ABSTRACT
Public pension policy in the United Kingdom is distinctly different from the
previous three cases because it has never had the chance to mature. Its most consistent feature is its strong reliance on the private sector, with the state
seeking to minimize its responsibilities (Nesbitt 1995: 141). This could be
partly explained by the combination of a parliamentary system and a first-
past-the-post electoral formula that favours a bipartite system and a single-
party majority government with a strong executive. Policies seem to be more
easily changed due to the competitive and confrontational aspects of British
politics. With more than 100 parameters involved in the calculation of one’s
state pensions (Pensions Policy Institute 2006: 1), this policy type has generated ‘the most complex pension system in the world’ (Pensions Commis-
sion 2004: 210). The United Kingdom example defies popular arguments in
the retrenchment literature, which stresses that the high accountability and
visibility of the executive constrain the government’s actions because it
cannot easily avoid blame (Pierson 1994, 1996; Vail 1999). This chapter
challenges these assertions by highlighting successful retrenchment efforts
that have left Britain fighting to save the elderly from poverty rather than
seeking to reduce the cost of pensions. Numerous reforms were undertaken by successive Conservative and Labour governments that resulted in severe
distrust of the state for not providing dependable information to guide citi-
zens regarding how they should plan their retirement.
