Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging

Living Edition
| Editors: Danan Gu, Matthew E. Dupre

Delaying Retirement

  • Wouter De TavernierEmail author
  • Laura Naegele
  • Daniel Holman
  • Moritz Hess
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_167-1



Delaying retirement refers to the process of increasing the average age of effective labor market exit, meaning that individuals in society on average remain in the labor force longer.


In an attempt to solve the high youth unemployment rates resulting from the 1970s economic crisis, many developed countries introduced early retirement schemes in order to take older individuals out of the labor market and free up jobs for younger workers (Blossfeld et al. 2011). These policies were informed by the idea that there is a fixed number of jobs available in a given economy – the “lump of labor” idea. They allowed older workers to retire well before the official retirement age with relatively small pension reductions. Increasingly, early retirement became the standard and was perceived as a “social right” so that people could spend some years resting in relatively good health after a long career (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013).

However, since the early 1990s, the focus has shifted towards the financial sustainability of the welfare state. From this perspective, early retirement is problematic in societies with ageing populations, as it puts more pressure on those of active age to pay for the pension benefits of an increasing group of older individuals (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013). Since then, governments have attempted to delay retirement through a series of measures, including closing early retirement schemes, increasing the eligibility age for receiving old-age pension benefits, tightening eligibility rules for disability benefits, strengthening occupational and private pensions, and eliminating older unemployed individuals’ exemptions from job search requirements (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013). This coincides with a paradigmatic shift in thinking about older individuals in society, from being passive welfare recipients to active members of society (Foster and Walker 2015). Hence, even if delaying retirement is not the only form of active ageing – the concept entails a wider understanding of participation in society including also health and security-related aspects – employment is certainly one of the main tenets of the concept, as illustrated by its central role within the Active Ageing Index (European Commission and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2013). In Fig. 1, the evolution of the average age of effective labor market exit in the OECD is presented. The figure shows that the tendency of earlier labor market exit is reversed around the turn of the millennium, first for women in the late 1990s with several countries moving to equalize pensionable ages for men and women, and then also for men in the first half of the 2000s. The figure also shows the wide variety of effective retirement ages in OECD countries (the gray area); in 2016, Korea had the highest labor market exit age of all OECD countries at 72.0 years for men and 72.2 years for women; France had the lowest retirement age for men at age 60.0, while the Slovak Republic closed the ranking for women at 59.5 (OECD 2017: 126–127).
Fig. 1

Average age of effective labor market exit in OECD countries (1970–2016). (Source: OECD 2017. Note: The blue line indicates the average age of labor market exit in the OECD; the gray area shows the range of exit ages in OECD countries)

Key Research Findings

Individuals have different reasons for retiring from the labor market. Reasons for retirement have typically been conceptualized in terms of push and pull factors, distinguishing involuntary retirement from voluntary retirement due to financial incentives (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013; Jensen 2005). More recently, scholars have widened our understanding of drivers of retirement by adding a focus on work identity and reasons for remaining in employment.

Involuntary Retirement

Push factors refer to reasons for involuntary exit from the labor market: individuals might have preferred to remain in employment, but circumstances do not allow them to do so, pushing them into retirement (Vickerstaff 2006). Involuntary retirement can result from a number of causes, including discrimination (ageism) and economic restructuring, though health is consistently cited as a key driver (see, for example, the recent systematic review from Edge et al. 2017). Chronic diseases are strongly implicated in this as they typically develop around 10–15 years from retirement age (Barnett et al. 2012) and are associated with functional and mobility limitations and pain. With respect to particular conditions, arthritis and depression account for the highest proportion of involuntary exits (Black 2008).

The literature on ageism in the workplace (Naegele et al. 2018) suggests that older workers are typically perceived as less productive, less adaptable, and less healthy than their younger colleagues. Based on these age stereotypes, older workers are discriminated against in terms of being more likely to be made redundant (Ng and Feldman 2012), and once unemployed, ageism hampers their search for new employment (Baert et al. 2016). However, its effect on retirement goes beyond mere hiring and firing: older workers are less likely to be invested in through education and training (Guillemard 2003). As a result, their knowledge and skills become outdated, making them vulnerable to layoffs in case of restructuring within the firm, and making it harder for them to find new employment once made redundant. Hence, lifelong learning is an important tool to keep workers in the labor market longer. However, there is now some evidence that age stereotypes appear to be shifting, with workers now being considered as “old” at higher ages, contributing to their ability to stay in the labor market longer (Hofäcker et al. 2015). Because of ageism against older workers, underinvestment in their knowledge and skills, and their higher wages due to the inclusion of seniority in wage setting, as well as the availability of early retirement schemes, older workers are among those first in line to be laid off in case of economic restructuring. This makes older workers’ employment dependent on economic cycles and leaves them especially vulnerable in times of economic crisis (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013). From a push perspective, retirement would not have occurred if individuals had not been subject to such external circumstances putting pressure on them to leave the labor market. Hence, factors contributing to preventing older workers from being pushed out of the labor market include among others investments in age-management measurements such as education and training, efforts to make work less strenuous, and legislation against age discrimination. These policies and interventions allow individuals to maintain their capacity to work and their status as a worker until later in life. Therefore, the opposite of push has been conceptualized as maintain (Hofäcker and Radl 2016).

