Titelaufnahme

Titel
Labor market and distributional effects of an increase in the retirement age / Johannes Geyer (DIW Berlin), Peter Haan (DIW Berlin, FU Berlin, Netspar and IZA), Anna Hammerschmid (DIW Berlin, BERA), Michael Peters (DIW Berlin) ; IZA Institute of Labor Economics
VerfasserGeyer, Johannes In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen ; Haan, Peter In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen ; Hammerschmid, Anna In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen ; Peters, Michael In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen
KörperschaftForschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit In der Gemeinsamen Normdatei der DNB nachschlagen
ErschienenBonn, Germany : IZA Institute of Labor Economics, June 2018
Ausgabe
Elektronische Ressource
Umfang1 Online-Ressource (31 Seiten) : Diagramme
SerieDiscussion paper ; no. 11618
URNurn:nbn:de:hbz:5:2-161316 Persistent Identifier (URN)
Zugriffsbeschränkung
 Das Dokument ist frei verfügbar.
Volltexte
Labor market and distributional effects of an increase in the retirement age [0.61 mb]
Links
Nachweis
Verfügbarkeit In meiner Bibliothek
Zusammenfassung

We evaluate the labor market and distributional effects of an increase in the early retirement age (ERA) from 60 to 63 for women. We use a regression discontinuity design which exploits the immediate increase in the ERA between women born in 1951 and 1952. The analysis is based on the German micro census which includes about 370,000 households per year. We focus on heterogeneous labor market effects on the individual and on the household level and we study the distributional implications using net household income. In this respect we extend the previous literature which mainly studied employment effects on the individual level. Our results show sizable labor market effects which strongly differ by subgroups. We document larger employment effects for women who cannot rely on other income on the household level, e.g. women with a low income partner. The distributional analysis shows on average no significant effects on female or household income. This result holds as well for heterogeneous groups: Even for the most vulnerable groups, such as single women, women without higher education, or low partner income, we do not find significant reductions in income. One reason for this result is program substitution.