2020
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3658828
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relabeling, Retirement and Regret

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our empirical application also relates to a recent literature on retirement behavior, which documents the reference point character of statutory retirement ages (Behaghel and Blau, 2012;Seibold, 2021;Lalive et al, 2022;Gruber et al, 2022) and responses to financial retirement incentives (e.g. Brown, 2013;Manoli and Weber, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Our empirical application also relates to a recent literature on retirement behavior, which documents the reference point character of statutory retirement ages (Behaghel and Blau, 2012;Seibold, 2021;Lalive et al, 2022;Gruber et al, 2022) and responses to financial retirement incentives (e.g. Brown, 2013;Manoli and Weber, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In the case of benefit claiming, Behaghel and Blau (2012) find that in the US the spike in the claiming hazard at the FRA moves with an increase in the FRA in a way that is hard to explain with a standard model of behavior. Gruber et al (2020) find that simply "relabeling" a statutory retirement age affects claiming behavior in Finland, and those who claim at relabeled ages display "regret", they are more likely to return to work. This paper makes three important contributions relative to the earlier literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%