The triple lock will provide just £2.04 more income per week to pensioners in 2017-18 than it would if the double lock was used, and £7.02 more than it would if increases were based solely on price inflation.
That is according to research from Hymans Robertson, released today, which shows that the triple lock has cost the UK government £1.8-2bn over the last seven years.
However, it is thought that these potential savings would be insignificant to the government when weighed up against the political impact of scrapping the initiative.
"Given market expectations of inflation, it's difficult to see a scenario where the cost of the triple lock is at all significant over the course of the next parliament," Hymans Robertson partner, Chris Noon, said. "The political risk may simply not be worth taking."
The cumulative impact of the triple lock on an individual's weekly basic state pension over the last seven years is shown below:
The government predicts that the long-term cost of the new state pension, which was introduced in April last year, will be £8bn less than it was under previous arrangements.
Because of this, Hymans Robertson believe that scrapping the triple lock could be shortsighted, with its analysis suggesting it will be the lower income pensioners, who rely mostly on the state pension, that will be worst hit by the removal of the initiative.
"The £1.8bn-£2bn cost of the triple lock over the last seven years is minimal compared to this £8bn a year saving," Noon said.
"It would also impact the lowest paid most. This was the section of the population that was most negatively affected by the changes introduced with the new state pension, so removing the triple lock would be a major blow for them."
Even if it is removed, the research shows that people are not saving enough, and that the state pension will still need to increase faster than inflation or earnings, regardless of what decisions are made.
"The fact is that state pension will have to increase at a higher rate than earnings in the long-term. Chronic under-saving in the UK means that there will be an increased reliance on state pension.," Noon continued.
"As there are about 10 million voters in receipt of state pension, it seems politically and economically more sensible to maintain the triple lock. At the very least for the course of the next parliament."
Sign up to our free newsletter here and receive a weekly roundup of news concerning the actuarial profession