doi.org/10.52340/eab.2026.18.01.10.      

The present study offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of the pension systems in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan – three South Caucasus countries that have each experienced distinct welfare and economic transformations in the post-Soviet era. It situates these national pension reforms within the broader context of post-socialist welfare state restructuring and the pursuit of financial sustainability amid demographic pressures, labor market informality, and institutional constraints.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, all three countries inherited a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) pension model, characterized by solidarity-based financing and universal state responsibility. While this framework initially ensured a basic level of income security for retirees, it quickly proved unsustainable due to fiscal limitations, declining formal employment, and demographic aging. As a result, the early 2000s and 2010s marked a gradual transition toward multi-pillar and mixed pension models, though with notable differences in design, implementation, and outcomes.
Pension System Developments in Georgia
Georgia stands out as one of the most dynamic reformers in the region. In 2019, it introduced a mandatory funded pension system to complement the existing PAYG pillar. This scheme is based on tripartite contributions, with employees, employers, and the state each allocating 2% of gross salary to individual savings accounts. The reform was designed to diversify pension financing, encourage long-term savings, and foster capital market development.
By 2022, assets accumulated under Georgia’s pension fund had surpassed 2.7 billion GEL, amounting to roughly 3% of the country’s GDP. Despite this progress, the system continues to face significant challenges. Pension coverage remains limited, as enrollment is restricted to formally employed individuals – representing only about 45–47% of the labor force. High levels of labor informality and widespread emigration, with nearly 20% of the population working abroad, further weaken the contributory base and undermine the system’s long-term sustainability.
Despite these structural weaknesses, the reform has generated notable positive spillovers. Pension assets have become an important source of domestic capital formation, strengthening the local bond market and providing the government with a long-term financing mechanism. However, more than 90% of accumulated assets remain invested in government securities, resulting in high concentration and limited diversification. The system’s future success will hinge on improving investment management, expanding coverage to informal and self-employed workers, and building public trust in private pension mechanisms.
Pension Reform and Challenges in Armenia
Armenia was the first country in the South Caucasus to introduce a mandatory funded pension pillar, launching the reform in 2014. Its objectives were to ensure intergenerational equity, reinforce fiscal sustainability, and stimulate domestic financial market development. The Armenian model combines a basic public pension (PAYG) with individual funded accounts managed by licensed asset management companies under state supervision.
By 2020, Armenia’s pension assets had reached about 4% of GDP, nearly doubling since 2015. This accumulation reflects the gradual institutional strengthening of the pension system. Nevertheless, the reform sparked social and political controversy, driven by concerns over contribution affordability and limited transparency in fund management.
Armenia faces pressing demographic challenges: a shrinking and aging population combined with persistent emigration, all of which weaken the PAYG pillar. Low public confidence and limited financial literacy further constrain voluntary participation and savings. The investment portfolio remains highly conservative – dominated by government bonds and bank deposits – restricting the real returns available to contributors.
Even so, Armenia’s experience illustrates that a gradual shift toward a mixed pension model is feasible in a small transition economy. Yet, safeguarding long-term fiscal balance and expanding investment diversification remain urgent priorities.
Azerbaijan’s Pension System: Resource-Backed Stability
Azerbaijan operates a predominantly PAYG-based pension system sustained by strong oil and gas revenues. Its stability is reinforced by the State Oil Fund (SOFAZ), which indirectly finances social expenditures, including pensions. This fiscal buffer enables Azerbaijan to maintain relatively higher average pensions – around US$289 per month – and a replacement rate close to 47%, significantly surpassing levels in Georgia and Armenia.
Yet, the system’s heavy reliance on hydrocarbon income raises long-term sustainability concerns. As fiscal contributions from the energy sector decline, the government will face increasing pressure to diversify revenue sources. An aging population and widespread informal employment – representing roughly one-third of the workforce – further strain the system’s financial balance.
Although Azerbaijan has introduced administrative reforms and digitalized social services, it has not yet adopted a funded or mixed pension pillar. Without partial capitalization and broader investment diversification, the current PAYG framework risks becoming an escalating burden on the state budget over the next two decades.
Comparative Analysis: Sustainability, Equity, and Efficiency
The three South Caucasus countries illustrate divergent pension reform pathways shaped by fiscal capacity, demographic pressures, and political choices. Georgia and Armenia have introduced funded components to varying degrees in pursuit of long-term sustainability, while Azerbaijan continues to rely on fiscal transfers and resource-based financing.
Coverage: Azerbaijan’s system performs slightly better due to its universal PAYG foundation, whereas Georgia and Armenia struggle with structural exclusion of informal workers.
Adequacy: Measured by income replacement rates, Azerbaijan again leads with nearly 47%, compared to 18% in Georgia and 19% in Armenia. However, these figures reflect differences in wage levels and contribution capacity as much as systemic efficiency.
Financial Sustainability: Georgia and Armenia may gain short-term fiscal relief from growing funded assets, but their PAYG pillars remain under strain from demographic aging. Projections suggest pension spending could rise to 11–13% of GDP by 2040, up from the current 7–9%. Azerbaijan’s outlook is more stable in the medium term but vulnerable to energy market volatility and limited diversification.
Efficiency and Governance: Georgia and Armenia have advanced institutional transparency and fund supervision. Georgia’s pension agency operates with clear accountability mechanisms, while Armenia’s oversight framework has been gradually strengthened. In Azerbaijan, governance remains highly centralized, and the absence of independent investment management constrains innovation.
The Role of Financial Markets
The development of financial markets represents a critical cross-cutting dimension of pension reform. In Georgia and Armenia, the accumulation of pension assets has provided a notable boost to capital market growth, enhancing liquidity in government bond markets and supporting the emergence of long-term investment instruments. However, diversification remains limited, and the heavy exposure to sovereign debt creates systemic concentration risks.
In Azerbaijan, pension assets play a far smaller role in shaping financial markets due to the dominance of state financing and the absence of a funded component. As a result, the pension system contributes less to private capital formation and the mobilization of long-term savings compared with its neighbors.
Policy Recommendations
Ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of pension systems in the South Caucasus requires a comprehensive policy approach. Expanding coverage to include self-employed and informal sector workers is essential, while mechanisms enabling emigrants to make voluntary contributions from abroad would broaden the contributory base.
Equally important is investment diversification: pension funds should gradually shift toward private sector and international assets to improve returns while maintaining prudent risk management. Strengthening social fairness through minimum pension adjustments and targeted support for vulnerable retirees will help reduce poverty and inequality.
Building public trust and institutional transparency is another cornerstone. Robust reporting standards and independent supervision can reinforce confidence in the system. Over the longer term, addressing demographic challenges – through pro-birth policies, workforce retention strategies, and migration management – will be vital to maintaining fiscal and social balance.
Comparative evidence highlights that Georgia and Armenia have taken meaningful steps toward diversified, partially funded pension systems, yet their sustainability is constrained by limited coverage and demographic trends. Azerbaijan’s PAYG system benefits from temporary fiscal strength but remains highly dependent on volatile resource revenues.
The broader regional lesson is clear: without continuous parametric reforms, effective institutional governance, and deeper financial market development, none of the three South Caucasus pension systems can fully guarantee long-term adequacy and sustainability. The coming decade will be decisive in determining whether these post-Soviet welfare states can transform their pension systems into stable, equitable, and efficient mechanisms that safeguard aging populations while fostering economic resilience.

