

20,000 40,000 60,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net transfers Inflows Outflows

26

Per capita net intra‐household education transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 2,000
• 1,500
• 1,000
• 500

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net transfers Inflows Outflows

27

Per capita net intra‐household health care transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 6,000
• 4,000
• 2,000

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net Inflows Outflows

28

Per capita net public transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 30,000
• 20,000
• 10,000

10,000 20,000 30,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net transfers Inflows Outflows

29

Per capita net public education transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 10,000
• 5,000

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net transfers Inflows Outflows

30

Per capita net public health care transfers, Thailand, 2004

• 3,000
• 2,000
• 1,000

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Age Baht

Net transfers Inflows Outflows

31

Research on NTA and Social Protection

• NTA can be used to improve understanding on

the area of social protection

– How much children and the elderly consume; what types of consumption – Human capital development

• Mechanisms that children and, particularly,

the elderly use to finance their consumption

– Variation of social protection across countries

32

Consumption Finance by the Elderly

• 40
• 20

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 US 2003 Japan 2004 Thailand 2004 Taiwan 1998 Austria 2000 Chile 1997 Finland 2004 Hungary 2005 Indonesia 2002 Mexico 2004 Slovenia 2004 Uruguay 1994 % Public Transfers Familial Transfers Asset-based Reallocations Work

Intergenerational transfers are large and important for most countries

33

Per Capita Lifecycle Deficits, Japan, 1984-2004

• 0.80
• 0.60
• 0.40
• 0.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

34

USA, 2003 Austria, 2000 Sweden, 2003 Germany, 2003

Japan, 2004 Finland, 2004 Spain, 2000 Slovenia, 2004

Taiwan, 1998 Korea, 2000 Hungary, 2005 Mexico, 2004

Chile, 1997 Costa Rica, 2004 Uruguay, 1994 Brazil, 1996

Thailand, 2004 Indonesia, 2005 China, 2002 Philippines, 1999

India, 2004 Nigeria, 2004 Kenya, 1994

YL C CF CG

Source: Tung forthcoming.

Changes in Economic Lifecycle and Support System Thailand 1981‐2004

36

Per Capita Consumption

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl(30-49) 1981 2004

Education Health

37

Per Capita Labor Income 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 2004 1981

38

Changes in Economic Lifecycle

• No change in the first crossing age: young

adults start to generate lifecycle surplus at around age 25

• Gradual change in the second crossing age:

individuals turn back to have lifecycle deficit at younger ages (61 in 1981 to 58 in 2004)

• Shorter lifecycle surplus period, declining from

36 years in 1981 to 33 years in 2004

39

Per Capita Lifecycle Deficits, Thailand

• 80
• 60
• 40
• 20

20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49)

61 58 25 1981 2004

40

Support Systems

• Three mechanisms used to close the gap

between consumption and production

– Public Transfers – Private Transfers – Asset‐based Reallocations

• Emphasize on Youth and the Elderly

41

Public Transfers

• Public Transfers Inflows less Outflows
• Children receive significantly larger public

education transfers

• The elderly receive slightly increase public

sector heath transfers

• The working ages pay larger taxes!

42

Per Capita Net Public Transfers Received

• 20
• 15
• 10
• 5

5 10 15 20 25 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 1981 2004

43

Private Transfers

• Slightly increase in private transfers to

children

• Largely increase in private transfers to the

elderly

44

Per Capita Net Private Transfers Received

• 80
• 60
• 40
• 20

20 40 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 2004 1981

45

Asset‐based Reallocations

• Asset income ‐ saving
• Age profiles of asset income and saving are

fluctuated during the past decades

– Before the economic crisis in 1997 : the elderly rely heavily on asset income to support their consumption – After 1997: less reliance on asset income

• Age profiles are younger during 2000‐2004

46

Per Capita Asset Income

20 40 60 80 100 120 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49)

1981 1986 1988

47

Per Capita Asset Income

20 40 60 80 100 120 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 1996

1992 1994 1998 1990

48

Per Capita Asset Income

20 40 60 80 100 120 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 2004 2000 2002

49

Per Capita Saving

• 20

20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ Relative to Yl (30-49) 1981 1996 2004

