Research: The Great Risk Transfer - have we got the balance right?

How many people have the knowledge and time to manage the financial risks they face in life? To what extent does it matter?

We partnered with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) to explore these questions. We aimed to find out more about what people in Scotland understand to be the key risks in relation to their long-term financial wellbeing and what helps and holds them back from addressing them.

Our engagement with people in Scotland was designed to build on recent work carried out by the IFoA which has been exploring the ongoing trend of transferring risks from institutions – such as employers, the state, and financial services providers – to individuals.

The IFoA calls this the ‘Great Risk Transfer’ describing it as posing one of the most significant yet little understood social, financial, and political challenges of our time. The changes described in this work show that far greater responsibility is being placed on individuals for managing their lifelong financial wellbeing than has been the case for most people living in Scotland since the establishment of the modern welfare state.

The Great Risk Transfer research showed that the causes of this trend are complex. They include increasing life expectancy, technological advances, changes in financial regulation and political choices. The IFoA highlighted four important areas of risk transfer: pensions, work, health and insurance. Our work was designed to find out more about relevant perceptions of risk in the Scottish population and how people respond to risks which can affect their financial wellbeing.

We explored people’s awareness of the Great Risk Transfer and their ability to manage and respond to financial risks. This revealed two interlinked themes which have implications for policymakers and others interested in either mitigating against or rebalancing responsibility for the relevant risks.

• Cultural – what people know, how they feel and what they do to manage risk

• Structural – the wider social and economic system

Our work commenced in December 2021 and concluded as inflation grew to levels not seen since the early 1980s, with rapidly-increasing fuel, energy and food prices dominating the headlines. This comes at a time when wages and social security payments have generally not kept pace with inflation, leading to widespread acknowledgement of a significant rise in the cost of living.

Not surprisingly, many of the people we spoke to were focused on immediate financial challenges. These included high housing costs, insecure tenancies and jobs, low incomes and debt, and, for some retired people, the challenge of living on a fixed income. This report is structured around four key areas which emerged strongly in our research:

• Knowledge and awareness of risks to financial wellbeing

• Trust in information providers

• Stress, fear, stigma and embarrassment

• Ability to access and understand guidance and information

The Political Economy of Pension Provision

HOP 2. The Political Economy of Pension Provision

Alan Peacock, Norman Barry

These papers were first presented at a Conference on Pensions arranged by The David Hume Institute which took place in Edinburgh in June 1985 but have been modified in the light of the government's White Paper which appeared in December 1985.

Professor Peacock's paper argues that the debate has concentrated too narrowly on the provision of pensions rather than on the provision for retirement and that the government's own arguments point towards the complete abolition of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) coupled with the raising of the basic pension.

Professor Barry's paper argues that the 'consensus' over SERPS is a convenient myth perpetuated by the interest groups seeking to maximise the utility of their members by an ever growing public sector. The fact that the British system of government helps to create such groups results in a legacy of problems, such as the burden of pensions, which are virtually insoluble; any major changes in policy impose significant costs on those affected by such changes.