{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":42,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[39,2,39,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910779642403321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Kashiwase Kenichiro"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Pension Reforms in Japan / / Kenichiro Kashiwase, Masahiro Nozaki, Kiichi Tokuoka"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Washington, D.C. : , : International Monetary Fund, , 2012"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"1-4755-7345-6"]
[{"$nulls":4},"1-4755-9735-5"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (22 p.)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"IMF Working Papers"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Pensions - Japan"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Retirement income - Japan"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Labor"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Macroeconomics"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Public Finance"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Demography"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Fiscal Policy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Social Security and Public Pensions"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Private Pensions"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Economics of the Elderly"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Economics of the Handicapped"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Non-labor Market Discrimination"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Aggregate Factor Income Distribution"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Pensions"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Population & demography"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Pension spending"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Aging"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Income"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Pension reform"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Expenditure"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Population and demographics"]
[{"$nulls":4},"National accounts"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Population aging"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Japan"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Note generali","Description based upon print version of record."]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Cover; Abstract; Contents; I. Introduction; Figures; 1. Japan: Population Aging in Japan and OECD Countries; 2. Japan: Social Security Spending; II. The Pension System and Past Reforms in Japan; 3. Japan: Public Pension System; 4. Japan: NP and EPI Pension Spending and Contributions, 2010-2100; Boxes; 1. Japan: How Does Macro Indexing Work?; III. Pension Reform Options to Reduce the Fiscal Burden; Tables; 1. Japan: Options to Reduce Government for Basic Pension; 2. Japan: Growth Impact of Pension Reform Options; A. Raise Pension Eligibility Age"]
[{"$nulls":4},"5. Japan: Life Expectancy after Pension Eligibility Age, 2000-20306. OECD Countries: Pension Eligibility Age and Life Expectancy in 2010 and 2030; B. Lower Replacement Ratio; 7. Pension Benefit Replacement Rate for Single Earner Couples; 3. Japan: Old-age Poverty in Japan and the Role of Pensions; C. Higher Contribution Rates; 8. Pension Contribution Rate, 2009; D. Reducing Preferential Treatments; IV. Conclusion; Appendices; I. Methodologies to Calculate Fiscal Savings from Reform Options; References"]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","This paper analyzes various reform options for Japan’s public pension in light of large fiscal consolidation needs of the country. The most attractive option is to increase the pension eligibility age in line with high and rising life expectancy. This would have a positive effect on long-run economic growth and would be relatively fair in sharing the burden of fiscal adjustment between younger and older generations. Other attractive options include better targeting by “clawing back” a small portion of pension benefits from wealthy retirees, reducing preferential tax treatment of pension benefit incomes, and collecting contributions from dependent spouses of employees, who are currently eligible for pension benefits even though they make no contributions. These options, if implemented concurrently, could reduce the government annual subsidy and the government deficit by up to 1¼ percent of GDP by 2020."]