Sally Folsom



April 7, 1999



Kingson, Eric R. and John B. Williamson. 1993. "The Generational Equity Debate: A

Progressive Framing of a Conservative Issue." Journal of Aging & Social

Policy 5 (3): 31 - 54.



The 1980's brought a change in the political climate in the United States and the

emergence of the generational equity debate. The generational equity debate

resulted in a political "tendency to frame important policy questions in terms of

fairness in the distribution of resources between generations. . ." The

generational equity debate is really an abstract concept; what really is the

debate? Is it a debate of "fairness between high- and low-income members of

society" or is it about competition between different age groups or birth cohorts

(31 - 32)?



The early argument was that "today's younger cohorts and children were at a

disadvantage because too many resources were devoted to elderly persons who were

not in great need." All of the politically-related economic problems, such as the

depleting Social Security funds, the rising health care costs, and the growing

federal deficit were the fault of today's elderly. Because of them, "members of

younger cohorts could look forward to dismal retirements" (33). The attitude in

the 1980's was that it was time to turn this situation around. It was during that

time that AGE (Americans for Generational Equity) emerged and worked to get

generational equity placed as a priority on the national agenda.



People on the other side of the debate agree that generational equity is an

important issue and understand the need for preparing to adequately provide for

today's young in their elder years, but they feel the problems of the debate are

framed inaccurately. These people suggest "the generational equity concept

functions to 'permit abdication of the state from responsibility for human needs

and massive budgetary reallocations to defense and tax cuts for the wealthy.'"

They feel the debate is one more between high- and low-income groups than it is

between specific age cohorts (34).



The older population (65+) is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate over

the next few decades. This can be viewed as a positive reflection of the many

advances that have been made in improving the health and welfare of Americans

throughout their life course. As a result, the elderly are able to contribute to

society in valuable ways for much longer than time spans than they could in the

past. On the negative side, however, is the increased competition between

generations that occurs with increasing life spans. The challenge becomes one of

"how to meet the growing needs of elders" while still providing adequately for

the needs of the younger generations. According to the authors, "advocates of a

generational equity approach to public policy view population trends as clear

evidence that the nation will be overwhelmed by its aging members unless a new

course is adopted." Others say that the trends themselves cannot be looked at so

pessimistically; instead, they signify a challenge for our society and political

climate (36).



While some Americans have fared well in today's economic climate, others have

been rather disadvantaged. This is not just true with the elderly, but with the

population as a whole. With the "loss of manufacturing jobs and the increase of

lower-paying service-sector jobs" incomes have substantially dropped in recent

years, especially for those with low levels of education. Interestingly, however,

"household incomes of the cohort of people aged 65 and older rose" when compared

to previous cohorts of elders. This, for many, added fuel to the generational

equity debate. Generational inequity was reflected, during this time, in the

increase of children under 18 living under the poverty level and a much smaller

percentage of elders (when compared to children) living in poverty (38).



Another negative aspect of this time period is the loss of faith Americans

adopted toward public and private institutions. With all of the turmoil of

savings and loan scandals, backlash from Watergate and the Vietnam War, two

Social Security financing crises, and a stock market crash, the 1970's and 1980's

were times of low tolerance and low confidence in the U.S. Congress and other

public institutions (organized religion, banking, etc. . .). Given this history,

the public is still undoubtedly skeptical of the abilities of public and private

institutions to offer any potential solutions to the so-called generational

equity debate. With the emergence of social tensions came a need to have someone

to blame--the elderly were a good, easy target; however, this led to the

emergence of a new, false stereotype of the elderly. With the emergence of the

generational equity debate came a change in the stereotypes of elders from "weak,

ill, and poor" to "healthy and well-heeled." Neither stereotype is accurate.

There is much diversity within the elderly population; something policy issues

fail to recognize and address.





Defining Generational Equity



 Generational equity is a topic that spans many policy discussions and,

whether recognized or not, is apparent and, perhaps, at the core of each policy

decision that exists. The main concern of this issue, for some, is that "children

are not getting their fair share. To others it is tied to discomfort over large

federal deficits and to their view that too many resources are being directed

toward current elders." There isn't a debate about the need for equity among

generations; the debate surrounds whether generational equity should be

emphasized more than any other type of fairness (that between the rich and poor;

the haves and have-nots) as some form of public policy.



The main argument is that the government has devoted too much effort and too many

resources toward the elderly and not enough toward the nation's children. A 1984

influential article "pointed to the overall deterioration beginning in the 1960's

in the economic, family, and educational status of children and noted the

improving status of elderly persons and growing public investment in programs

that primarily serve elders" (41).  From this point on, it has been believed that

favoritism has been given to elder programs. This favoritism is what is believed

to have caused the current generational inequity. It is believed that there

should be an equal distribution of public expenditures for children and the

elderly. This, however, would not necessarily guarantee fairness or equality. So,

how do we fix this problem?



