Post-Colonial Legacy and the Convergence and Divergence of Pension Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Suriname and the Netherlands
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which post-colonial institutional legacies shape patterns of convergence and divergence in pension systems. Using the comparative case of Suriname and the Netherlands, the study investigates whether shared historical foundations translate into similarities in contemporary pension arrangements, or whether structural divergence prevails as a result of differing economic, fiscal, and institutional capacities. Design/Methodology/Approach: The paper adopts a qualitative comparative institutional approach grounded in pension economics and political economy. The analysis draws on secondary data from academic literature, international institutional reports, and country profiles published by organisations involved in social security and pension system monitoring. The two pension systems are examined using a consistent set of analytical criteria, including system architecture, statutory retirement age, key benefit parameters, coverage, financing mechanisms, and institutional capacity. This framework enables the identification of both functional convergence and structural divergence. Findings: The results indicate that Suriname and the Netherlands display limited convergence at the level of basic social objectives, particularly with regard to the role of the state in providing minimum income protection in old age. Both systems incorporate universal or quasi-universal elements aimed at poverty prevention among older persons, and both apply a gender-neutral statutory retirement age. At the same time, substantial divergence persists in system architecture, financing structures, and effective coverage. The Dutch pension system is characterised by a mature multi-pillar model with a strong occupational and capital-funded component, high coverage, and dynamic parametric adjustment. In contrast, the Surinamese system relies predominantly on a universal flat-rate benefit financed from the state budget, complemented by a limited earnings-related scheme with restricted coverage. These differences reflect divergent fiscal capacities, labour-market structures, and levels of institutional development rather than policy choice alone. Practical Implications: The findings suggest that direct institutional transfer of pension models from highly developed economies to post-colonial contexts is unlikely to be effective. Pension reforms in post-colonial states should prioritise gradual adaptation to local economic and institutional conditions, improvements in administrative capacity, and increased labour-market formalisation, rather than the replication of complex multi-pillar systems. Originality/Value: The paper contributes to the literature by explicitly integrating a post-colonial institutional perspective into the analysis of pension system convergence and divergence. It offers a nuanced interpretation that combines functional similarity with persistent structural heterogeneity, highlighting the limits of convergence in the presence of deep-rooted historical and institutional constraints.