Book Review: Gee and Gutman, eds., The Overselling of Population Aging

Ellen M. Gee and Gloria M. Gutman, eds.
The Overselling of Population Aging: Apocalyptic Demography, Intergenerational Challenges, and Social Policy
Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000, 154 pp.
$Cdn. 18.95 paper (0195414659)

This is a welcome addition to the Studies in Canadian Population series from Oxford University Press. Compared to other edited collections from conferences or workshops, this one is well unified with chapters that follow a common theme. The conference was organized at Simon Fraser University in May 1998, under the same title as that of the book. There are ten authors from Gerontology, Sociology, Social Work, and Social Policy.

The book makes the case that population aging is given too much importance in thinking about changing our social policies. The null hypothesis is typically worded more strongly: Apocalyptic demography has been used as an excuse for dismantling the welfare state. The authors address this hypothesis in two ways. First they typically say that demographic aging, or the demographic parameters more broadly, should not be viewed as a crisis, or an apocalyptic situation. It is not hard to conclude that we should not talk about a “crisis.” I much agree, words like this should not be used to describe evolving demographics, partly because the changes are slow and thus allow time for preparation and adaptation. We can legitimately use the term “mortality crisis,” as in the case of a plague, but the Review of Demography and its Implications for Economic and Social Policy clearly agreed that Canada’s population should not be described in terms of a crisis. Secondly, the authors make the case that social policy (more often proposed policy than actual policy) has given undue attention to population aging. For instance, the case is made that policy proposals are pitched as though there was no alternative but to reduce certain social expenditures because of the needs of an aging population. Here again, I quite agree that demographic determinism is unfortunate in policy thinking. Using other examples, we should not argue that the aboriginal groups of this part of the continent were a dying race who needed the arrival of Europeans to populate the continent, nor that immigration is a “demographic need” for Canada today.

However, in seeking to lay to rest extreme views, there is a danger of exaggerations in the opposite directions, to the effect that we should not pay attention to the evolving demographics in thinking about policy, or that the welfare state needs no reforms.

On the first question, the authors start by observing that “demography does influence the social environment” (p. 1). One could go further, observing that demographic parameters are part of the material conditions of an evolving society. But the authors argue that it is politically incorrect to examine the Preston hypothesis regarding the relative priority given to youth and elderly, or to examine generational accounting in the Canadian context (p. 2). It is fine to criticize someone’s methodology, results, or interpretation, but condemning someone for investigating a given topic should be reserved for questions that are too sensitive to be properly analysed in a given historical context. My sense is that questions of inter-generational conflicts and accounting are difficult research and ethical questions, but that researchers should not be condemned for addressing them.

In addressing the demographics of population aging, there is an excellent discussion of the limits of “dependency ratios” as a concept. In effect, it is difficult to determine who should be in the numerator and denominator of such ratios because few people are totally dependent nor independent. Especially when including emotional questions, it is better to use concepts like interdependence and reciprocity than dependence. Valuable use is made of such concepts of reciprocity in talking about aging families, inter-generational care-giving and linkages, and home leaving. For instance, it is proposed that inter-generational relationships should largely not be characterized as “care giving.” Similarly, home returning should not be seen as pathological for the younger generation nor as a crisis for middle-generation families. Instead, generations should be seen as interdependent in the unfolding of their life courses.

However, there are some contexts where dependency between those who are employed and those who are not employed becomes a useful consideration. In particular, those who are not employed typically remain consumers of social services. In terms of social expenditure, not all age groups have the same draw on the public purse, with the per capita costs of health and pensions for the elderly being some 2.5 to 3.0 times the costs of education for the young. It is observed that “the total social costs for the elderly would have to be three times higher than for the young in Canada in order for our future overall dependency to exceed what we have already experienced (during the baby-boom years)” (p. 11, italics in original). The very data from the adjoining table contradict this statement (p. 10). As seen from these data, even if the social cost of the elderly are only twice that of the young, the overall dependency will eventually exceed that of the baby-boom period.