Maintenance of Standard of Living

Pull factors follow an economic rational choice logic in which individuals leave the labor market if a replacement income is available that is sufficient to sustain their desired standard of living. Hence, individuals retire if the difference in income between working and not working is unsubstantial. Pull-retirement is therefore usually linked to welfare state provisions such as pension and early retirement schemes (Blöndal and Scarpetta 1999; Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013; Gruber and Wise 2002), though unemployment benefits can also contribute to individuals being pulled out of the labor market as they can offer a bridge between being made redundant and reaching the eligibility age for early retirement or pension benefits (Kyyrä and Ollikainen 2008). The typical policy response has been to increase eligibility ages for early retirement and old-age pension benefits, rolling back early retirement schemes and making these schemes less generous (OECD 2012). In addition, the increasing importance of occupational pensions – and in particular of defined contribution schemes – may contribute to delaying retirement since, unlike most state pensions, benefits tend to be more generous the later they are taken up, setting an incentive for individuals to postpone take-up (Ebbinghaus and Hofäcker 2013). However, the result of such pull-inspired policies to extend working lives is that individuals simply cannot afford to retire even if they would want to, effectively making them stuck in the labor market (Jensen and Øverbye 2013). Moreover, pull-retirement presupposes a certain level of knowledge about the pension system and pension entitlements, an assumption that does not apply to everyone and is particularly problematic for individuals with lower socioeconomic status (Holman et al. 2018).

Work Orientation

More recently, there has been an increasing focus on the “softer” side of retirement, linking labor market exit with norms, preferences, and identities. Borne in a critique of the economic approach to retirement (pull), in which work is perceived solely as an instrumental activity to earn an income, sociologists have pointed out the intrinsic value of work in terms of giving people an identity and a sense of purpose in life (Radl 2013). From this perspective, individuals remain in employment because they like their work and it gives them a sense of purpose. This has been conceptualized as retain (Hofäcker et al. 2015) or stay (Jensen and Øverbye 2013). Retirement, on the other hand, occurs when individuals redefine who they are, pursue a new goal in life, or take up a new role. Individuals leap out of the labor market into a new role, a transition described as jump (Jensen 2005). Such transitions include retiring in order to take up a more active role as grandparent and spending more time with the family, or taking up a new role in volunteering (Fasbender et al. 2016). This is related to the concept of retirement adjustment found in the psychological literature, referring to the extent to which individuals have a plan as to “what to retire to” and can live up to these expectations (Wang and Shultz 2010). Whereas staying in the labor market is generally perceived as a positive choice, the social aspect of retirement can also produce negative incentives to do so. Hofäcker et al. (2015), for instance, point to the fear of social isolation as a reason for individuals to choose not to retire, conceptualized as repel. Indeed, the social dimension also plays a role in delaying retirement, as individuals increasingly prefer to retire at later ages (Hess 2017). This is partially driven by increases in state pension ages, as the pension age can act as a “signal” telling people it is time to reorient themselves, or that it is now socially accepted to leave the labor market (De Tavernier and Roots 2015; Hess 2017, 2018).

A Dynamic Retirement Model

The different types of retirement can be summarized in one dynamic retirement model (Fig. 2). Largely speaking, individuals move on two dimensions as they age, corresponding to the two main dimensions of successful retirement planning (Wang and Shultz 2010). The first dimension is a financial one, representing the pension income one can expect if one were to retire. Individuals build up pension entitlements as they age, going from a situation where they have too few pension entitlements to be able to retire (stuck) to a situation where they can uphold their desired standard of living without working (pull). When reaching the eligibility age of early retirement or pension benefit receipt, individuals make a big leap on this dimension, as suddenly they have an alternative source of income available. The second dimension refers to identity, indicating one’s work orientation. Here, individuals move from being work-oriented (stay) to orienting towards other priorities, such as taking up a more active role as a grandparent or caregiver (jump). Thus, voluntary retirement happens when individuals have the required resources available to sustain their desired standard of living without working, and when they have an alternative challenge or identity to enter into other than working. Finally, a number of contextual factors can interrupt both transitions, inhibiting individuals from fulfilling them and thus causing involuntary retirement (push). In this case, individuals end up with either insufficient means to uphold their desired standard of living, or a lack of prospects or purpose in their retired life – or both. Indeed, individuals undergoing push-retirement are at high risk of having financial difficulties and having low levels of social participation after retirement (Jensen et al. 2018).
Fig. 2

