Pensions, ageing: a look back at the latest edition of the international conference on pension and ageing held on October 9^th and 10^th, 2025.

By Camille Chaserant (ESoPS Chair, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Marie Gaudier (DPS-CDC), Thibaut Heyer (ESoPS Chair-Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Gabin Langevin (DPS-CDC), Anne Lavigne (University of Orléans), Ronan Mahieu (DPS-CDC), Frédérique Nortier Ribordy (ESoPS Chair-Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Muriel Roger (ESoPS Chair-Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University) and Laurent Soulat (DPS-CDC)

Keywords: social cohesion, retirement, old age and health, career paths, inequalities

In addition to thematic scientific sessions dedicated to presenting and discussing the results of ongoing research, these two days were punctuated by two plenary sessions during which renowned researchers summarized the contributions of academic work on end-of-career trajectories and the effects of public policies on the employment of older workers. Each of the two days also ended with a round table discussion bringing together representatives from the academic world and organizations responsible for implementing public policies on retirement and aging (see the program).

Round table of October 9^th:

“What kind of care-giving for seniors at the local level in an aging society?”

With the aging of the French population, the share of people aged 60 and over is increasing over time, from 28% currently to almost 30% in 2030 and almost 33% in 2050. Along with aging, the number of people in situations of dependency will increase. This raises the question of how to care for seniors at the local level, along with many other related issues. What are the local needs related to loss of independence, and what services are available locally? Is the situation similar across departments, or is there significant variation across the country in terms of both demand and supply? What measures are currently in place at the local level? What adjustments have been made to housing and care facilities?

These questions were the subject of a round table discussion at the international conference on pension and aging held in Paris on October 9^th and 10^th, 2025. The discussion was moderated by Camille Chaserant (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University).

Regional disparities and diversity of needs

Mathieu Lefebvre (University of Strasbourg, CNRS) provided an initial assessment of needs: between 2 and 4 million people over the age of 60 experience limitations in their daily activities, representing between 10 and 20% of this population. However, only slightly more than 7% of people aged 60 and over receive APA (“Allocation Personnalisée d’Autonomie”), which is granted on a departmental basis. The proportion of APA beneficiaries (and not that of people with loss of autonomy who may have limitations and do not necessarily receive APA) varies according to both the heterogeneous aging of the departments and the variability in the assessment of APA eligibility conditions. Needs differ across France, depending on the nature of the limitations. In the north, the difficulties are mainly physical (washing, eating, climbing stairs), while in the south, cognitive needs (memory, concentration) are more pronounced. These differences can be explained by the economic and social history of these departments.

Elsa Perdrix’ (Paris Dauphine University – PSL) presentation was centered on a benchmark of services available, which includes a wide variety of home care providers: SAD, SSIAD, SPASAD, CCAS, CIAS [1], associations, and private actors. Nationally, there are a large number of providers (500,000 nurses, 400,000 nursing assistants, 125,000 places in SSIAD), but the distribution remains uneven between departments. Areas with a high number of facilities do not necessarily have a strong home care offering. Disparities also exist in terms of accommodation: 610,000 places in nursing homes, 140,000 in independent living facilities, but marked differences between regions, with a deficit in the south compared to the west. Finally, Elsa Perdrix underlined that urban accessibility (roads, transport) is an essential factor in enabling people to remain in their own homes, but remains a poorly documented subject. Local investment varies, which accentuates inequalities. Disparities in departmental funding (APA, ASH) also explain the differences observed: per capita expenditure and average amounts per beneficiary vary greatly.

Pathologies, care facilities, and innovation

Hélène Amieva (Inserm, University of Bordeaux) presented the most common pathologies among the elderly. Neurodegenerative diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s, are the leading cause of dependency. Parkinson’s syndromes are the second leading cause of dementia, while vascular dementia is expected to increase with longer life expectancy. Medical advances are enabling people with heart disease to live longer, but they then develop cognitive disorders linked to vascular damage.

Hélène Amieva also points out that depression, which has a similar prevalence to that in adults, remains poorly diagnosed in older people. The symptoms (fatigue, loss of appetite, sleep disorders) are often attributed to somatic pathologies, which masks the depression. Pharmacological treatments also pose a problem: antidepressants have not been tested in the elderly. Finally, sleep disorders are too often treated with benzodiazepines, prescribed indefinitely, which promotes cognitive disorders.

The Alzheimer’s village (village of Dax) is part of the response to neurodegenerative diseases, of which Alzheimer’s is the most common and the main cause of dependency. Hélène Amieva points out that these conditions, which are primarily age-related, require adapted environments that help preserve familiar landmarks and limit anxiety. The village model aims to provide a secure setting, but also a normal social life, in order to reduce isolation and associated cognitive disorders. It illustrates an innovative approach where medical care is discreetly integrated into a communal living space designed to maintain the independence and dignity of residents.