50

Summary: Child Support Systems

• In general, children rely more on familial

transfers than public transfers

• Transfers change overtime: children in

Thailand rely less on the family and more on the public sector

• Public education transfers are larger and more

important in Thailand

51

Summary: Old age Support Systems

• Reallocations through assets are major source of

support for the elderly

• The elderly rely less on labor income overtime
• The public sector does not provide much support for

the elderly

• The elderly rely more and more on the family

– “familial support is not deteriorating despite economic development”

• II. Changes in Age Structure and

Economic Growth: Demographic Dividends

53

Macroeconomic Effects of Demographic Changes

• Declining fertility leads to a larger share of

working‐age adults

– More production and higher economic growth

• Continual decline in fertility and mortality rates

leads to population aging

– Smaller share of labor force, lower production, slower economic growth

• Population aging may not adversely affect

economic growth

– Need prudent policy to prepare for this coming demographic change

54

Demographic Dividends

• Changes in population age structure interact

with the economic lifecycle, affecting economic growth

• Two demographic dividends

– Changes in the economic support ratio – Changes in lifecycle wealth

55

Demographic Dividends (2)

Changes in output per effective consumers = Changes in productivity + Changes in the economic support ratio Y(t)/N(t) = Y(t)/L(t) * L(t)/N(t)

First demographic dividend Second demographic dividend

56

The First Demographic Dividend

• Change in the economic support ratio or the

first demographic dividend is influenced by the economic lifecycle

• The economic lifecycle begins and ends with

the dependency periods when consumption exceeds earnings (lifecycle deficit), requiring economic flows from working‐age adults (the lifecycle surplus ages) to close the gap.

57

Economic Lifecycles

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90+ relative to mean labor income ages 30-49 Consumption, Japan Consumption, Thailand Labor Income, Japan Labor Income, Thailand

Lifecycle Surplus Lifecycle Deficit Lifecycle Deficit

58

Modeling the First Dividend

• Given constant productivity, changes in

population age structure affects the economic support ratio where α(a) and γ(a) are the age profiles of consumption and labor income, and P(a,t) is the population

( ) ( ) ( , ) ( ) ( ) ( , )

a a

N t a P a t L t a P a t α γ = =

∑ ∑

59

Economic Support Ratio

0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Effective workers relative to effective consumers China India Indonesia Thailand Japan Korea

60

First Demographic Dividend

• 1.5
• 1.0
• 0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 percent China India Indonesia Thailand Japan Korea

Note: Growth rate of the economic support ratio is the first demographic dividend

61

Summary of the First Dividend

• Declining fertility leads to a larger share of

effective producers, allowing the economy to grow

• However, the first dividend is transitory;

continual decline in fertility leads to population aging

• The first dividend in Thailand is depleted in 2010,

whereas some countries could enjoy the first dividend for several more decades

• Will population aging unfavorably affect

economic growth in the future?

62

Preparation for Population Aging

• In order to avoid the adverse effect of

population aging on economic growth, two approaches can be applied:

– Physical capital accumulation (the second demographic Dividend) – Human capital accumulation (Raising productivity

• f the future labor force)

63

The Second Demographic Dividend

• Definition: The growth in productivity

induced by an increase in the demand for lifecycle wealth.

• Compositional effect: population is

concentrated at older, high wealth ages

• Behavioral effect: increase in duration of life

and retirement lead to greater accumulation

• f wealth

64

Modeling the Second Demographic Dividend

• Demand for capital is proportional to lifecycle

wealth of those 50+

• Lifecycle wealth of those 50+

– W(50+) = PV[C(50+)] – PV[Yl(50+)] – Cross‐sectional age profiles of consumption and production shift proportionately over time – Productivity growth is constant – Assumptions: interest rate: 3%; productivity growth: 1.5%; elasticity of output wrt capital: 0.33

65

Wealth Ratio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 wealth relative to labor China India Indonesia Thailand Japan Korea

66

Second Demographic Dividend

• 0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 percent China India Indonesia Thailand Japan Korea

Note: growth rate of lifecycle wealth influences the second demographic dividend

67

Summary of the Second Demographic Dividend

• The second demographic dividend is larger and

more important to the economic growth than the first dividend in several countries

• The second dividend is not automatic; it requires

policy that encourages capital accumulation rather than relies on pension wealth to finance consumption during retirement ages