This total dependency ratio is not a particularly useful concept, mostly because transferring funds from education to health and pensions is a complicated political task that receives strong opposition from educators. In reformulating our pension systems it is more useful to observe that there were 7.0 persons aged 20-64 per person aged 65+ in 1951, compared to 4.9 in 2001 and possibly 2.4 in 2050 (Beaujot, 2000).

There are other places where the demographics are given rather light treatment. In projecting hospitalization costs, various hypotheses are appropriately analysed, including an “optimistic scenario” where there is no relative increase in the number of acute hospital days to 2041 (p. 36). While this is surely possible, “the elderly population would then account for close to 90 per cent of the total hospital days compared to 36 percent in 1971" (p. 40). Can this concentration of health resources for the elderly be achieved without a dismantling of services for other groups?

Besides proposing that demographics are typically overplayed, the authors observe that proposals for social policy change have given excessive attention to demographics and have even concluded that we need to dismantle the welfare state. Almost every chapter talks about a welfare state that is being dismantled, but little evidence is given. When details are given, they read much more like reform than dismantling (pp. 101-102). To me, the strongest evidence of downsizing of the welfare state, another concept frequently used, is Ontario’s reduction of social assistance payments in 1995 by 23.6%, bringing them to the national average. Yet, this is not the example of dismantling or downsizing that is used. The concern here is with regard to dismantling of the welfare state for the elderly. It is true that there was some downsizing of social expenditure with the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer, but the health funds are now being restored to the point that per capita total social expenditures by all levels of government are not spiralling downward.

There are two dialogue de sourd in Canadian social policy. There are those who claim that our social programs are being dismantled and others who say that our taxes are too high. To me, both are wrong.

The problem with the “dismantling” argument is that it comes across as being against any reform of the social security system. For instance, the proposition to convert Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement into a “super-GIS,” is condemned as a dismantling of the welfare state even though it would have benefited poorer elderly, women in particular. The proposition from the Minister of Finance in 1996 would have given partial transfers to elderly with household incomes above $26,000 so that the payment would be completely clawed back at an annual income of $52,000 for an individual and $78,000 for a family (p. 117). By reducing payment to persons above a certain floor, including housewives married to rich husbands, the change would eventually have made room for a higher level of guaranteed annual income for the elderly.

The situation has changed considerably since the time when pension systems were instituted in the 1960s. Pension systems are fairly easy to establish when there is a young growing population, an expanding economy and an understanding that social security should be expanded. In these circumstances, it is not particularly onerous for a growing number of young people to assume responsibility for the smaller numbers of retired persons who represented a significant pocket of poverty. Given the changed economics and demographics, is it not legitimate to anticipate reforms that would ensure sustainability of our welfare state provisions? Might generosity toward non-poor elderly be making it difficult to achieve other social policy goals? For my take, priority should go to enriching the Child Tax Benefit, in effect a guaranteed annual income for children, and advance maintenance payments for lone-parents.

Another discussion that we need to have regards whether to concentrate the funding on those in strongest need, or to have programs that are more universal. The advantage of focussing on the disadvantaged is that strongly progressive programs are less costly. The advantage of more universal programs is that there is a stronger buy-in on the part of those paying taxes. This is the argument that needs to be pitched to tax payers: let us ensure a basic floor and have programs that benefit everyone, as we have in health, which is worth the cost of higher taxes. As the authors would say, this question has little to do with demographics.

In as much as the book can bring a broader discussion of these important policy issues, taking advantage of the research rather than a retrenchment into fixed positions as we saw at the time of the 2000 federal election, the editors and authors of The Overselling of Population Aging are to be commended.

Reference:
Beaujot, Roderic, 2000, Canada’s Demographic Future: Some Reflections on Projection Assumptions. Paper presented at Seminar on the Canada Pension Plan, “Demographic and Economic Perspectives of Canada: Years 2000 to 2050,” 17 March 2000, (http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/publications).