Keywords: South Caucasus, pension reform, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, PAYG system, social policy, financial markets, sustainability, equality, efficiency
JEL Codes: H55, H53, J32, J14, G23, I38

References

• Abdullayeva RS (2021) The measurement of the degree of government regulation in the pension system. In Contemporary Issues in Social Science. 1-16.
• Antonyan M, Borodkina O, Karapetyan T (2024) Social Policy of Armenia in Conditions of Instability. Журнал исследований социальной политики 22(4):715-28.
• Asatiani M, Verulava T (2017) Georgian welfare state: Preliminary study based on Esping-Andersen’s typology. Economics and Sociology. 10(4):21-8.
• Bayramov V, Hasanov R, Gasimova N (2020) Perspectives on the Analysis and Development of Social Policies in Azerbaijan. In Social Policy in the Islamic World. 231–250. Springer.
• Falkenhain M (2020) Social Protection in Armenia: NGOs and the Underproviding State. In: Weak Institutions and the Governance Dilemma. International Series on Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
• Gugushvili D, Meuleman B (2022) Dynamics of social protection spending in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: an enduring legacy of the transition shock? East European Politics, 38(3), 446–467.
• International Labour Organization (2023) ILOSTAT Database: Informal Employment – Azerbaijan (2022). Geneva: International Labour Office. https://ilostat.ilo.org
• OECD (2023) Pensions at a Glance 2023: OECD and G20 Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5b0b27cf-en
• Orenstein MA, Haas MR (2005) Globalization and the future of welfare states in post-communist East-Central European countries. Globalization and the Future of the Welfare State, 130-152.
• Papava V (2013) Reforming of the Post-Soviet Georgia\'s Economy in 1991-2011. GFSIS Center for Applied Economic Studies Research Paper—03.2013. Jul 8. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2291142 Google Scholar
• Pension Agency (2023) Investment Report 2023. https://site-api.pensions.ge/uploads/docs/investment-activity/annualreports/Annual_report_2023_GEO.pdf
• Pierson P (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American political science review, 94(2), 251-267. Crossref Google Scholar
• Scarpetta S, di Noia C (2023) Pensions at a Glance 2023: OECD AND G20 INDICATORS. Pensions at a Glance.
• Shakhmuradyan G (2020) Economic and Political Aspects of the Pension Reform in Armenia. Caucasus Analytical Digest, 113, 3-7. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000391399
• SSC Azerbaijan (2021) Social security in the country. State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Baku. https://www.stat.gov.az/news/index.php?lang=en&id=5010
• Urotadze J, Strielkowski W, Durglishvili N, Kechakmadze I (2025) Public Perception and Adoption of Pension System Innovations in Georgia: Behavioural Factors and Managerial Implications. https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/98739
• Urotadze J (2020) Challenges of Georgia’s Pension System. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 49(3), 171-185. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=965035
• Verulava T (2018) Pension system in South Caucasus: Challenges and reform options. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 12(1), 168-174.
• Voskanyan M (2023) Funded Pension System Of Armenia: Problems, Development Prospects, Role In Economic Growth. Народностопански архив, (1), 3-23.
• World Bank (2023) World Development Indicators Database: Social Protection and Labor Data. Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
• World Bank (2023) World Development Indicators Database: Employment and Informality Data. Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org