Search results

Résumé La démographie a toujours influencé la pensée politique. La décision récente d'aug­menter l'âge à la pension dans beaucoup de pays développés est inspirée par l'évo­lution importante de la composition par âge de la population. Mais il y a en réalité peu d'arguments pour augmenter l'âge à la retraite si l'on tient compte de l'ensem­ble des données démographiques et économiques. Une interprétation souvent trop simpliste et même parfois erronée d'indicateurs démographiques contribue à cette démarche. L'utilisation systématique d'indicateurs démographiques dans la discussion sur la viabilité du système des pensions et de la sécurité sociale est selon nous souvent inspirée par la théorie de l'économie de l'offre. Un aspect crucial est le fait que la croissance de la productivité est ignorée ou minimisée. À cet égard, la discussion actuelle présente une profonde similitude avec l'approche Malthusienne de la population. Abstract Demography always influenced political thinking. The recent decision to increase the age of retirement in many high-income countries is driven by a dramatic chan­ge in the age composition of the population. We argue that there is in fact no need to increase the age of retirement and that many aspects of the current evolution both in demography and in economy are overlooked. Moreover, some demographic indicators such as life expectancy or the dependency ratio are often interpreted in a simplistic and erroneous way. The systematic use of demographic indicators to discuss the sustainability of the pension system and of the social security system is in our view often inspired by the supply-side way of economic thinking. A crucial aspect is that productivity increase is ignored or minimalized in the discussion. In this regard the discussion has many similarities with the Malthusian approach of the population question.

Abstract
Population aging in Europe calls for an overall rise in the age of retirement. However, most observers agree that the latter should be differentiated to account for different individuals' heterogeneous health when they grow older. This paper explores the relevance of this idea using the European Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) panel data. It first quantifies the health gradient across and within each of the European countries across sociodemographic groups (i.e., Gender × Education) at typical retirement age. It then estimates the degree of retirement age differentiation that would be needed to equalize expected health at the moment of retirement. Results point at the need for a very high degree of differentiation to equalize expected health, both across and within, European countries. But the paper also shows that systematic retirement age differentiation would fail to match a significant portion of the full distribution of health status. In a world synonymous with systematic health-based retirement age differentiation, there would still be a lot of what health economists call F-mistakes ([F]ailure of treatment, i.e., no retirement for people in poor health) and E-mistakes ([E]xcessive treatment, i.e., people in good health going for retirement).

This paper investigates the causal effects of the announcement of an increase in the statutory pension age on employee retirement expectations. In June 2010, the Dutch government signed a new pension agreement with the employer and employee organizations that entailed an increase in the statutory pension age from 65 currently to 66 in 2020 for all inhabitants born after 1954. Given the expected increase in average life expectancy, it was also decided that in 2025 the pension age would be further increased to 67 for those born after 1959. This new pension agreement received huge media coverage. Using representative matched administrative and survey data of public sector employees, we find that the proposed policy reform increased the expected retirement age by 3.6 months for employees born between 1954 and 1959 and by 10.8 months for those born after 1959. This increase is reflected in a clear shift in the retirement peak from age 65 to ages 66 and 67 for the respective treated cohorts. Men respond less strongly to the policy reform than women, but within couples we find no evidence that the retirement expectations of one spouse are affected by an increase in the statutory pension age of the other. Furthermore, we show that treatment effects are largely driven by highly educated individuals but are lower for employees whose job involves physically demanding tasks or managerial and supervisory tasks.

This paper investigates the causal effects of the announcement of an increase in the statutory pension age on employee retirement expectations. In June 2010, the Dutch government signed a new pension agreement with the employer and employee organizations that entailed an increase in the statutory pension age from 65 currently to 66 in 2020 for all inhabitants born after 1954. Given the expected increase in average life expectancy, it was also decided that in 2025 the pension age would be further increased to 67 for those born after 1959. This new pension agreement received huge media coverage. Using representative matched administrative and survey data of public sector employees, we find that the proposed policy reform increased the expected retirement age by 3.6 months for employees born between 1954 and 1959 and by 10.8 months for those born after 1959. This increase is reflected in a clear shift in the retirement peak from age 65 to ages 66 and 67 for the respective treated cohorts. Men respond less strongly to the policy reform than women, but within couples we find no evidence that the retirement expectations of one spouse are affected by an increase in the statutory pension age of the other. Furthermore, we show that treatment effects are largely driven by highly educated individuals but are lower for employees whose job involves physically demanding tasks or managerial and supervisory tasks.