Fiona Tait reviews Neoliberalising Old Age by John Macnicol. Published by Cambridge University Press. Do older people deserve to be given special treatment in recognition of their vulnerability and contribution to society, or should they be trusted with the same rights and freedoms as everyone else?
Modern theory, as adopted by the Turner Review and subsequent Department for Work and Pensions policy, suggests that people are living longer and it is therefore inevitable that pension ages should rise. If longevity continues to increase but individuals continue to retire in their early 60s, pension funds and income generated will have to be paid longer and the cost will become unsupportable. Furthermore, people of all ages should be trusted to make their own decisions instead of being directed down a particular path by the state. Professor John Macnicol takes each of these central tenets underpinning the neoliberalist theory and challenges the validity of each.
On demographics, the author does not deny that the proportion of older people in UK society is increasing. However, he states that this is less the result of longer living in retirement but much improved mortality at earlier ages so that more people reach old age. The statistics presented, which are impressive throughout the book, certainly back this up. However, it does not change the fact that the welfare bill for old age will still increase.
Professor Macnicol also attacks the idea that retirement is ever a “choice” for the majority of individuals, and suggests that increasing the state pension age will not lead to later retirement but will increase poverty, particularly for women and the lower paid. Based on this premise, raising the state pension age will force people to work longer at a time when there are insufficient jobs available to those with declining physical capabilities. Only the wealthy ‘elite’ have the luxury of choosing when to retire, being generally in better jobs and in better health, as well as having sufficient assets to support their income needs.
The arguments put forward in the book are persuasive, and demonstrate why the state support for disadvantaged older people is still essential. At the end of the day, though, I would rather be in the category of those who have choice rather than the category reliant on government policy. The rather dense academic language makes this a hard read for the layperson, but I would strongly recommend this book to anyone concerned about possible state-led poverty in later life.
Fiona Tait is a pensions specialist at Royal London Group