| Since 2008,a series of policies have been drawn up and implemented in relation to the reform of the pension insurance system,with the aim of transforming the old double-track system of pension insurance into a pension insurance system that combines social and individual contributions,with unified collection and administration.The implementation of this reform is divided into two phases:firstly,a pilot reform covering civil service institutions and their staff in five provinces,which was launched in 2008;secondly,a comprehensive reform of the institutions,institutions and staff within the system,as provided for in the law on civil servants,which will be implemented nationwide in 2015 and is expected to be fully completed by 2025.This reform is a change to the current pension system.This reform is a refinement of the pension insurance policy under the current system,which reflects the need for social equity,an important element of deepening reform in a period of economic development transition and a supply-side reform that reflects social coordination and sharing.Existing studies still differ in their views on the effects produced by the pilot reform of pension insurance convergence.While in many countries the trend has been towards a parallel pension insurance system for civil servants,moving from a separation of the two to a unified policy that promotes social equity,there is also a phenomenon that still exists,manifested in the guarantee of a slightly higher pension for civil servants than for company employees.Although China’s initial reforms could be aligned with international standards,assessing the reform of the pension convergence system should not only focus on the pension changes themselves,but also on the spillover effects that the reform has brought about.That is,how residents’income and consumption change under the reform and whether there are significant fluctuations,which is also an important perspective to assess the effect of the reform of the pension insurance convergence system.The aim of this paper is to assess the effects brought about by the pension insurance convergence reform policy through theoretical and quantitative analysis,and will focus on the impact of the pension insurance convergence reform on the income and consumption levels of residents.This paper not only enriches the existing literature on the study of pension insurance convergence in China,which has certain theoretical significance,but also provides some inspiration for answering the question of the predicted effects of pension insurance from a practical perspective,which has strong practical significance.At the theoretical level,this paper compares the relevant literature on pension insurance convergence systems at home and abroad,and summarises the definition of pension insurance convergence,theoretical research,empirical methods and variable selection.In the empirical part,the econometric model uses a common academic policy evaluation method,the difference-in-difference method,for regression analysis.In this paper,we will use the China Household Income Survey(CHIP)database to assess the impact of the pilot reform on the income and consumption of residents in the pilot and non-pilot regions based on the difference-in-difference method(DID).The results show that the reform of the parallel pension insurance system increased the income of residents in the pilot provinces more significantly,while reducing the consumption expenditure of households.In addition,regression analysis of residents’ consumption structure shows that the reform increased the proportion of housing consumption,but had no effect on the proportion of food,clothing and medical consumption,suggesting that the reform shock led residents to exhibit risk-averse behaviour in their consumption.Finally,on the basis of the summary of the empirical findings,the lack of policy dissemination and popularisation levels and the lack of transparency in government affairs are clarified.Policy recommendations for the pension insurance convergence system are put forward at three levels.First,improve policy support measures and increase policy publicity;second,promote concrete policy implementation and improve policy transparency;and third,actively explore new initiatives and models to promote faster policy development. |