More Than Simply Living Longer
Imagine someone leaving their main job in their early 50s, with decades of life still ahead. Will they be able to find decent work, retrain or choose to rest without losing economic security?
That question is becoming increasingly important as 2045 approaches, with Indonesia and South Korea undergoing demographic change at different speeds. A study by Wang and colleagues in American Psychologist (2011) shows that retirement is an adjustment process shaped by economic, health and psychological resources.
People’s experiences also differ, as van Solinge and Henkens (2008) discuss. Cooperation between the two countries should therefore focus on security and life choices, not merely on how long people work.
In South Korea, the issue is clear. The OECD’s Korea report (2024) records that the average age at which people left their main career jobs was about 52.7 in 2023. Many then take up other work, but new jobs do not always offer better conditions. A study by Lee and Kim in Social Science & Medicine (2017) linked transitions into precarious work in South Korea with poorer physical health.
Research by Kang and colleagues (2024) also connects employment trajectories with health through working conditions and material and social circumstances. Evidence from the United States shows that retirement transition patterns differ by gender (Shin et al., 2025). Policies cannot assume that all workers face the same circumstances.
Indonesia faces a different problem. A study by Tsuruga and Brimblecombe for the International Labour Organization (2025) estimates that, without reform, the national pension programme will cover only around three million beneficiaries by 2050 — less than five per cent of the projected older population.
This is a conditional projection, not the current number of beneficiaries. Research by Sato and Noguchi (2026), covering 35 countries, finds that the links between retirement, health and behaviour vary according to individual circumstances. South Korea therefore faces the challenge of the quality of work after a main career, while Indonesia faces a shortfall in income-protection coverage. Both need safer life transitions, but they do not necessarily need identical solutions.
The answer is not automatically to build new service centres. South Korea already offers later-life preparation services through the National Pension Service, including advice on finances, health, leisure and interpersonal relationships. Indonesia has Schools for Older People (Sekolah Lansia) and community networks that support older residents.
The question to examine is whether these services genuinely help people make decisions and access the support they need. A longitudinal study by Zhan and colleagues (2009) found health benefits associated with working after retirement, but a systematic review cautions that extending working life does not always have positive effects (Baxter et al., 2021).
This points to an opportunity for more measurable cooperation: Indonesia and South Korea could develop joint guidelines to assess the outcomes of life transitions through existing institutions. Success should not be measured only by how many people attend training or consultations. More important is whether they have greater income security, receive follow-up services, maintain social ties and can choose activities according to their wishes. Research by Kobayashi and colleagues in Japan (2022) shows that changes in social activity after retirement vary according to the age at which people retire. Not everyone has to keep working to be considered to be ageing well.
The cooperation could begin with three straightforward steps. First, the two countries could identify barriers faced by people leaving their main jobs or reducing their work, for example those aged 50–70. They could agree on comparable indicators while distinguishing the experiences of women and men, formal and informal workers, and people in different economic groups.
Research by Zhao and colleagues in South Korea (2023) found a two-way association between social engagement and self-rated health; a Japanese study also linked the environment with high social participation and the health of retired workers (Oshio et al., 2022). As these findings are observational, they provide a reason to measure social factors, not a guarantee that every community activity will improve health.
Second, each country could select one concrete barrier to address. If the problem in South Korea is that referrals to suitable jobs after counselling are inadequate, the relevant institutions could test improvements to job matching and follow-up. If people in Indonesia who qualify for protection are found not to be accessing it, local government and relevant institutions could clarify information and assign responsibility for referrals.
The Indonesia Age-Friendly Network in West Java could help gather participants’ experiences, without being treated as representative of all older Indonesians. Improvements should be chosen after a problem has been demonstrated, not decided in advance of diagnosis.
Third, the changes should be evaluated. How many referrals are completed? Do activity options match participants’ wishes? Have income security and social ties improved? Who has not benefited? A study by Chung and Kim in South Korea (2023) highlights the role of social support in the relationship between age-friendly environments and loneliness.
Assessment should therefore consider outcomes for different groups and the cost of improvements, rather than simply count activities. Personal data would remain under the control of each country; the elements that could be compared are indicators and aggregate findings.
What would each country gain? Indonesia could learn from South Korea’s experience in assessment, counselling and referrals. South Korea could gain insight into applying evaluation approaches in a different context of informal work and social protection. This potential benefit for South Korea remains to be demonstrated; it is not an officially stated need. A realistic shared outcome would be concise evaluation guidelines that can be adapted to each country’s powers and needs, rather than a new bilateral institution.
A diplomatic opportunity is available through the joint statement on the Indonesia–Korea Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, issued on 1 April 2026. The document opens the way for strategic dialogue, cooperation on statistics and data, and development cooperation in agreed areas. However, it does not establish a life-transition programme. A sensible next step would be to propose a limited technical study, specifying the implementing agencies, costs, indicators and data safeguards before launching a pilot.
As 2045 approaches, the success of a society in which people live longer should not be measured by how long everyone manages to keep working. The measure should be whether people retain security and dignity as work, income and family roles change. The Indonesia–Korea partnership will mean more if it can demonstrate that one barrier to transition can be addressed through existing services, and make later-life choices genuine choices.