In a society of longevity, seniors are more than a “silver economy”

How will we live in an older world ?

Anne-Marie Guille­mard. To ans­wer this ques­tion, let’s go back to the idea behind it – ageing. In Europe, Asia, and even Bra­zil, the age pyra­mid is chan­ging shape : the pro­por­tion of people over 65 is increa­sing, and the pro­por­tion of people over 80 is now signi­fi­cant. The trend conti­nues : chil­dren born today will have a good chance of being centenarians.

But when we talk about “ageing” we only see the nega­tive effects and we miss the essen­tial point of the lon­ge­vi­ty revo­lu­tion. Life expec­tan­cy at the age of 60, which in Wes­tern Europe remai­ned vir­tual­ly unchan­ged bet­ween 1845 and 1945, has increa­sed rapid­ly since the Second World War. In France it is now 28 years for women and 23 years for men. As such, we have ente­red a “long life society”.

So, let me rephrase : an older world ? No : lon­ger lives. It is not the same thing. But unders­tan­ding this new rea­li­ty is not easy. The first chal­lenge is to decons­truct repre­sen­ta­tions, to grasp the pro­mises of this new world ins­tead of pani­cking about them.

First, lon­ge­vi­ty is not a disa­bi­li­ty. It is the oppo­site : reti­red people are living lon­ger and lon­ger in good health. The ques­tion of loss of auto­no­my is ari­sing later and later. Second, consi­de­ring only the social cost of reti­rees obs­cures the contri­bu­tion they can make to socie­ty. Final­ly, the pro­mo­tion of the “sil­ver eco­no­my” contri­butes to dis­tor­ting the pers­pec­tive by redu­cing seniors to their pur­cha­sing power.

What is the basis for a new repre­sen­ta­tion and action strategy ?

It will be based main­ly on two ele­ments. The first is to consi­der seniors as a resource, the second is to bet­ter take into account the diver­si­ty of situa­tions and needs at the same age, which inva­li­dates the pre-emi­nence of age-based mana­ge­ment of populations.

First­ly, lon­ger life expec­tan­cy gives older people new resources that we must try to opti­mise for the bene­fit of socie­ty as a whole. In France in par­ti­cu­lar, the obses­sion with ageing and the reduc­tion of the risks and costs that it gene­rates has obs­cu­red the contri­bu­tions made by the pro­gress of longevity.

Expe­rien­ced employees can be an asset for com­pa­nies, pro­vi­ded that they know how to main­tain their skills. The skills of older people can also be expres­sed in infor­mal work or volun­ta­ry work. They create value for com­pa­nies and for the country.

The urgent need is not to reform pen­sions, but to make it attrac­tive and sus­tai­nable to pro­long wor­king life in order to opti­mise the new capa­ci­ties of older people for the bene­fit of all. This change of out­look and stra­te­gy is par­ti­cu­lar­ly urgent in France, where the employ­ment rate of 60–64 year olds is the lowest of the OECD coun­tries, at 33% com­pa­red to 52% on ave­rage and 70% in Swe­den. It would call for proac­tive poli­cies to sup­port and accom­pa­ny com­pa­nies to help them offer real and sus­tai­nable work pros­pects to their employees in the second half of their careers.

In Nor­thern Europe, coun­tries that have pro­lon­ged wor­king life have pur­sued ups­tream poli­cies and inves­ted in employees. It is the for­ty-some­things who must be tar­ge­ted if we want to have suc­cess­ful fif­ty-some­things and active six­ty-some­things. Eve­ryone must be offe­red a future.

Fin­land has made a consi­de­rable effort in life­long lear­ning. In the 2000s, it set up an “age mana­ge­ment” pro­gramme for com­pa­nies and mana­gers, offe­ring advice based on stu­dies. For example, when wor­king condi­tions or the orga­ni­sa­tion of work in a work­shop or office are impro­ved to make them more sui­table for older people, the return on invest­ment can be dou­bled in terms of work productivity.