It seems that what is actually need is a focus on fairness between the rich and

the poor, not between the old and the young. It is important to focus on

developing "minimum standards of adequacy for all" (41). Focusing on the

age-based differences in services, to some, seems absurd. These people say that

if things are to be "equal" between children and elders there is either going to

have to be a significant shift in the way we provide care and services for the

elders or the children in our society. Either resources and care for elders will

have to begin to be provided primarily through private efforts (as children's

primary care currently is) or children's primary care should begin to be

subsidized/funded through "substantial public transfer of resources through

federal programs" as elder care currently is (Medicare, Medicaid, Social

Security, etc. . .). Which option seems most logical? Which seems most feasible?

According to some, the argument of generational equity "leads to the absurd

conclusion that families should equalize the type and amount of care and

resources they transfer to each child and each elderly family member" (42). Well,

should they? Is this really such an "absurd" claim?



Destructuring Society  The

generational equity approach is a destructuring strategy that aims to demolish

the current structure of society and work to develop a new structure that focuses

less on providing for the elderly. One of the goals of this strategy is to

degrade the current Social Security system by demonstrating its weaknesses and

"undercut the contractual image of the program" by making more younger people

believe they have no claim to benefits in the future. This would result in less

support for spending and less resistance to cutting costs for such programs.

Ultimately, the generational equity approach to policy has served "to scapegoat

the elderly and help to build the agenda for individuals and organizations who

wish to shrink the public sector and encourage the privatization of social

welfare" (45), another way of destructuring and restructuring society.



Policy Advancement  The

generational equity debate should be a warning to elder advocates and be seen as

a chance to advance policies and programs that benefit all age groups. The

current thought is that "something may not be entirely right in the way elder

policies and advocacy are executed" and there need to be changes made to improve

policies and advocacy not just for the elderly, but for all members of society. 

It "calls for an assessment of the weaknesses implicit in current approaches to

policy directed toward elderly persons" as well as provides an opportunity for

the advancement of new ideas regarding social policy (46 - 47).



What different approach(es) should be considered?  Should policy issues still be

separated into age-based issues or is it more of an income-based issue?  Some

elders are more needy than others are.  Program and/or policy proposals which

might benefit some elders may not benefit others and those age-based programs or

policies that are intended to help needy elders will also benefit those elders

who are not in need if assistance (tax breaks, Social Security, Medicare, etc. .

.).  Should program/policy development focus on age or on need?  Should age

really be an issue?  Or should policy solely be focused on need and not on age? 

Focusing all policy solely on need would get rid of the generational equity

debate because all people in need would be eligible for benefits, but would

require much policy change.  Would it be worth it?  Conclusion



I agree with a statement made by the authors: "Americans should join other

advanced industrial nations in establishing the minimum standards of decency

every citizen deserves regardless of age."  This can be accomplished by

"developing policy based on a life-course perspective, which recognizes that

well-being in old age is related to interventions throughout the life course." 

The big move that needs to be made (or at least considered) is the move to

analyze and question the moral base of our welfare state.  Is it morally sound? 

Does it reflect the morals of our country?  Does it reflect the morals we want

our country to embrace and uphold?  With the upcoming increase in the elderly

population, this is an issue that cannot be ignored.



Personally, I agree with the suggestions given by the authors.  With the dramatic

changes in our population, there is definitely going to be a need for policy

changes.  Such changes will have to look at our nation's morals and values.  I

feel policy issues will have to focus on less age-based issues and more

need-based issues in order to eliminate any possible generational inequity. 

Doing away with the attitude of entitlement society holds towards the elderly

could do this.  This attitude "may be undermining the willingness of even the

more economically secure elders to share in such social burdens as building

schools. . . repairing roads, restoring parks," and supporting other public

service projects.  We need, instead, to focus on the elderly as potential

positive contributors to society.  We need to work on building on the strengths

of those elders who are still strong (physically, financially, emotionally, and

psychologically) enough to contribute to the benefit of society.  In turn,

society should work to develop morals and values that will shift public policy to

more of a generational equity approach where all people of all ages are eligible

to receive services/assistance if certain qualifications are met and they are in

need.  No one would be guaranteed any type of entitlement at any time during

life, but all would be guaranteed enough assistance to keep him or her at a level

of subsistence.  This would result in a change from the current age-based

perspective to the development of a much-needed life-course perspective to

policies and programs.





list of articles Sally Folsom