The ethics of the state pension

This article suggests that future ethical analyses of state pensions should focus on either or both of two distinct ideal types of state pension, one of which is intended to serve a sufficientarian purpose and the other of which is supposed to serve a paternalistic purpose. Having set out this typology, this article sets out to tackle three central justificatory challenges for state pensions and to show that the typology is helpful in working through them. The first arises from the fact that state pensions are widely considered to constitute part of the social safety net of any country that has one, yet it is not entirely clear why they should be so considered. The main problem is that, while the social safety net is a set of programmes designed to alleviate burdens, it is not clear that state pensions are targeted at alleviating any burden. This constitutes the first justificatory problem for state pensions. The second justificatory problem, albeit one that cannot be entirely disentangled from the first, is that state pension systems offer benefits only to those above a certain age, even though simply being above a certain age constitutes in itself no plausible moral basis for being given a benefit. The third problem is that state pensions discourage those who benefit from them from doing paid work. This article tackles each of these problems individually, exploring the solutions to them that either have been offered in the literature or might plausibly be offered.