13
the same cohorts of other civil servants, but lower for younger cohorts of military
personnel compared to the same cohorts of other civil servants. A raw difference-in-
difference estimate suggests a statistically significant reduction of 8.11 days for the
younger cohort. There is no difference across military and non-military employees with
regard to the probability of having any inpatient care visits (70 and 65 percent for the
1931-1932 and 1938-1939 cohorts respectively). From the second row from the end,
where the fraction of the dead is presented, we can see a reduction of mortality over
time for both groups of civil servants. However, this reduction is larger among military
employees.
6
Analysis
In this section we first show the impact of the reform on early retirement and labor
supply. In sections 6.2 and 6.3 we then present the results for days in inpatient care and
mortality respectively. In order to gain an understanding about possible causes to the
effects described in section 6.2 and 6.3, section 6.4 provides an analysis of
heterogeneous treatment effects. Section 6.5 provides a sensitivity analysis in which we
discuss results from alternative morbidity outcomes.
6.1
The impact of the reform on early retirement and labor supply
The fraction (given as a percentage) of individuals entering occupational pensions at a
given age, from the government employees born 1931-1940, is displayed in
18
The age-specific incidence for the military personnel is displayed in the left panel and
the incidence for the nonmilitary employees is displayed in the right panel. From this
figure, we can see that for the 1931 cohort, more than 60 percent of the military
employees received an occupational pension at the age of 60 and that around 10 percent
received it at the age of 55.
For the other civil servants from the same birth cohort, the corresponding numbers
are around 10 percent for both ages. However, what is most interesting in the figure is
the dramatic variation across cohorts in age, when entering occupational pension within
the military. This is not the case among the other civil servants. The most striking
variation is that more than 60 percent of the military employees born 1938-1939 entered
18
The 1940 cohort is included in the figure primarily to show the temporariness of the reform. As mentioned
previously, the reduction in personnel was expected to be completed already by 1994; hence, this cohort was not
given the same opportunities as the older cohorts. This is also clearly visible in the figure.