A dynamic retirement model. (Source: Authors’ own illustration. Note: The two arrows illustrate the transitions individuals go through to reach voluntary retirement. Involuntary retirement happens when external factors force an individual to retire before either transition is fulfilled)

Even though these different concepts refer to different types of transitions, they are connected to one another. Individuals’ retirement preferences, employers’ views of older workers, and early retirement policies refer to three different types of retirement (jump, push, and pull, respectively), yet they are all rooted in more widely shared social norms about the role of older people in society, making retirement firmly embedded in the life course (Phillipson 2004). In this sense, one could talk about an early exit or retirement culture within a country or within certain social groups (Guillemard 2003; Radl 2013). Regarding the latter, moreover, it should be stressed that there are substantial social inequalities in terms of retirement. Not only do people in lower socioeconomic positions have lower life expectancy, and crucially, disability-free life expectancy (Unger and Schulze 2013), they are also less likely to be in control over their own retirement transition – meaning that they more often experience being pushed out of the labor market (König et al. 2018).

Forms of Employment in Retirement Transition

Delaying retirement does not necessarily have to happen by continuing to work in the same full-time job. There is an increasing interest among scholars regarding nonstandard forms of employment in later life and surrounding the retirement transition. Instead of thinking about retirement as a cliff edge – either being in full-time employment or receiving an old-age pension – the transition is increasingly approached as a continuum between both poles, with flexible and highly individualized work arrangements. It makes sense to think about retirement as moving along a continuum rather than as a binary transition, with such nonstandard forms of employment typically being motivated by the joy or meaning working can give, though it could also be the consequence of financial need (Dingemans and Henkens 2014) – again reflecting both dimensions presented in Fig. 2. A series of concepts have been introduced in order to describe such forms of employment, though so far the literature remains fragmented, leading to calls for conceptual clarity and agreement in the field (Beehr and Bennett 2015). Whereas some of those notions mainly focus on the time component of employment, e.g., gradual, flexible, or partial retirement, others have focused on job content. The notion of bridge employment, for instance, refers to a change in the type of work performed in the late career. It depicts retirement as a gradual transition, though shows that this transition does not have to be a linear one from full-time employment to nonemployment, and can also include changes in types of work (Wang and Shultz 2010). Postretirement employment (Fasbender et al. 2016) and work after retirement (Eurofound 2012) are used to refer to paid work of any type or intensity done after reaching state pension age. Finally, the terms “reverse retirement” and “unretirement” have been coined to refer to older individuals returning to the labor market after a longer period of absence (McDonald 1997).

The increasing popularity of postretirement and bridge employment (Beehr and Bennett 2015; Dingemans and Henkens 2014) might be related to a shift in older workers’ preferences regarding when to retire. Hess (2017) shows that the preferred retirement age has increased in Europe, although the increase is stronger for people with a higher socioeconomic position. When comparing the preferred retirement age to the planned retirement age, data show that most older workers would like to retire earlier than they expect to do so, and the gap is particularly large for those with low qualifications and income (Hess 2018). One could assume that the policy shift towards delaying retirement has decreased their agency in the retirement transition (Hofäcker and Naumann 2015). However, the literature is inconclusive about whether bridge employment facilitates extending working lives (e.g., Been and van Vliet 2017) or whether it allows individuals to retire earlier (e.g., Hess et al. 2018).

Examples of Application

Up until the mid-1990s, German pension policies were characterized by the idea of early retirement. Older employees exited the labor market well before the official retirement age with comparably small pension reductions, as policy-makers wanted to relieve pressures from the labor market and lower unemployment rates following the lump-of-labor idea (Radl 2013). By the late 1980s, concerns about the long-term financial sustainability of the German pension system started to emerge, recognizing the financial consequences of the policy of early retirement in combination with population ageing. In response, several pension and labor market reforms were implemented aiming to delay retirement ages and extend working lives: the state pension age was increased from 65 to 67, early retirement options were closed or made less attractive, and occupational and private pensions were subsidized (Hofäcker and Naumann 2015). These reforms, together with generally rising female employment rates and a robust development of the labor market, resulted in an impressive increase in the employment rate of older workers – rising from about 40% in 2000 to over 70% in 2016 (Hess and Naegele 2018). This is also reflected in the increase in labor market exit age for German men and women since the mid-1990s illustrated in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3