• Population aging could benefit economic growth

if capital accumulation is encouraged rather than PAYGO pension program

68

First Second Total China 0.78 0.70 1.49 7.14 5.65 India 0.27 0.85 1.12 2.66 1.54 Indonesia 0.50 0.72 1.22 4.26 3.04 Iran 0.42 0.34 0.76

• 0.36
• 1.12

Japan 0.21 1.51 1.72 2.61 0.89 Korea 0.98 1.25 2.22 6.03 3.81 Mongolia 0.48 0.09 0.56 1.72 1.15 Philippine 0.48 0.43 0.91 1.11 0.20 Singapore 1.15 1.08 2.23 5.66 3.43 Thailand 0.99 0.35 1.34 4.61 3.27 Vietnam 0.40 0.09 0.49 4.45 3.96 Demographic Dividends Actual growth in GDP/N Actual Dividend

Notes: based on method by Mason (2005)

Effects of demographic changes on economic growth (1970‐2000)

69

Summary

• Intergenerational flows are large
• Magnitude and direction of IG flows are

changing in unprecedented ways

• IG systems vary widely and are changing
• Important implications for

– Generational equity – Standards of living – Investment in human and physical capital – Fiscal sustainability

70

Summary

• Inter‐age flows are an inevitable consequence of the

economic lifecycle

• Flows constraint provides an organizing principle

– Transfers – Asset‐based reallocations

• Complete accounting by sector

– Public (education, health, pensions, public debt) – Private (especially family) – Rest of the world (remittances, international capital flows)

• Complete NTA

– Relationship between stocks and flows – Asset transfers, asset revaluations, and other net changes in assets

71

Further Reading

Conceptual Foundations Lee, R. (2003). “Demographic Change, Welfare, and Intergenerational Transfers: A Global Overview.” GENUS LIX(3‐4): 43‐70. Lee, R. D. (1994). The Formal Demography of Population Aging, Transfers, and the Economic Life Cycle. Demography of Aging. L. G. Martin and S. H. Preston. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press: 8‐49. Willis, R. J. (1988). Life cycles, institutions and population growth: A theory of the equilibrium interest rate in an overlapping‐generations model. Economics of Changing Age Distributions in Developed Countries. R. D. Lee, W. B. Arthur and G. Rodgers. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 106‐38. Empirical Studies Bloom, D. E. and J. G. Williamson (1998). “Demographic Transitions and Economic Miracles in Emerging Asia.” World Bank Economic Review 12(3): 419‐56. Bloom, D. E. and D. Canning (2001). Cumulative Causality, Economic Growth, and the Demographic Transition. Population Matters: Demographic Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World. N. Birdsall, A. C. Kelley and S. W. Sinding. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 165‐200. Kelley, A. C. and R. M. Schmidt (2007). Evolution of Recent Economic‐Demographic Modeling: A Synthesis. Population Change, Labor Markets and Sustainable Growth: Towards a New Economic Paradigm. A. Mason and M. Yamaguchi. Amsterdam, Elsevier: 5‐38.

72

Further Reading (Cont)

Simulation Studies Cutler, D. M., J. M. Poterba, et al. (1990). “An Aging Society: Opportunity or Challenge?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1990(1): 1‐56. Lee, R., A. Mason, et al. (2003). “From Transfers to Individual Responsibility: Implications for Savings and Capital Accumulation in Taiwan and the United States.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 105(3): 339‐357. Mason, A. and R. Lee (2006). “Reform and support systems for the elderly in developing countries: capturing the second demographic dividend.” GENUS LXII(2): 11‐35. NTA Fundamentals Mason, A., R. Lee, et al. (forthcoming). Population Aging and Intergenerational Transfers: Introducing Age into National Accounts. Developments in the Economics of Aging. D. Wise. Chicago, NBER and University of Chicago Press. Lee, R., S.‐H. Lee, A. Mason (2008). Charting the Economic Lifecycle. Population Aging, Human Capital Accumulation, and Productivity Growth, a supplement to Population and Development Review 33. A. Prskawetz, D. E. Bloom and W. Lutz. New York, Population Council: 208‐237.