Catherine Jeantet (Âges & Vie) presented the shared housing model in rural areas: small houses for eight residents, often women, with an average age of 88, along with a team of 6 to 9 caregivers employed on permanent contracts. This model creates stable local jobs, paid above the minimum wage. The houses are located in 50 departments and financed through a real estate company owned by Banque des Territoires, Crédit Agricole, and Clariane. Medical care is coordinated with local professionals, but the lack of medical services in rural areas remains an obstacle. Catherine Jeantet emphasized that residents join these homes to break their isolation, after falls, or because their homes are no longer suitable. The model promotes social life and continuous human presence. Caregivers work in teams, with a rotating schedule and company housing. This system allows employees to settle down and anchors the activity in the local community. Every house yields approximately 50 000 euros per year in the local economy.

Local specificities and efforts to harmonize

Olivier Richefou (President of the Mayenne Departmental Council and Vice-President of the ADF) emphasized the significant regional disparities in the provision of care for dependent persons. According to him, the APA and ASH (“Aide Sociale à l’Hébergement”), which are funded by the departments, reveal considerable differences: for the same GIR, the amounts allocated can vary from single to double, and for disability, from one to three. These differences are due to the diversity of assessment practices carried out by multidisciplinary teams that do not have the same habits or criteria. Even within a single department, it is not uncommon to find differences between teams. To reduce these inequalities, departments are working with the CNSA, which plays a regulatory role and proposes average baskets to harmonize allocations. He also highlighted the diversity of the audiences and actors involved: nursing homes, independent living facilities, shared or intermediate housing. This plurality requires a convergence effort to ensure a consistent response.

Olivier Richefou then addressed the issue of the attractiveness of care professions. The salary increases resulting from the Ségur healthcare agreement were a step forward, but training remains insufficient and mobility problematic: home care workers often use their personal vehicles to travel to beneficiaries’ homes, without compensation for this working time. To remedy this, the CNSA has allocated €100 million to support mobility. In Mayenne, electric vehicles are made available to home care services, jointly funded by the department and employers, illustrating a concrete initiative to improve working conditions.

Finally, Olivier Richefou emphasized the need for better data centralization. Apart from the data provided by the Drees, the departments have little consolidated information. The CNSA is planning a common information system for the MDPHs, which should provide reliable and up-to-date data. Olivier Richefou concluded by pointing out that the aging population is increasing needs, in a context of budgetary constraints. The construction of nursing homes could slow down in favor of less expensive intermediate solutions that are better suited to users’ expectations. He also mentions the possibility of increased financial contributions from beneficiaries, particularly through their assets, and cites the example of differentiated rates in nursing homes, adjusted according to contributory capacity.

Véronique Levieux (Deputy Mayor of Paris in charge of seniors and intergenerational solidarity) emphasizes the unique nature of the capital, which is both a municipality and a department, with a population of over 480,000 people aged 60 and over, the majority of whom are women. She points out that Paris is experiencing the same aging trend as the rest of the country, but with significant disparities between districts and an urban density that accentuates vulnerabilities. In conjunction with the ARS, the municipality is anticipating these changes, notably with the construction of two new nursing homes, which will be added to the 79 existing ones (around 15 of which are managed by the CASVP). These establishments are envisaged as places of care but also as hubs of life and resources, capable of bringing together stakeholders in home care and the gerontology sector. It is necessary to diversify the offering, particularly for people with Alzheimer’s, with housing projects inspired by the village of Dax, despite the very heavy land constraints in Paris. The economic fragility of Parisian seniors is also a significant factor: while some are among the most affluent, others live in great precariousness, often on the minimum old-age pension. Retirement is therefore a critical period, marked by a loss of social and financial bearings. To respond to this diversity, Paris relies on solidarity centers in each district, which serve as gateways to rights and local resources. Véronique Levieux emphasized the importance of “reaching out” to reduce the under-use of rights by establishing a relationship of trust with seniors who are often withdrawn.

Prevention policies, which is another major focus, receive more than €6 million in annual funding from the commission responsible for financing loss of independence. These funds are used to adapt housing, combat isolation, and support local projects, particularly in neighborhoods where seniors are increasingly vulnerable. Social landlords play a key role: RIVP and Paris Habitat have developed longevity strategies, recruiting occupational therapists to assess needs and adapt housing. The private housing stock remains more difficult to mobilize, but schemes such as MaPrimeAdapt’ and SOLIHA’s work provide support. Véronique Levieux concluded by pointing out that Parisian seniors are not only beneficiaries of social policies, they are also active, volunteer-minded, and committed citizens who must be supported throughout their lives.

Detailed transcript of exchanges between Camille Chaserant, Hélène Amieva, Catherine Jeantet, Mathieu Lefebvre, Véronique Levieux, Elsa Perdrix, and Olivier Richefou

Round table discussion on October 10:

“Public policy: how is intergenerational solidarity changing?”

