As populations worldwide grow older, the sustainability of pension systems has become a crucial issue. Pension reforms that aim to encourage later retirement can be financially and socially advantageous, particularly in Europe where ageing demographics are rapidly shifting the workforce structure. Adjustments to statutory retirement ages have emerged as one effective tool for states to maintain financial stability while benefiting from the experience of older workers and increasing workforce participation rates.
When it comes to deciding when to retire, several key factors come into play such as minimum pension eligibility age, work-life balance goals, and how much one has managed to save over the years. Pension reforms add another layer to this mix, offering financial incentives and setting the rules of the game. These reforms often encourage individuals to weigh their choices, either to extend their careers for greater long-term financial rewards or opt for an earlier retirement.
Sweden has been at the forefront of pension reform and serves as an insightful case study. In the early 1960s, Swedish workers could retire at 67 with pensions based on earnings. By 1976, the retirement age had dropped to 65, and public benefits were accessible from 60. However, by the mid-1980s, the pension system’s sustainability was called into question, resulting in incremental changes such as eliminating life-long widow pensions. A significant reform occurred in 1998, raising the eligibility age from 60 to 61 and implementing a notional defined-contribution (NDC) plan financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. This reform linked benefits to career-long earnings and incentivized extended working years, as additional work increased retirement benefits. Similar models, such as Chile’s 2008 pension reform, have shown that linking pensions to lifetime contributions can enhance financial stability and workforce retention.
Our study investigated how the 1998 Swedish pension reform influenced labor market exit for those nearing retirement age. We compared registry data for Swedish workers born in 1937 and 1938, with the latter cohort directly affected by the reform. Using a sample of 102,826 individuals and multinomial probabilistic modeling, we analyzed labor market exit patterns for individuals aged 60 to 65 across these cohorts. Those born in 1937 were able to retire at age 60, while the 1938 cohort had to wait until age 61. This cohort-comparative analysis provided insights into the reform’s impact on retirement behavior.
Our research highlights how a one-year increase in pension eligibility can significantly influence retirement decisions. People impacted by the reform were less likely to leave the workforce at 60 or 61 and were more inclined to stay employed until 65 or later—proof that the policy successfully encouraged longer careers. For instance, those born in 1938 showed notable declines in retirement rates at 60 and 61, coupled with a clear rise in staying on the job past 65, illustrating the effectiveness of the NDC framework in delaying retirement. Diving deeper, we found that workers in sectors like manufacturing, healthcare, and personal services were more likely to leave the labor market, a trend that resonates with post-COVID patterns where physically or emotionally demanding jobs have seen higher retirement rates. On the gender front, both men and women responded similarly to the reform, extending their careers longer than their unaffected peers. Interestingly, the gender differences were minimal—challenging earlier studies that suggested reforms might disproportionately impact women. This insight adds a fresh perspective to the evolving conversation about equitable workforce policies.
Sweden’s NDC pension model and the one-year increase in eligibility age paint an optimistic picture, showcasing their ability to keep workers in the labor force longer. But let’s not get too carried away—there is more to the story. Retirement timing is not just about pensions; macroeconomic factors, like the low and stable inflation during Sweden’s study period, also play a big role. These ideal conditions may not hold true across other European regions, where economic volatility could lead to very different outcomes.
Looking ahead, the findings make a strong case for NDC pension systems with gradual eligibility adjustments as a way to keep more people in the workforce longer. But here is the catch: this strategy only works if there is consistent political support to keep it on track. Without that, even the best-designed reforms can falter. Other European countries offer some cautionary insights. Take Norway, for example—raising the retirement age was not enough to balance the books as the country had to pair this with cuts to old-age and disability benefits to garner real results. This is a reminder that pension reform is not one-size-fits-all and requires a delicate balance between financial sustainability and public support.
The Swedish example highlights the need for pension systems that do more than just raise the eligibility age—they must also offer strong financial incentives to encourage longer careers and prevent poverty. As life expectancy increases and the demand for sustainable pension solutions grows, future reforms in Sweden and other countries can draw on these insights. By striking a balance between raising the eligibility age and implementing flexible yet sustainable funding strategies, countries can promote active aging while easing the financial strain on their economies.
A more extended version of this article can be found here.
Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute
Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
