ERISA: Law, Interests, and Consequences

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted state law on employee benefits, required that federal courts adjudicate disputes about employee benefit claims, established fiduciary standards, and required that corporate plan sponsors provide participants with audited annual re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of economic issues 1994-03, Vol.28 (1), p.129-153
Main Author: Langbert, Mitchell
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Compliance costs
Economic theory
ECONOMICS
Employee benefits
Employee pension plans
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974
ERISA
Federal legislation
Impacts
Insurance industry
Labor legislation
LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS
Laws, regulations and rules
Legislation
Pension plans
Pensions
Polls & surveys
Private pensions
REFORM, REFORMERS
Reforms
Retirement income
Social security tax
Studies
Tax benefits
THEORY BUILDING OR THEORETICAL APPROACH
Vested benefits
WORKERS, LABORERS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted state law on employee benefits, required that federal courts adjudicate disputes about employee benefit claims, established fiduciary standards, and required that corporate plan sponsors provide participants with audited annual reports, summaries of plan descriptions, and other disclosures. It is argued that despite its stated purpose of protecting low-paid plan participants by providing them with disclosure and enforcement rights, ERISA has tended to reflect the interests of large plan sponsors and fiduciaries. A review of applicable institutionalist theory is presented. The law's evolution from pre-ERISA common law through ERISA's legislative history and its subsequent development is described. Results of a survey taken to evaluate ERISA's consequences are reviewed, and suggestions for further reform are offered.
ISSN:0021-3624
1946-326X
DOI:10.1080/00213624.1994.11505522