Professor Filip Chybalski and Dr Edyta Marcinkiewicz from Lodz University of Technology’s Institute of Management, explain.
Demographic shifts
Demographic shifts shape relationships between generations across Europe, but not in the same way everywhere. Some countries prioritise support for younger people, while others favour the elderly. In between, some focus on working-age adults, and two even leave older generations at a disadvantage. Our research, published in Social Justice Research, analyses these differences using pre-COVID Eurostat data. What sets this study apart is its unique approach — rather than focusing on government spending, we measure real-life outcomes for different age groups.
What is intergenerational (im)balance?
Fairness, equity, and justice often come up in discussions about how different generations fare in terms of living standards and welfare. But these terms can be vague and open to interpretation. Instead, we propose a more universal concept: intergenerational (im)balance. A balanced system ensures that all generations have their needs met and are equally protected against age-specific risks. The bigger the gap in well-being between age groups, the greater the imbalance of intergenerational welfare distribution.
Measuring outcomes, not just spending
Public policies that affect intergenerational fairness — whether directly or as a side effect — always involve government resources. The question is: should we evaluate these policies based on how much money is spent or on the actual outcomes they produce? Our research argues that focusing on spending (inputs) tells us more about the type of welfare system a country has, whereas looking at outcomes gives us a clearer picture of how well different generations are doing. If we want to compare how fairly resources are distributed across generations, outcomes are the key.
What defines intergenerational (im)balance?
Intergenerational well-being cannot be captured by a single indicator, as it spans multiple areas of life. Our study focuses on six key dimensions: poverty, income levels, housing conditions, labour market opportunities, education, and health. By examining these areas together, we can gain a clearer picture of which age groups are thriving and which are facing challenges. We measure these key dimensions and aggregate them into an S synthetic indicator for each generation (S_young, S_adult, and S_elderly). Additionally, we assess gender differences across these dimensions and combine them into a GD synthetic indicator for each generation (GD_young, GD_adult, and GD_elderly).
Cross-country comparison
No country exists in isolation, and there are no absolute norms for intergenerational balance. Moreover, intergenerational relations are shaped by numerous factors, and direct comparisons between different generations based on certain criteria — such as educational attainment — can be influenced by historical, cultural, and economic contexts, as well as life-cycle stages. For example, younger people (aged 19–25) are naturally less likely to hold a bachelor’s or master’s degree than their parents simply because they are still in the process of completing their education. Similarly, older generations were educated under different systems than today’s adults. This makes direct within-country comparisons between generations challenging. However, this issue can be mitigated by evaluating well-being of each generation within a country and then benchmarking these results against the same generation in other countries. This approach allows us to assess intergenerational differences in a broader context, rather than focusing solely on disparities within a single country.
The Four groups of European countries
Using Eurostat data from 2017, we identified four distinct clusters of countries based on intergenerational (im)balance. These categories reveal which age groups are relatively advantaged or disadvantaged in each country.
Picture of European intergenerational (im)balance
Mean values of intergenerational (im)balance synthetic indicators (S and GD) across four clusters
Countries supporting the young
This group includes Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia. These countries provide strong support for younger generations, particularly in areas such as education, employment, and health. Gender disparities within this age group are also relatively small.
Countries supporting working-age adults
Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland create this cluster. Here, working-age adults enjoy the greatest advantages, particularly in education, housing, and labour market opportunities.
Countries discriminating against the elderly
In Estonia and Latvia, older generations face significant challenges, including higher poverty rates, lower incomes, worse housing conditions, and limited access to healthcare. Gender disparities in these areas are also particularly pronounced.
Countries supporting the elderly
This group includes Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia, the UK, Iceland and Norway. In contrast to the previous group, these nations provide strong support for older citizens, particularly in terms of income security, housing, and reduced gender disparities in poverty and education.
A gender component changes the picture
When examining gender equality across generations, we find positive correlations, meaning that gender disparities — whether large or small — tend to be similar across all age groups. This suggests that historical, cultural, social, economic, or policy-driven factors promoting gender equality influence the entire population rather than specific generations. There is little to no correlation between overall welfare and gender equality, indicating that these two aspects provide distinct insights. Furthermore, comparing our clustering results — which combine both welfare (S) and gender differences (GD) indicators — with those based solely on either the S or GD indicators, reveals noticeable differences. This supports our argument that incorporating gender aspects into the measurement of intergenerational balance is essential as it changes the findings.
The results provoke other questions
The groups of countries we have identified differ noticeably from the well-known welfare regime typologies, ranging from the famed Esping-Andersen’s (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism to more contemporary classifications. This raises important questions for policymakers: why do countries with similar welfare state models exhibit significant differences in intergenerational balance, while countries with different models sometimes achieve similar outcomes? Another key question is how intergenerational (im)balance has evolved since 2017, particularly in the wake of such politically and economically turbulent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
You can read Filip and Edyta’s research here. If you would like to be put in touch to discuss their findings please email Liz Emerson: [email protected].
Help us to be able to do more
Now that you’ve reached the end of the article, we want to thank you for being interested in IF’s work standing up for younger and future generations. We’re really proud of what we’ve achieved so far. And with your help we can do much more, so please consider helping to make IF more sustainable. You can do so by following this link: Donate.
Image courtesy of philippe-leone-Y5VBtBgswLQ-unsplash.jpg