You men­tio­ned the need to break with a seg­men­ted and fixed concep­tion of life stages and the cor­res­pon­ding policies ?

The age-based mana­ge­ment of popu­la­tions is no lon­ger adap­ted to the new flexible and indi­vi­dua­li­sed life paths that a long-living socie­ty has brought about. The three-stage life course of the indus­trial socie­ty : trai­ning / employ­ment / reti­re­ment, has been dis­rup­ted by the leng­the­ning of life and the advent of a post-indus­trial socie­ty. The sequences of employ­ment, edu­ca­tion, fami­ly life and lei­sure are now com­bi­ned in no par­ti­cu­lar order at all ages.

Advan­cing age has become a conti­nuous pro­cess of self-construc­tion and recons­truc­tion through the trials and tri­bu­la­tions encoun­te­red, which dif­fer from one indi­vi­dual to ano­ther. The­re­fore, in order to meet their needs, it is neces­sa­ry to take into account not the age of the indi­vi­duals but the diver­si­ty of their back­grounds. A 50-year-old senior citi­zen in late paren­thood does not have the same vision of reti­re­ment as someone whose chil­dren are alrea­dy married.

It is the for­ty-some­things who must be tar­ge­ted if we want to have suc­cess­ful fif­ty-some­things and active six­ty-some­things. Eve­ryone must be offe­red a future.

In 1945, when pen­sion schemes were intro­du­ced in many deve­lo­ped coun­tries, eve­ryone had a rough­ly iden­ti­cal life course. The main variable was the length of edu­ca­tion. But eve­ryone moved at the same pace, with rela­ti­ve­ly stan­dard chro­no­lo­gi­cal ages.

Today, we must move towards a cho­sen reti­re­ment, with a rea­so­nable mini­mum age and incen­tives to conti­nue. Fin­land and Swe­den have abo­li­shed any legal cut-off age. The Finns have increa­sed the employ­ment rate of 60–64 year olds while kee­ping the pos­si­bi­li­ty of lea­ving at 61 or 62.

Does the same logic apply to old age, where the issue of auto­no­my can catch up with us ?

Yes : spe­ci­fic needs then arise. But some people are aware of them, others are not. And when they appear, it is not at the same age. Final­ly, they may call for very dif­ferent res­ponses in terms of accom­mo­da­tion and asso­cia­ted services.

Here again, it is dif­fi­cult to respond to the diver­si­ty of situa­tions. Poli­cies create mono­li­thic rights that open up at this or that age. Indi­vi­duals focus on needs that will only concern them for a few years of their lives – the ave­rage stay in an old people’s home is no more than three years. All this creates rigi­di­ty and inade­quate res­ponses when what is nee­ded is flexi­bi­li­ty and the abi­li­ty to choose from bas­kets of services.

On what basis should new poli­cies be organised ?

We need to think of them as life cycle poli­cies, based on seve­ral ele­ments.  The first is to put an end to poli­cies seg­men­ted by age, by orga­ni­sing modu­la­tions accor­ding to needs, pos­si­bi­li­ties, and aspirations.

The second ele­ment is to favour a pre­ven­tive rather than a cura­tive approach. Regar­ding the employa­bi­li­ty of “young” seniors, and the fra­gi­li­ty of the elder­ly (iso­la­tion, mal­nu­tri­tion), it is bet­ter to act ups­tream to be effec­tive. The leng­the­ning of life means that we must give prio­ri­ty to pre­ven­tion over cure.

The third ele­ment is the range of choices. The more we aspire to be able to govern our lives, the more we need to open up life choices. This has a par­ti­cu­lar impact on resi­den­tial life, which should be made easier and more fluid. Well-desi­gned poli­cies would make it pos­sible to free up savings that are cur­rent­ly locked up in pro­per­ty assets for fear of depen­den­cy, and to direct them towards pro­duc­tive invest­ments. Ope­ning up choices for our seniors would bene­fit everyone.

Interview by Richard Robert