Gender differences in retirement decisions and outcomes: a systematic literature review and recommendations for future research
America Harris & Ulrike Fasbender
What the paper says
Abstract Gender plays a complex and critical role in retirement decisions and outcomes. Despite its relevance, many reviews of the retirement literature have given little attention to gender-specific factors. Previous single-gender reviews also lack comparative analyses, shedding little light on where gender differences in retirement lie. To address this gap, we aim to integrate research on gender differences in retirement decisions using a comparative approach. Our systematic literature review reveals how gender interacts with factors such as marital status, pensions, work history, and traditional gender norms to shape differential retirement decisions and outcomes between men and women. The life course perspective, gender role theory, and joint retirement behavior are identified as key theories referenced in the literature to explain gender differences. We group key antecedents of gendered retirement decisions into family, macroeconomic, work-related, and individual factors; and identify key differentials in postretirement activities. By examining gender’s interaction with key factors, we elucidate why men and women experience different retirement decisions and outcomes, thereby disentangling gender’s complexity in retirement. We further contextualize the findings across countries and cohorts to explain differences in women’s retirement decisions across space and time. Finally, we identify the lacunae in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research, aiming to inform policies that promote gender equality in retirement decision-making and outcomes.
4 citations
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.37 × 0.4 = 0.15 |
| M · momentum | 0.60 × 0.15 = 0.09 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.