Average age of effective labor market exit in Germany (1996–2017). (Source: Based on OECD 2018)

In terms of the financial sustainability of the pension system, this can be perceived as a very positive development. However, a rather different picture emerges when looking into social inequalities in delaying retirement. Hofäcker and Naumann (2015) find that in particular the lowest and the highest educated have extended their working lives throughout this period. Whereas they attribute this finding among the lowest educated particularly to an increased financial need to work longer due to the elimination of early retirement pathways, delaying retirement among the highest educated would be more voluntary in character, as they also prefer to retire later (see also Hess 2018).

Future Directions of Research

Retirement is a very active area of research with many unanswered questions, and the mechanisms of retirement are not yet fully understood. There are several directions in which future research could go. The concept of understanding retirement as a process rather than a binary transition should be explored more. This includes studies on bridge-employment and its effect on retirement timing, and working while receiving pensions. Second, until now much retirement research has focused on European and North-American countries, although some of the oldest and fasting ageing countries are in Asia. Thus, international and comparative retirement research should be strengthened. Further, socioeconomic and gender differences should be explored more when investigating retirement transitions. Female employment rates are rising and at the same time women still do the bulk of domestic work and informal care. Thus, women retire differently than men, yet comparatively little is still known about such gender differences. Also socioeconomic differences in retirement are not fully understood, in particular given the complex interplay of physical job demands, job content and pension build-up. Answering these questions will require a stronger focus on the life course in retirement research, situating retirement as a transition out of the labor market within the wider life course. In sum, there is a relatively good understanding of why individuals retire or continue working, but much less is known about which reasons for (not) retiring are relevant for whom, and about the individual heterogeneity of retirement trajectories.


Since the start of the new millennium, the average age at which individuals exit the labor market has increased across Europe. The delaying of retirement can be achieved through three mechanisms. First, it has to be possible for the individual to work longer, meaning that the individual should have the opportunity (economic circumstances; discrimination) and the physical and mental capability (health) to do so. Hence, improvements in economic circumstances, health and societal perceptions of older workers can contribute to people remaining in employment longer into older age. Second, working longer can be facilitated by rolling back early retirement schemes and increasing retirement ages, making it impossible for individuals without sufficient savings of their own to retire earlier. And third, as individuals derive meaning from and identify more strongly with working in general or the work they do specifically, they are more likely to extend their working lives. As a result, employers should be mindful of these developments and not only strive to create an age-appropriate and inclusive work environment, but also take the various discussed forms of employment into account. New career models that are tailored to the needs of an ageing workforce need to be developed and implemented.



