The initial sources of information about eligibility criteria are Gruber and Wise (1999, 2010) and Wise (2012). Other country-specific auxiliary data sources are given below. ER early retirement. SR statutory (normal) retirement.
Austria (see Staubli and Zweimüller 2011)
ER: 60 for men and 55 for women until 2001. From 2001 until 2004, early retirement depends on year of birth. For men it is 61 until 1942 and 62 from 1943 onwards. For women it is 56 for those born in 1947, 57 for those born between 1948 and 1951, 58 for those born from 1952 onwards. From 2005 onwards, it is 62.
SR: 65 for men and 60 for women.
Belgium (see Jousten et al. 2010)
ER: No early retirement until 1966, 60 afterwards for men, for women 55 until 1986 and 60 from 1987.
SR: 65 for men, for women 60 until 1996, 61 from 1997 to 1999, 62 from 2000 to 2002, 63 from 2003 to 2005, 64 from 2006 to 2008, 65 from 2009.
Denmark (see Bingley et al. 2010)
ER: 60 for both men and women consistently, except from 1992 to 1993, when the ER was lowered to 55, and from 1994 to 1995, when it was 50.
SR: 67 until 2003, 65 from 2004, for both men and women.
France (see Hamblin 2013)
ER: No early retirement until 1963. 60 from 1963 to 1980, 55 from 1981 onwards.
SR: 65 until 1982 and 60 from 1983 to 2010; from 2011 60 for those born up to 1952, 61 for those born between 1953 and 1954, and 62 for those born since 1955.
Germany (see Berkel and Börsch-Supan 2004, and Mazzonna and Peracchi 2014, DRV 2015)
ER: For men, no early retirement until 1972, 60 from 1973 until 2003, 63 from 2004 onwards. For women, no early retirement in 1961, 60 from 1962.
SR: 65 for all.
Italy (see Angelini et al. 2009; Mazzonna and Peracchi 2014)
ER: from 1965 to 1995, early retirement was possible at any age with 35 years of contributionsFootnote 35 (25 in the public sector) for both men and women; from 1996 it was increased stepwise up to 57 for both the private and public sector (58 for self-employed).
SR: The statutory retirement age was 60 (65 in the public sector) for men and 55 (60 in the public sector) for women from 1961 to 1993. Several consecutive reforms (1992, 1995 and 1998) increased the statutory retirement age to 65 for men and 60 for women with step-wise increments from 1994.
Netherlands (see Euwals et al. 2010)
ER: No early retirement until 1974. 60 from 1975 onwards, for both men and women.
SR: 65 for both men and women.
Spain (see Blanco 2000; Mazzonna and Peracchi 2014)
ER: 64 until 1982, 60 from 1983 to 1993, 61 from 1994 onwards, for both men and women.
SR: 65 for both men and women.
Sweden (see Mazzonna and Peracchi 2014)
ER: No early retirement until 1962, 60 from 1963 to 1997, 61 from 1998 onwards.
SR: 67 for both men and women until 1994, 65 from 1995 onwards.
Switzerland (see Dorn and Sousa-Poza 2003; Mazzonna and Peracchi 2014)
ER: No early retirement until 1996 for men and until 2000 for women. Then, 64 for men from 1997 until 2000 and 63 from 2001, for women 62 from 2001.
SR: 65 for men, for women 63 until 1963, 62 from 1964 until 2000, 63 from 2001 to 2004, 64 from 2005.
Additional references for retirement ages
Angelini V, Brugiavini A, Weber G. 2009. Ageing and unused capacity in Europe: is there an early retirement trap? Economic Policy
Berkel B, Börsch-Supan A. 2004. Pension reforms in Germany: the impact on retirement decisions. MEA Discussion Paper 62-2004.
Bingley P, Datta Gupta N, Pedersen P J. 2010. Social security, retirement and employment of the young in Denmark. In J Gruber, D Wise. Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World. The Relationship to Youth Employment. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Blanco A. 2000. The decision of early retirement in Spain. FEDEA Working Paper no. 76.
Dorn D, Sousa-Poza A. 2003. Why is the employment rate of older Swiss so high? An analysis of the social security system. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 28(4): 652–672.
DRV, 2015, Die richtige Altersrente für Sie. Available on line http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/Allgemein/de/Inhalt/5_Services/03_broschueren_und_mehr/01_broschueren/01_national/die_richtige_altersrente_fuer_sie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=18 [last accessed on 25 January 2015]
Euwals R, van Vuuren D, Wolthoff R. 2010. Early retirement behaviour in the Netherlands: evidence from a policy reform. De Economist
Gruber J, Wise D A. 1999. Social Security and Retirement around the World. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Gruber J, Wise D A. 2010. Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: The Relationship to Youth Employment. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Hamblin K A. 2013. Active Ageing in the European Union. Policy Convergence and Divergence. Palgrave Macmillan: London.
Jousten A, Lefèbvre M, Perelman S, Pestieau P. 2010. The effects of early retirement on youth unemployment: the case of Belgium. In J Gruber, D Wise. Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World. The Relationship to Youth Employment. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Mazzonna F, Peracchi F. 2014. Unhealthy retirement? EIEF Working Paper 09/14. Staubli S, Zweimüller J. 2011. Does raising the retirement age increase employment of older workers? IZA Discussion Paper 5863.
Wise D A. 2012. Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: Historical Trends in Mortality and Health, Employment, and Disability Insurance Participation and Reforms. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
See Figs. 7 and 8.
Note: The graphs report retirement age histograms by country and gender, highlighting in dark gray early retirement ages in black statutory (normal) retirement ages––that have changed over time for the cohorts considered (see Appendix 1). Within each bin, we show the proportion of individuals declaring why they retired.
See Table 6.
Following Jones et al. (2013) and Verbeek and Nijman (1992), an initial test for non-response bias is to include in our 2SLS specification two variables describing the pattern of survey response: nextwave and allwaves. The former indicates whether the individual participated in the next wave, the latter identifies individuals who participated in all three waves. In the FE-2SLS, only nextwave is included, since allwaves is a time-invariant characteristic. As Jones et al. (2013) suggested, there should be no intrinsic reason why the survey response should have an effect on individuals’ health behaviours, but, in the presence of selection bias there will be a statistical association between survey response variables and our outcome measures. Table 7 shows that there is a statistical association between survey response variables and our outcome measures, but generally not for our FE-2SLS specifications. One possible strategy to see whether attrition might be problematic for our results is to compare estimates between balanced and unbalanced panel sample (see Jones et al. 2013, and Cheng and Trivedi 2015). In the absence of non-response bias, these estimates should be comparable, as may be seen in Table 8.
Cheng, T. C., and Trivedi, P. K., 2015. “Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? A Case Study Based on the Mabel Survey,” Health Economics, 24:1101–1117.
Verbeek, M. and Nijman, T., 1992. “Testing for Selectivity Bias in Panel Data Models”, International Economic Review, 33: 681–703.