Roderic Beaujot
Department of Sociology
University of Western Ontario
rbeaujot@julian.uwo.ca



		Canadian Journal of Sociology Online January - February 2001 click on ISBN to order book through Indigo Ellen M. Gee and Gloria M. Gutman, eds. The Overselling of Population Aging: Apocalyptic Demography, Intergenerational Challenges, and Social Policy Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000, 154 pp. $Cdn. 18.95 paper (0195414659) This is a welcome addition to the Studies in Canadian Population series from Oxford University Press. Compared to other edited collections from conferences or workshops, this one is well unified with chapters that follow a common theme. The conference was organized at Simon Fraser University in May 1998, under the same title as that of the book. There are ten authors from Gerontology, Sociology, Social Work, and Social Policy. The book makes the case that population aging is given too much importance in thinking about changing our social policies. The null hypothesis is typically worded more strongly: Apocalyptic demography has been used as an excuse for dismantling the welfare state. The authors address this hypothesis in two ways. First they typically say that demographic aging, or the demographic parameters more broadly, should not be viewed as a crisis, or an apocalyptic situation. It is not hard to conclude that we should not talk about a “crisis.” I much agree, words like this should not be used to describe evolving demographics, partly because the changes are slow and thus allow time for preparation and adaptation. We can legitimately use the term “mortality crisis,” as in the case of a plague, but the Review of Demography and its Implications for Economic and Social Policy clearly agreed that Canada’s population should not be described in terms of a crisis. Secondly, the authors make the case that social policy (more often proposed policy than actual policy) has given undue attention to population aging. For instance, the case is made that policy proposals are pitched as though there was no alternative but to reduce certain social expenditures because of the needs of an aging population. Here again, I quite agree that demographic determinism is unfortunate in policy thinking. Using other examples, we should not argue that the aboriginal groups of this part of the continent were a dying race who needed the arrival of Europeans to populate the continent, nor that immigration is a “demographic need” for Canada today. However, in seeking to lay to rest extreme views, there is a danger of exaggerations in the opposite directions, to the effect that we should not pay attention to the evolving demographics in thinking about policy, or that the welfare state needs no reforms. On the first question, the authors start by observing that “demography does influence the social environment” (p. 1). One could go further, observing that demographic parameters are part of the material conditions of an evolving society. But the authors argue that it is politically incorrect to examine the Preston hypothesis regarding the relative priority given to youth and elderly, or to examine generational accounting in the Canadian context (p. 2). It is fine to criticize someone’s methodology, results, or interpretation, but condemning someone for investigating a given topic should be reserved for questions that are too sensitive to be properly analysed in a given historical context. My sense is that questions of inter-generational conflicts and accounting are difficult research and ethical questions, but that researchers should not be condemned for addressing them. In addressing the demographics of population aging, there is an excellent discussion of the limits of “dependency ratios” as a concept. In effect, it is difficult to determine who should be in the numerator and denominator of such ratios because few people are totally dependent nor independent. Especially when including emotional questions, it is better to use concepts like interdependence and reciprocity than dependence. Valuable use is made of such concepts of reciprocity in talking about aging families, inter-generational care-giving and linkages, and home leaving. For instance, it is proposed that inter-generational relationships should largely not be characterized as “care giving.” Similarly, home returning should not be seen as pathological for the younger generation nor as a crisis for middle-generation families. Instead, generations should be seen as interdependent in the unfolding of their life courses. However, there are some contexts where dependency between those who are employed and those who are not employed becomes a useful consideration. In particular, those who are not employed typically remain consumers of social services. In terms of social expenditure, not all age groups have the same draw on the public purse, with the per capita costs of health and pensions for the elderly being some 2.5 to 3.0 times the costs of education for the young. It is observed that “the total social costs for the elderly would have to be three times higher than for the young in Canada in order for our future overall dependency to exceed what we have already experienced (during the baby-boom years)” (p. 11, italics in original). The very data from the adjoining table contradict this statement (p. 10). As seen from these data, even if the social cost of the elderly are only twice that of the young, the overall dependency will eventually exceed that of the