MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097993911

Does Increasing Contribution Length Lead to Higher Retirement Age? Evidence from the 1993 French Pension Reform,” mimeo

2004· article· en· W7097993911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionIncentiveQuarter (Canadian coin)Order (exchange)Retirement ageElasticity (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers the first ex post evaluation of the incentive effects of the 1993 French pension reform. This private sector reform was meant both to reduce replacement rates and to increase retirement age. In order to induce later retirement, the gov-ernment increased the number of quarters of contribution necessary to obtain a full rate pension from 150 to 160 quarters. We use both the Echantillon Interrégime des Retraités (EIR 2001) and the exhaustive administrative data from the CNAV (1994-2003) in order to estimate the elasticity of retirement age to the length of contribution necessary to obtain the full rate. We take advantage of the fact that different groups were affected differently by the reform (depending both on birth year and contribu-tion length at age 60) in order to identify precisely the behavioral impact of changing incentives, using a difference-in-difference approach. We find that one additional quarter of necessary contribution led to an average increase of 2 months in retire-ment age, corresponding to an elasticity of 0.7. This fairly high response of French workers should be put in perspective with the high level of penalty associated with

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207