The round table discussion on October 10 was entitled “Public policy: how is intergenerational solidarity changing?” It was moderated by Anne Lavigne (University of Orleans) and brought together Didier Blanchet (IPP), Pierre Cheloudko (DREES), Pierre-Yves Cusset (HCSP), and André Masson (CNRS-PSE/EHESS). It addressed, in turn, an assessment of transfers between ages and generations, the tensions and possibilities for arbitration between different solutions to resolve intergenerational imbalances, and possible reforms to improve solidarity between generations.

Diagnosis of transfers between age groups

Pierre-Yves Cusset described the findings of the French National Transfer Accounts and the distributed national accounts: social protection spending is heavily concentrated on older age groups due to pensions, while taxes are mainly levied on the working population. Compared to 1979, seniors contribute more through taxation (particularly the CSG), while young people receive relatively less today. Aging is already largely absorbed, but it will continue to weigh on the future balance.

Pierre Cheloudko focused on intergenerational equity in the pension system. Pensions increased until the 1940s, then stagnated or declined slightly in constant euros. The replacement rate is on a downward trend, despite a temporary upturn linked to the 2010 reform (the postponement of retirements generating additional rights).

The length of retirement as a proportion of total life expectancy, after increasing until the 1945 generations, eclined before rising slightly again due solely to the effect of life expectancy. Synthetic indicators, such as the internal rate of return (IRR), show a continuous decline in the return on contributions.

Didier Blanchet broadened the perspective by referring to three types of debt that current generations are leaving behind: financial debt, implicit social debt (linked to the pay-as-you-go system), and climate debt. Public debt is not in itself an intergenerational risk if it remains financeable, but a crisis of confidence could jeopardize its sustainability. Implicit social debt is massive but is inherent in the logic of distribution; it becomes problematic when explicit deficits are created. Climate debt, which has emerged more recently in public debate, represents a major prospective cost between now and 2040 and threatens the capacity of future generations to take action: achieving climate targets will cost around 40 points of GDP between now and 2040, and the cost cannot be borne exclusively by the state, at the risk of an insolvency crisis.

André Masson takes a step back to look at the bigger picture and better understand the issues at stake, analyzing how wealth has changed over time. Since 1880, we have seen a continuous phenomenon of “patrimonialization,” with an explosion in the importance of wealth in the economy and an aging of its ownership. Baby boomers hold a significant share of real estate and financial assets and will be passing them on massively in the coming years, which will alter inequalities and markets (housing, labor, finance). The savings of seniors, which are abundant but poorly allocated, do not sufficiently finance productive investments in Europe and France.

Intergenerational tensions and trade-offs

The speakers discussed fairness criteria and emphasized that no single indicator is sufficient. Fairness must be considered holistically: what each generation receives (education, public heritage, environment) and passes on.

According to Pierre-Yves Cusset, net transfers show that children and seniors remain beneficiaries, while the working population finances the system. Between 1979 and 2019, generosity towards young people declined and the peak contribution age shifted towards older age groups, now standing at around 50. Seniors individually receive less than in the past, even though their numbers make financing more costly. Over the last few decades, spending has been contained and revenues increased, largely offsetting the effect of aging.

Pierre Cheloudko pointed out that intergenerational equity indicators are broken down into “raw” measures, but also into synthetic indicators that seek to capture overall equity. The most comprehensive indicator is the internal rate of return, which corresponds to the implicit return on contributions when compared to interest-bearing savings.

However, Didier Blanchet emphasized that the IRR alone cannot be used to define fairness: it depends on numerous trade-offs (retirement age, length of retirement, pension level). It is impossible to equalize all these dimensions; it makes more sense to equalize the IRR. However, caution is required when using it: in a pay-as-you-go system, the first generations had an infinite IRR, which was logical when the system was launched. The current problem stems from the coexistence of generations that still have high IRRs and high pension levels, which fuels intergenerational tensions, particularly around pension indexation. Equity must go beyond pensions: each generation also contributes to education, infrastructure, and the environment. A true intergenerational assessment would require a common unit of account to compare what each cohort receives and passes on.

André Masson showed that all generations today express specific frustrations: young people demand redistribution and recognition, working people feel that work no longer pays, and retirees want above all to secure funding for long-term care, which argues for mutualization financed by a specific contribution on pensions or assets.

Reforms to improve intergenerational solidarity

Improving the statistical system is a prerequisite: developing microsimulation, updating transfer accounts, and gaining a better understanding of wealth and inheritance.

In terms of public policy, stakeholders mention:
– streamlining pension indexation rules by aligning the exposure of workers and retirees to the vagaries of economic growth;
– better calibration of early retirement options;
– taking into account not only monetary transfers between generations, but also living conditions, housing, and material deprivation;
– reflection on the instruments for financing the ecological transition (carbon tax, subsidies, regulation) and their intergenerational effects;
– the creation of “transgenerational investments” backed by a revamped inheritance tax system, enabling senior savings to be directed towards investments for the future.

Find the detailed transcript of the discussions between Anne Lavigne, Didier Blanchet, Pierre Cheloudko, Pierre-Yves Cusset, and André Masson