b) The structural reforms did not refer to social solidarity and gender equity because the individual accounts are owned by the insured and there are no transfers between generations, income groups or genders. Contrary to the neoliberal assumption that the State should play a subsidiary role, its role has been fundamental: it makes affiliation to the system compulsory, it finances the transition cost, it introduces or expands non-contributory pensions and finances them, it makes contributions to improve low contributory pensions, finances inclusion measures in the contributory system for certain excluded groups, and regulates or supervises the private system.
Social solidarity improved, but due to state policies such as non-contributory pensions, fiscal contributions to improve contributory pensions, and inclusion policies. Gender equity achieved a slight increase in coverage for women and, especially, for Whatsapp Mobile Number List extension of non-contributory pensions that favor women. Contrary to the promise that the private system would pay adequate and better pensions than those of the public system, the average tr in private systems is 39% and is lower than the minimum of 45% established by the ilo and the average of 64 % in public systems; furthermore, between 27% and 65% of the insured will not receive a pension.
d) Contrary to promises, competition has not worked in most private systems. The number of administrators has notably decreased and the concentration in the two largest has grown or stagnated (there is a duopoly in El Salvador). The annual percentage of affiliates who change administrators shows a declining trend and in five countries it ranges between zero and 1%. The administrative cost takes between 23% and 30% of the deposit in five countries, which reduces the future pension. Income as a percentage of net worth fluctuates between 20% and 47% in four countries and between 12% and 16% in another four;