A study by Fedea, UPF, and BSE estimates that the reform raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 has delayed effective retirement by an average of 8.1 months and increased male premature mortality by 1.6 percentage points. Women, with shorter careers, are the most affected by the delay.
The 2011 pension reform, which gradually raised the legal retirement age from 65 to 67, is already producing measurable effects on the labour market and the health of workers. A study conducted by Sergi Jiménez-Martín (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona School of Economics, and Fedea) and published by Fedea, using administrative data from Social Security up to 2024, offers the first causal assessment of this measure on cohorts born between 1948 and 1957.
The results show that workers affected by the increase in the legal age have delayed their effective retirement by an average of 8.1 months compared to the control group, made up of those who maintained the possibility of retiring at 65 due to long contribution careers. This delay grows cohort by cohort: for each additional month of legal age, effective retirement is postponed by approximately one month.
The study, which uses the Continuous Sample of Working Lives (MCVL), compares two groups: workers with long careers (control group) and those who do not reach the threshold of contribution years and see their legal age increase (treated group). By analysing successive cohorts, the causal effect of the reform is identified.
Change in labour market exit pathways
The reform has significantly changed how and when workers leave the labour market. The probability of retiring after 65 years increased by 26.7 percentage points among those affected. In contrast, retirement exactly at 65, which was the focal point of the previous system, fell by 10.3 points, and early retirement (before 65) decreased by 17.7 points.
These changes reflect that the dominant response has been to shift retirement beyond 65 years, rather than opting for other pathways such as early retirement or premature exit from the labour market.
Gender impact: women are the most disadvantaged
One of the most notable findings of the study is the disproportionate impact of the reform on women. By conditioning retirement at 65 to long contribution careers, the measure penalises those with shorter and interrupted careers. Women represent 62% of the affected workers, compared to only 29% of the control group.
As a result, the average delay in female retirement is 10 months, significantly higher than the 3.1 months recorded for men. Furthermore, the shift towards retirement after 65 years is 34 percentage points for women, compared to 15.3 points for men.
The authors note that the exemption for long careers, presented as a protection, has a regressive gender effect in practice, as it exposes those with shorter careers to the full rise in the legal age, exacerbating the gender pension gap.
Premature mortality: a health cost concentrated among men
The study also reveals a health cost: the reform raises premature mortality (between 60 and 67 years) among affected workers. The effect is statistically significant for men, with an increase of 1.6 percentage points, approximately double that for women. This expands the excess male mortality by about 0.8 points, around 15% of the pre-existing gap.
The mechanism explaining this increase is not related to income losses, as the study shows that the pension wealth of those affected did not decrease differentially compared to the control group. Instead, the authors point to the forced prolongation of working life in physically demanding occupations, such as construction, industry, or mining.
These results suggest that forcing an extension of working life has a health cost that disproportionately falls on workers in more demanding occupations, raising questions about the equity of the current design.
The full impact is yet to come
The study warns that its estimates are a lower bound of the final effect of the reform. The analysis is restricted to cohorts born between 1948 and 1957, the only ones who have already turned 67 within the observation period (up to 2024). These cohorts have only experienced part of the transition calendar: the 1957 cohort, the most exposed of those evaluated, faces a delay in the legal age of 14 months, just over half of the total two-year increase.
The reform calendar does not conclude until 2027. The 1962 cohort, which will turn 65 that year, will be the first to face the fully deployed rules: a legal age of 67 for those who do not prove 38.5 years of contributions. All subsequent cohorts will be subject to that same scheme permanently.
The cohorts from 1958 to 1962, still pending evaluation, face delays in the legal age of up to 24 months, compared to a maximum of 14 in those analysed. Given that the study documents that the response scales with the intensity of exposure, it is reasonable to anticipate that the total impact of the reform, both in terms of retirement delay and health costs, will be substantially greater when these cohorts complete their working lives and reach 67 years.
Implications for pension system design
The results support the effectiveness of the reform in its main objective, delaying effective retirement, but reveal two distributive costs. On one hand, the exemption for long careers has a regressive gender incidence. On the other, forcing an extension of working life has a health cost that falls on workers in physically demanding occupations.
The study suggests exploring alternative designs, such as adjustments for contribution density or specific pathways by occupation, that raise the effective retirement age without generating these unequal costs. The seminar on pensions and social security that Fedea will hold on September 25 in collaboration with the Ramón Areces Foundation will be the framework to discuss these issues and potential future reforms.
For workers approaching retirement age, especially those with short careers or in demanding occupations, the study's results underscore the importance of planning their exit from the labour market considering not only the legal age but also health conditions and the type of work performed. The complete reform, fully in effect from 2027, will affect all subsequent cohorts, making long-term planning key.
You may also like
