It’s time to rethink the idea of working age (Part 2)
BELFAST (The Conversation) — The notion of working age probably emerged in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period marked by the industrial revolution and the development of modern labour economics. As societies transitioned from agrarian to industrial economies, understanding the age structure of the workforce became crucial for effective economic planning.
Legislative milestones, for instance, the UK’s Factory Act of 1833 and the Education Act 1918, which restricted children’s working hours and raised the school leaving age from 12 to 14 respectively, reflect the establishment of a formal working-age structure. These were aimed at eradicating child labour exploitation and improving workers’ conditions (although exceptions still exist, for example, for child artists).
While the lower limit is closely tied to issues surrounding child labour, the upper limit is based on global data indicating that the majority of people usually remain in paid work until around 64 or 65. After this, participation rates start to decline sharply.
This age range serves as a benchmark for designing employment policies, welfare systems, health services, and economic projections and analysis. Major world organisations like World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Labour Organization (ILO), also use this classification, allowing for consistency in data collection and reporting across countries and over time.
A crucial metric derived from this is the old-age dependency ratios (OADR), which measure the number of dependants compared to the working-age population. This helps gauge the economic burden on the productive part of the population, indicating how many people within this age range are working and paying taxes to sustain services and infrastructure.
A skewed population, with too many old or too many young people outside this defined age bracket, can strain national wealth and resources, as fewer people are available to work and pay for running public services and benefit systems.
But the current rigid structure pits old against young to create an artificial divide. This often leads to generational tensions and competition for resources. Even if the upper age limit is adjusted to match with the state pension age, it will remain arbitrary, given the ever-expanding longevity trends of human populations.
Another possible system may be the active dependency ratio (ADR), where the economically inactive to economically active ratio is used. But this is not considered a rounded measure either since several socio-cultural factors influence people’s economic independence.
There is no doubt that changes to the current structure will be complex and time-consuming, requiring layers of revisions and restructuring of systems.
But a step in the right direction would be to phase out structures based on chronological age. A holistic shift, uncoupling age from economic measures, will prompt societies to reconsider their views on the value of chronological age as a measure and help eliminate the artificial age divide.
Sajia Ferdous is lecturer in organisational behaviour, Queen’s Business School, Queen’s University Belfast.