If there is one book you read in its entirety this year, let it be John Macnicol's Neoliberalising Old Age, a timely intervention into discussions of political economy and cultural interpretations of old age. Macnicol is convinced that neoliberalism is responsible for both the decline in demand for older workers and retirement as a social right; ‘there is no contradiction between economic causes and cultural effects’ (p. 120).
The book includes chapters on demography, the meaning of old age, retirement, pensions, intergenerational equity and ageism. The analysis is engaging, offering the reader rich descriptions of old age as a sociological category (and political football) through recent decades, when we have seen the crumbling of social solidarity. It is in the interpretation of statistical detail, particularly historical analysis of changes to social policy, that the book is at its best. The chapters on retirement and pensions are illuminating in two respects. First, Macnicol makes a strong case for scepticism in some of the taken-for-granted assumptions we use to inform social policy (such as dependency ratios). Second, he demonstrates how policy makers' obsession with declining scores on measures of productivity has no basis in historical fact. These chapters build the hypothesis that neoliberalism has used projections about demographic ageing as a means to eradicate political support for old-age benefits as a right. This argument is also convincingly made in the chapter on demographic destiny, where Macnicol makes a number of references to how empirical evidence (the numbers) can be used to shape arguments and policies in a way that suits the ruling elite.
If the book has one flaw, it is its inconsistent use of evidence. In Chapter 5 (p. 122), it is argued that government departments, neoliberal think tanks and, particularly, the popular media communicate overly simplistic messages about old age. However, in the following chapter a popular media source, The Evening Standard, is used to make the point that there is generational inequity in needing a £100,000 deposit to buy a house in London in 2013 (p. 138). By dismissing one form of evidence (popular media) but then going on to rely on it to make a point, the credibility of the core point – that intergenerational inequity is a complex issue – is diminished.
Another limitation of the book is the analysis of ageism. Ageism, age discrimination and age-based stereotyping are all dealt with summarily in Chapter 7, ‘Towards Age Equality?’ There is merit in Macnicol's point that there are ‘interpretative problems' with all of these issues. However, an opportunity is missed to explain why. Why not link these problems to others addressed earlier in the book? Given the historical slant in each chapter, one expected to see analysis of some obvious analogies such as the operationalisation of ageism and that of sexism; a concept with strong empirical and theoretical foundations. Also, in the same chapter, the author neglects an important aspect of neoliberal retrenchment; the practice of pitting one marginalised group against another in a race to compete for their narrow slice of the ‘public resources’ pie (Carney, Dundon and Ni Leime Reference Carney, Dundon and Ni Leime2012). All of these ‘interpretative problems’ point to a deeper epistemological challenge which is not directly acknowledged; that there are problems with how ageing societies construct knowledge of old age. This nuance is lost in favour of making generalised arguments about neoliberalism's pernicious influence.
The major contribution of this book is in terms of the political economy of ageing in the 21st century. It makes some links between economic and cultural impacts of demographic change; it uses evidence in interesting ways, and demonstrates the need for public debates on ageing to be revealed as falsely apolitical. This book is infinitely useful to social policy scholars and students seeking an up-to-date discussion of ageing and social policy in contemporary Britain.
Finally, Macnicol seems unconscious of the contribution his work could make to bringing together political economy and cultural perspectives on ageing. To push forward the agenda he has so convincingly outlined, future scholars should seek to analyse ‘feedback loops’ (Campbell Reference Campbell2003) that exist between economic policy and cultural change in a way where negative (or positive) interpretations of old age might impact on cultural expectations, and hence the social, economic and political behaviour of future cohorts as they reach old age.