  1. Baert S, Norga J, Thuy Y, Van Hecke M (2016) Getting grey hairs in the labour market. An alternative experiment on age discrimination. J Econ Psychol 57:86–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B (2012) Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380(9836):37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beehr TA, Bennett MM (2015) Working after retirement: features of bridge employment and research directions. Work Aging Retire 1(1):112–128.  https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wau007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Been J, van Vliet O (2017) Early retirement across Europe. Does non-standard employment increase participation of older workers? Kyklos 70(2):163–188.  https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black CM (2008) Working for a healthier tomorrow: Dame Carol Black’s review of the health of Britain’s working age population. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Blöndal S, Scarpetta S (1999) The retirement decision in OECD countries. OECD economics department working paper no. 202. OECD, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/565174210530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blossfeld HP, Buchholz S, Kurz K (eds) (2011) Aging populations, globalization and the labor market: comparing late working life and retirement in modern societies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Tavernier W, Roots A (2015) When do people want to retire? The preferred retirement age gap between Eastern and Western Europe explained. Stud Transit States Soc 7(3):7–20Google Scholar
  9. Dingemans E, Henkens K (2014) Involuntary retirement, bridge employment, and satisfaction with life: a longitudinal investigation. J Organ Behav 35(4):575–591.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus B, Hofäcker D (2013) Reversing early retirement in advanced welfare economies: a paradigm shift to overcome push and pull factors. Comp Popul Stud – Z Bevölkerungswiss 38(4):807–840.  https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2013-24enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edge CE, Cooper AM, Coffey M (2017) Barriers and facilitators to extended working lives in Europe: a gender focus. Public Health Rev 38(2).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-017-0053-8
  12. Eurofound (2012) Income from work after retirement in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2806/42416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013) Introducing the active ageing index. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Fasbender U, Wang M, Voltmer JB, Deller J (2016) The meaning of work for post-retirement employment decisions. Work Aging Retire 2(1):12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wav015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster L, Walker A (2015) Active and successful aging: a European policy perspective. Gerontologist 55(1):83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gruber J, Wise DA (2002) Social security programs and retirement around the world: micro estimation. NBER working paper no. 9407. NBER, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.3386/w9407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guillemard AM (2003) France: struggling to find a way out of the early exit culture. Geneva Papers Risk Insur 28(4):558–574.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0440.00246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess M (2017) Rising preferred retirement age in Europe – are Europe’s future pensioners adapting to pension system reforms? J Aging Soc Policy 29(3):245–261.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1255082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess M (2018) Expected and preferred retirement age in Germany. Z Gerontol Geriatr 51(1):98–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hess M, Naegele L (2018) Older workers’ employment rate and active ageing in Germany. In: Becker P, Schütz J, Zimmermann A (eds) Ageing workforce, social cohesion and sustainable development: political challenges within the Baltic Sea region. Population Europe discussion paper 9/2018. Population Europe, Berlin, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  21. Hess M, Bauknecht J, Pink S (2018) Working hours flexibility and timing of retirement: findings from Europe. J Aging Soc Policy 30(5):478–494.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2018.1500857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofäcker D, Naumann E (2015) The emerging trend of work beyond retirement age in Germany: increasing social inequality? Z Gerontol Geriatr 48(5):473–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-014-0669-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofäcker D, Hess M, Naumann E (2015) Changing retirement transitions in times of paradigmatic political change: toward growing inequalities. In: Torp C (ed) Challenges of aging. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 205–226.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283177_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofäcker D, Radl J (2016) Retirement transitions in times of institutional change: theoretical concept. In: Hofäcker D, Hess M, König S (eds) Delaying retirement: progress and challenges of active ageing in Europe, the United States and Japan. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56697-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holman D, Foster L, Hess M (2018) Inequalities in women’s awareness of changes to the state pension age in England and the role of cognitive ability. Ageing Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1800082X
  26. Jensen PH (2005) Reversing the trend from “early” to “late” exit: push, pull and jump revisited in a Danish context. Geneva Papers Risk Insur 30(4):656–673.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen PH, Øverbye E (eds) (2013) Down and out – or free at last? Causes and effects of early exit/retirement in the Nordic countries. Logos Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen PH, Kongshøj K, De Tavernier W (2018) On how the nature of early retirement is related to postretirement life conditions from a citizenship perspective. Ageing Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X18001691
  29. König S, Lindwall M, Johansson B (2018) Involuntary and delayed retirement as a possible health risk for lower educated retirees. J Popul Ageing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-018-9234-6
  30. Kyyrä T, Ollikainen V (2008) To search or not to search? The effects of UI benefit extension for the older unemployed. J Public Econ 92(10–11):2048–2070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald L (1997) The link between social research and social policy options: reverse retirement as a case in point. Can Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques 23:90–113.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3551543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naegele L, De Tavernier W, Hess M (2018) Work environment and the origin of ageism. In: Ayalon L, Tesch-Römer C (eds) Contemporary perspectives on ageism. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ng TWH, Feldman DC (2012) Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta-analytical data. Pers Psychol 65(4):821–858.  https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2012) OECD pensions outlook 2012. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264169401-en
  35. OECD (2017) Pensions at a glance 2017: OECD and G20 indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/pension_glance-2017-en
  36. OECD (2018) Ageing and employment policies – statistics on average effective age of retirement. http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/average-effective-age-of-retirement.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  37. Phillipson C (2004) Work and retirement transitions: changing sociological and social policy contexts. Soc Policy Soc 3(2):155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746403001611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radl J (2013) Retirement timing and social stratification: a comparative study of labor market exit and age norms in Western Europe. Versita, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Unger R, Schulze A (2013) Can we really (all) work longer? Trends in healthy life expectancy according to social stratum in Germany. Comp Popul Stud – Z Bevölkerungswiss 38(3):562–582.  https://doi.org/10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-03enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vickerstaff S (2006) ‘I’d rather keep running to the end and then jump off the cliff’. Retirement decisions: who decides? J Soc Policy 35(3):455–472.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279406009871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang M, Shultz KS (2010) Employee retirement: a review and recommendations for future investigation. J Manag 36(1):172–206.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347957CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter De Tavernier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Naegele
    • 2
  • Daniel Holman
    • 3
  • Moritz Hess
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Social and Cultural PsychologyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Ageing and Work, Institute of GerontologyUniversity of VechtaVechtaGermany
  3. 3.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  4. 4.SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social PolicyUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Li-Hsuan Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNational Central UniversityChungliTaiwan