  Almost every public pension system shares two attributes: earning deductions
to finance benefits, and benefits that depend on earnings. This paper analyzes
theoretically and empirically the trade-off between social insurance and
incentive provision faced by reforms to these two attributes. First, I combine
the social insurance and the optimal linear-income literature to build a model
with a flexible pension contribution rate and benefits' progressivity that
incorporates inter-temporal and inter-worker types of redistribution and
incentive distortion. The model is general, allowing workers to be
heterogeneous on productivity and retirement preparedness, and they exhibit
present-focused bias. I then estimate the model by leveraging three
quasi-experimental variations on the design of the Chilean pension system and
administrative data merged with a panel survey. I find that taxable earnings
respond to changes in the benefit-earnings link, future pension payments, and
net-of-tax rate, which increases the costs of reforms. I also find that
lifetime payroll earnings have a strong positive relationship with productivity
and retirement preparedness, and that pension transfers are effective in
increasing retirement consumption. Therefore, there is a large inter-worker
redistribution value through the pension system. Overall, there are significant
social gains from marginal reforms: a 1% increase in the contribution rate and
in the benefit progressivity generates social gains of 0.08% and 0.29% of the
GDP, respectively. The optimal design has a pension contribution rate of 17%
and focuses 42% of pension public spending on workers below the median of
lifetime earnings.
