Age‐Differentiated vs. Age‐Integrated: Neoliberal Policy and the Future of the Life Course

Abstract

AbstractObserving the human costs for persons of all ages of the institutionalized tripartite life course (ILC) characterizing advanced postindustrial societies, gerontological pioneer Matilda White Riley proposed an “age‐integrated” alternative that would support a more balanced engagement with education, work, and leisure (i.e., retirement) across the life course. Without denying the kinds of manifest benefits that the ILC has provided to modern citizens (notably enhanced educational opportunities and retirement support), Riley rightly pointed out the opportunities lost due to the restrictions imposed by the normative age‐graded or age‐differentiated model of the “three‐box” life course. However, both the age‐segmented ILC and the age‐integrated alternative envisioned by Riley have presupposed the broad floor of support of essential components of the life course (i.e., education, work and retirement/leisure) provided by the post‐World War II social contract. We demonstrate that this floor of support has been dangerously eroded by the neoliberal turn in social policy, which has undermined that social contract. Ironically, the ideas of a more individualized or “flexible” life course are often co‐opted to legitimate the off‐loading of risk to individuals that is integral to neoliberal policy. In reality, viable implementation of Riley's proposed age‐integrated model would require a rejection of such policies and a renewed public commitment at least equal to the support that undergirded the institutionalized life course. We detail some dimensions of neoliberalism's impact on the life course, and we suggest the types of policy changes that could rebuild support for the institution of the life course, with special attention to Riley's age‐integrated model and its potential to advance human interests.