In the 1990s, Russia and Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, three countries in Central and Eastern Europe, experienced economic and political changes. As their original social security systems couldn’t meet socio-economic changes due to the impact from economic reforms and population structures, and in order to continue the sustainable development of pension systems, these four countries had successively made pension system reforms.
Under the background that Russia has similar political and economic reforms with Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, this study didn’t only explore the historical development, contents and lacks in each country’s system, but also tried to know the similarities and differences of the new systems after reform with the old ones through comparative analyses. By means of comparative analyses, this study reached the following main conclusions: (1) All of the system reforms were turned into multi-pillar from single-pillar, and adopted the dual-structure paralleling old and new systems; (2) Russia, Czech and Poland defined the participants based on age, while Hungary defined the standard based on the time of entering labor market; (3) The supervision authority was structured into two levels, with one in charge of system planning and supervision, and the other specially in charge of the supervision operations of fund companies; (4) Except Russia, Czech, Hungary and Poland had adjusted their statutory retirement age. Besides, Russia and Poland have greatest differences in statutory retirement age defined by gender, followed by Czech Republic. But Hungary has no difference in it; (5) Russia and Hungary are confronted with the issue of over-concentrated investment from fund companies; (6) In order to encourage laborers to participate in voluntary retirement insurance planning, these four countries provide relevant schemes on tax preference or subsidies.