Support for this project has been provided by:

• National Institute on Aging: R37

National Institute on Aging: R37-

• AG025488 and R01

AG025488 and R01-

• AG025247

AG025247

• NUPRI MEXT Academic Frontier Project, Government of Japan

NUPRI MEXT Academic Frontier Project, Government of Japan

• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

• International Development Research Center (IDRC)

International Development Research Center (IDRC)

• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

74

Research Teams for 30 Economies

Contributing Researchers

76

The National Transfer Accounts project is a collaborative effort of East-West Center, Honolulu and Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging, University of California - Berkeley

Lee, Ronald, Co-Director Mason, Andrew , Co-Director Auerbach, Alan Miller, Tim Lee, Sang-Hyop Donehower, Gretchen Ebenstein, Avi Wongkaren, Turro Takayesu, Ann Boe, Carl Comelatto, Pablo Sumida, Comfort Schiff, Eric Stojanovic, Diana Langer, Ellen Chawla, Amonthep Pajaron, Marjorie Cinco

77

Japan

Key Institutions: Nihon University Population Research Institute and the Statistics Bureau of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. Ogawa, Naohiro, Country Leader Matsukura, Rikiya Maliki Chawla, Amonthep Obayashi, Senichi Kondo, Makoto Fukui, Takehiro Ihara, Hajime Suzuki, Kosuke Akasaka, Katsuya Moriki, Yoshie Makabe, Naomi Ogawa, Maki

78

Australia

Key Institution: Australia National University Jeromey Temple, Country Leader

Brazil

Turra, Cassio, Country Leader Lanza Queiroz, Bernardo Renteria, Elisenda Perez

Chile

Key Institution: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribean, Santiago, Chile Bravo, Jorge

Mauricio Holz

79

Taiwan

Key Institution: The Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. Tung, An-Chi, Country Leader Lai, Mun Sim (Nicole) Liu, Paul K.C. Andrew Mason

China

Key Institution: China Center for Economic Research, Beijing, China. Ling, Li, Country Leader Chen, Quilin Jiang, Yu

80

France

Wolff, Francois-Charles, Country Leader Bommier, Antoine

Thailand

Key Institution: Economics Department, Thammasat University. Phananiramai, Mathana, Country Leader Chawla, Amonthep (Beet) Soonthornchawakan, Nongnuch Inthornon, Suntichai

I ndia

Key Institution: Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Narayana, M.R., Country Leader Ladusingh, L.

Mexico

Key Institution: Consejo Nacional de Población Partida, Virgilio, Country Leader Mejía-Guevara, Iván

81

Indonesia Key Institution: Lembaga Demografi, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Maliki, Country Leader Wiyono, Nur Hadi Nazara, Suahasil Chotib Philippines Key Institution: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Racelis, Rachel H., Country Leader Salas, John Michael Ian S. Pajaron, Marjorie Cinco Sweden Key Institution: Institute for Future Studies, Stockholm, Sweden. Lindh, Thomas, Country Leader Johansson, Mats Forsell, Charlotte

82

Uruguay

Bucheli, Marisa, Country Leader Furtado, Magdalena

Rodrigo Ceni Cecilia Rodriguez South Korea

An, Chong-Bum , Country Leader Chun, Young-Jun Lim, Byung-In Kim, Cheol-Hee Jeon, Seung-Hoon Gim, Eul-Sik Seok, Sang-Hun Kim, Jae-Ho

83

Austria

Key Institution: Vienna Institute of Demography Fuernkranz-Prskawetz, Alexia, Country Leader Sambt, Joze

Costa Rica

Key Institution: CCP, Universidad de Costa Rica Rosero-Bixby, Luis, Country Leader

Maria Paola Zuniga Slovenia

Sambt, Joze, Country Leader

Hungary

Key Institution: TARKI Social Research Institute Gal, Robert Medgyesi, Marton

Finland

Key institutions: The Finnish Center for Pensions And the Finnish Pension Alliance Vanne, Reijo Gröhn, Jukka Vaittinen, Risto

84

United States

Key Institution: Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging Lee, Ronald, Country Leader Miller, Tim Ebenstein, Avi Boe, Carl Comelatto, Pablo Donehower, Gretchen Schiff, Eric Langer, Ellen

85

Kenya

Mwabu, Germano

Nigeria

Soyibo, Adedoyin

Germany

Kluge, Fanny Annemarie

Spain

Patxot, Concepció, Country Leader Renteria, Elisenda Perez

Thank you