Abstract
AbstractRetirement is often viewed as a reward for a working life. While many have reason to want a work-free retirement, not everyone does. Should working retirees have to give up their retirement pension and, consequently, their status as retirees? The answer, I argue, boils down to whether we conceive of retirement as free time (need-free) or as leisure (work-free). In this article, I put forward a liberal case in favour of free time, despite whether our liberalism leans towards perfectionism or neutralism, with social primary goods being a case in point. Applying this case for free time to retirement yields two significant policy implications. First, it demands “free synchronic combination” – that retirees may use their retirement pensions however they see fit, including to work. Second, it also yields “free diachronic combination” – that, within limits, individuals have discretionary control over how to combine retirement and work across time – thus challenging the idea that retirement should be available only in old age and not earlier in life. So far, the literature on free time focused only on narrow temporal units, such as hours and days, but there is much to gain by extending the concept into retirement.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference46 articles.
1. Ackerman B, Alstott A (1999) The stakeholder society. Yale University Press
2. Bammel G, Burrus-Bammel LL (1992) Leisure and Human Behavior, Second Edition. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers
3. Böll H (1986) Anecdote concerning the lowering of productivity. Stories Heinrich Böll, 628–630
4. Cohen GA (2011) Capitalism, Freedom, and the Proletariat. On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and other essays in Political Philosophy. Princeton University Press, pp 147–165
5. Dworkin R (1981) What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs 283–345
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献