The debate over retirement age is once again igniting political and public discourse across Europe. On May 22, Denmark broke new ground by becoming the first country in Europe to legislatively commit to raising its retirement age to 70 by 2040. The move is part of a broader, long-term strategy by the Danish government to align pension systems with increasing life expectancy, economic sustainability, and labor force participation.
However, the decision hasn’t gone unnoticed—or unchallenged—on the other side of the continent. In France, where the retirement age was only recently pushed from 62 to 64 after months of contentious protests and national strikes, the news was met with a mix of skepticism and outright disapproval. Among those who were quick to voice strong opposition was former presidential candidate and political heavyweight Ségolène Royal.
Speaking on RTL radio on May 23, Royal dismissed the idea of France adopting a similar measure as unrealistic and dangerous, describing it as “propaganda” and “disconnected from the lived reality of French workers.” Her comments come at a pivotal moment, as France continues to grapple with its own retirement reform backlash and seeks long-term solutions for a strained pension system.
Denmark’s Bold Leap to 70
Denmark’s decision is part of a long-standing policy to link retirement age to demographic trends. Under the new rules, Danes born after January 1, 1971, will be eligible for retirement at age 70—three years later than the current legal age of 67. Though the policy will be implemented gradually over the next 15 years, its implications are significant.
The system, which is reassessed every five years based on life expectancy data, includes both public pension provisions and a robust element of private savings—commonly referred to as a capitalized pension model. This hybrid structure is considered more financially sustainable in the long run, especially as European populations continue to age.
Still, the reform is deeply unpopular among Danish citizens. Recent surveys reveal that two out of three Danes are opposed to the change, indicating widespread concerns about quality of life, health, and job sustainability at an advanced age. Critics argue that the new age threshold may be suitable for office workers and executives but not for manual laborers and those in physically demanding professions.
This concern is not lost on French observers, particularly Royal, who underscored that retirement policy must account for the diversity of working conditions and health disparities among various segments of the population.
France’s Retirement Struggles: A Different Reality
France’s own recent pension reform journey has been anything but smooth. The government’s decision in 2023 to raise the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 sparked massive nationwide protests, strikes, and political unrest. For many, the change was seen not only as an economic adjustment but as an assault on social protections and hard-won labor rights.
This backdrop makes Denmark’s approach a hard sell in France. “We’re not in the same situation as Denmark,” Royal said during her RTL interview. “Trying to copy their system is misleading. It’s propaganda.”
Royal emphasized that the social and labor dynamics in France differ significantly from those in the Nordic country. “In Denmark, the retirement system is far more flexible. People have the option to retire based on the nature of their jobs and personal situations. In France, unfortunately, we’ve moved backward on such flexibility—particularly when it comes to accounting for physically demanding work.”
She pointed out a glaring issue in the French system: the lack of adequate consideration for job hardship. “We’ve weakened the criteria that determine what qualifies as a physically demanding job, and that’s a step in the wrong direction,” she said. “There is absolutely no justification for asking someone in a physically taxing profession to work until 70.”
The Case for Flexibility in Retirement
Royal argued in favor of a more individualized, “retirement à la carte” model—one that would allow workers to choose their retirement age within a given range, depending on their profession and career trajectory. “Already today, in executive positions and many roles within the public sector, people work until 68. That’s understandable for those who want to continue and can. But we cannot ignore the fact that life expectancy and health outcomes are not uniform across the board,” she said.
One of her strongest arguments centers on the disparities in life expectancy between socio-economic groups. “The difference in life expectancy between a manual laborer and a senior executive can exceed ten years. That’s not a minor gap—it’s a social injustice,” she explained. “Policies that fail to recognize this are inherently unfair.”
This viewpoint resonates with a large portion of the French public. A January 2025 survey conducted by Elabe for BFMTV found that 62% of French respondents were in favor of returning to the previous retirement age of 62. The majority of these individuals cited concerns over health, work-life balance, and the physical demands of their professions.
The Capitalization Debate
Royal also touched on another sensitive issue in the pension reform discussion: the role of capitalized pensions, or retirement schemes that rely on private investment funds. Denmark’s retirement system includes such a component, where workers contribute to privately managed funds that grow over time through investments in financial markets.
While such models are praised for their sustainability and long-term gains in stable markets, they also carry significant risks—especially during financial downturns.
Royal made it clear that she is firmly opposed to introducing such a mechanism in France. “We must be extremely cautious. Letting private investment funds handle our pensions is a slippery slope,” she warned. “It opens the door to hedge funds and pension managers whose primary goal is to make a profit, not to safeguard the retirement security of our citizens.”
She emphasized the advantages of France’s pay-as-you-go public pension system, which is based on intergenerational solidarity. “With our system, there are no shareholders to appease, no dividends to distribute. Every euro goes toward paying current retirees. It’s transparent and equitable.”
According to her, switching to a capitalized model could expose pensioners to the volatility of the financial markets. “During financial crises, when investment funds collapse, people could lose their entire retirement savings. That’s not hypothetical—it has happened before, and it can happen again. We cannot gamble with people’s futures.”
Looking Ahead: Reform with Fairness
While the need for pension reform is acknowledged across the political spectrum, the real question lies in how to do it fairly. Ségolène Royal’s position reflects a growing sentiment among the French population: that reforms must not only be economically viable but also socially just.
In her view, solutions should focus on adaptability and protecting the most vulnerable. “We need a retirement system that recognizes the diversity of work and life paths,” she insisted. “It should allow those who wish to continue working to do so, but equally, it must allow those who have spent their lives doing physically demanding jobs to retire with dignity, not exhaustion.”
Whether France will heed this call remains to be seen. For now, Denmark’s leap to retirement at 70 has made waves—but as Royal and many others argue, it may not be the model France needs. Instead, flexibility, nuance, and above all, fairness, must be at the heart of any future reform.