baby-boom period. This total dependency ratio is not a particularly useful concept, mostly because transferring funds from education to health and pensions is a complicated political task that receives strong opposition from educators. In reformulating our pension systems it is more useful to observe that there were 7.0 persons aged 20-64 per person aged 65+ in 1951, compared to 4.9 in 2001 and possibly 2.4 in 2050 (Beaujot, 2000). There are other places where the demographics are given rather light treatment. In projecting hospitalization costs, various hypotheses are appropriately analysed, including an “optimistic scenario” where there is no relative increase in the number of acute hospital days to 2041 (p. 36). While this is surely possible, “the elderly population would then account for close to 90 per cent of the total hospital days compared to 36 percent in 1971" (p. 40). Can this concentration of health resources for the elderly be achieved without a dismantling of services for other groups? Besides proposing that demographics are typically overplayed, the authors observe that proposals for social policy change have given excessive attention to demographics and have even concluded that we need to dismantle the welfare state. Almost every chapter talks about a welfare state that is being dismantled, but little evidence is given. When details are given, they read much more like reform than dismantling (pp. 101-102). To me, the strongest evidence of downsizing of the welfare state, another concept frequently used, is Ontario’s reduction of social assistance payments in 1995 by 23.6%, bringing them to the national average. Yet, this is not the example of dismantling or downsizing that is used. The concern here is with regard to dismantling of the welfare state for the elderly. It is true that there was some downsizing of social expenditure with the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer, but the health funds are now being restored to the point that per capita total social expenditures by all levels of government are not spiralling downward. There are two dialogue de sourd in Canadian social policy. There are those who claim that our social programs are being dismantled and others who say that our taxes are too high. To me, both are wrong. The problem with the “dismantling” argument is that it comes across as being against any reform of the social security system. For instance, the proposition to convert Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement into a “super-GIS,” is condemned as a dismantling of the welfare state even though it would have benefited poorer elderly, women in particular. The proposition from the Minister of Finance in 1996 would have given partial transfers to elderly with household incomes above $26,000 so that the payment would be completely clawed back at an annual income of $52,000 for an individual and $78,000 for a family (p. 117). By reducing payment to persons above a certain floor, including housewives married to rich husbands, the change would eventually have made room for a higher level of guaranteed annual income for the elderly. The situation has changed considerably since the time when pension systems were instituted in the 1960s. Pension systems are fairly easy to establish when there is a young growing population, an expanding economy and an understanding that social security should be expanded. In these circumstances, it is not particularly onerous for a growing number of young people to assume responsibility for the smaller numbers of retired persons who represented a significant pocket of poverty. Given the changed economics and demographics, is it not legitimate to anticipate reforms that would ensure sustainability of our welfare state provisions? Might generosity toward non-poor elderly be making it difficult to achieve other social policy goals? For my take, priority should go to enriching the Child Tax Benefit, in effect a guaranteed annual income for children, and advance maintenance payments for lone-parents. Another discussion that we need to have regards whether to concentrate the funding on those in strongest need, or to have programs that are more universal. The advantage of focussing on the disadvantaged is that strongly progressive programs are less costly. The advantage of more universal programs is that there is a stronger buy-in on the part of those paying taxes. This is the argument that needs to be pitched to tax payers: let us ensure a basic floor and have programs that benefit everyone, as we have in health, which is worth the cost of higher taxes. As the authors would say, this question has little to do with demographics. In as much as the book can bring a broader discussion of these important policy issues, taking advantage of the research rather than a retrenchment into fixed positions as we saw at the time of the 2000 federal election, the editors and authors of The Overselling of Population Aging are to be commended. Reference: Beaujot, Roderic, 2000, Canada’s Demographic Future: Some Reflections on Projection Assumptions. Paper presented at Seminar on the Canada Pension Plan, “Demographic and Economic Perspectives of Canada: Years 2000 to 2050,” 17 March 2000, (http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/publications). Roderic Beaujot Department of Sociology University of Western Ontario rbeaujot@julian.uwo.ca http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cjscopy/reviews/overselling.html January 2001 © CJS Online