For years, I have spoken about sustainability in environmental, financial, and climate terms. Throughout my professional career, I have worked with banks across the region, helping design systems that manage risk and ensure long‑term stability.
Today, I want to talk about another kind of sustainability: that of Paraguay’s pension system. And this time, I speak not only as a consultant but also as a university lecturer, a worker, and a member of a generation that views its retirement future with uncertainty.
In my classes, I often explain that no system is sustainable if its expenditures consistently exceed its capacity to generate revenue. This is a basic principle, applicable to an environmental project, a financial portfolio, or any public policy. The current debate around pensions in Paraguay revolves precisely around this tension. We have a fragmented system divided among the Instituto de Previsión Social (IPS), the Fiscal Pension Fund administered by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and other special regimes, each with different rules and increasing pressures resulting from population aging and high labor informality. As someone who works in management systems, I know that ignoring structural warning signs rarely ends well.
But as a lecturer, I also understand that public decisions cannot be reduced to actuarial spreadsheets. They affect life trajectories, personal expectations, and even family decisions. When the debate is framed solely around increasing the retirement age or contribution years (without clearly explaining the data, projections, and demographic scenarios) reforms are perceived as cutbacks. And when reform is perceived as an imposition, its legitimacy weakens.
Each semester, I meet young students who are just entering the workforce. Many begin working early, hoping to achieve stability and, one day, a dignified retirement. Yet distrust is growing. Some already assume they will need to build alternative sources of income because they do not fully trust the pension system. That distrust is perhaps the most concerning symptom. Pension sustainability is not only a fiscal matter; it is a matter of intergenerational trust. If the system is not adjusted gradually and transparently, the future cost will be higher and will fall on those who are only now entering the labor market.
I do not believe the debate should be framed as a dichotomy between acquired rights and financial balance. The real discussion should focus on how to guarantee both. The same principles we apply in environmental and financial sustainability (planning, open data, risk assessment, and broad consensus) should guide pension reform. There is no reason why the pension system should be treated differently. Congress plays a decisive role, but so do those of us who help shape public opinion, educate future generations, and participate in public debate.
Personally, I believe reform is inevitable. Demographic changes do not wait for political convenience. But I also believe that the way these changes are designed and implemented will determine their legitimacy. I do not want a system that collapses in the future because decisions were postponed. Nor do I want hasty adjustments made without dialogue or transparency.
Talking about pensions means talking about security and predictability; it is the implicit promise that a lifetime of work will be protected in old age. As a sustainability consultant, I believe systems must be financially viable in the long term. As a university lecturer, I believe reforms must be built on dialogue, open data, and gradual implementation. And as a worker, I also wonder what real security my own retirement future holds.
True reform should not divide generations but protect them all.