Is there a tendency for democracies to pander to older voters?

Question

I will refer to the Triple Lock Pension in the UK as an example here:

"The triple lock was introduced in 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. It was a guarantee to increase the state pension every year by the higher of inflation, average earnings or a minimum of 2.5%." (source)

I am wondering what the reasoning behind it is? Is it a concession made by a government in an attempt to pander to older voters, who generally have a higher propensity to vote? From an economic point of view, such a pledge doesn't make sense. The UK has been going through a period of austerity, with total public spending dropping by 3% in real terms from 2010 to 2011.

Pensions represent a huge portion of the UK's budget (£138.1 billion as of 2013). Pledging to always increase it every year ties the government's hands, economically speaking, as other areas of government are forced to take a disproportionately higher cut in order to compensate.

From a moral perspective, is it fair to always expect an increase? When the UK is recovering from recession, and spending is at a deficit, is it reasonable for such a pledge to be in place?

Anyway, I have only recently started following politics myself, and as such I am not aware of the circumstances under which this pledge was made, so my question really boils down to the following:

Most Western democracies have aging populations, and statistics tend to suggest that older people are more likely to vote.

So if the premise of my question is correct, is it considered an issue (perhaps unfair to younger generations who will have to live out the consequences of votes which are more decided by the elderly)?

Is there a tendency for democracies to pander to older voters, and if yes, should it be considered as a problem?

Answer 1

Yes.... and no. There is a tendency to pander to voters. Not "voters" as in eligible voters, but voters as in more likely voters.

In the United States, younger voters vote the least, as a percentage of those eligible to vote. One study/group, called the "Election Project," run out of University of Florida, tracks voter turnout demographics. Breaking down the age groups to 18-29, 30-44, 45-59, and 60+, you see slightly less than a 10% difference, roughly, in participation between each age group, representing about a 30% participation disparity between the eldest and youngest groupings.

Election Project: US Voter Turnout Demographics

Voters who vote determine who gets elected. It makes sense that those who make it a point to participate would get pandered to more than those who don't.

Is it "fair" that the elderly have a greater say in decisions that, arguably, impact the younger as much or more? Absolutely. It is entirely within the power of younger voters to actively participate and make themselves a group to be pandered to. They chose not to, collectively, and therefore abdicated the opportunity to have their voices heard in a more meaningful way in those decisions. It's a choice, arguably, that was made by the voters, and the priorities of the politicians in that regard only reflect the will, or lack thereof, of the voting populace.

At least, in regards to the United States, that is.

Answer 2

I'm going to pass on the pandering question because you answer that affirmatively in your own question and the empirical evidence agrees with the supposition so overwhelmingly that a cursory review indicates it's true. Social Security in America is called the Third Rail of Politics precisely because if a politician dares touch it he dies.

As for the moral case, I will just offer a few tid bits of information. In most developed countries the richest co-horts are the elderly, by a long shot. The poorest are the young. That is not to say that there aren't elderly that are financially unstable. That's obviously the case. But what is also obvious is why are we subsidizing the most affluent at the expense of those that are the poorest. That doesn't make sense.

The growing divide between the rich and poor in America is more generation gap than class conflict, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal government data. The rich are getting richer, but what's received little attention is who these rich people are. Overwhelmingly, they're older folks.

Nearly all additional wealth created in the USA since 1989 has gone to people 55 and older, according to Federal Reserve data. Wealth has doubled since 1989 in households headed by older Americans. Not so for younger Americans. Households headed by people in their 20s, 30s and 40s have barely kept up with inflation or have fallen behind since 1989. People 35 to 50 actually have lost wealth since 1989 after adjusting for inflation, Fed data show.

Nor does the delaying of those payments make much sense. Consider if you were able to purchase a home or plan for your own retirement through investing earlier in life. The time value of money would make us all richer, if these assets were put to productive use sooner, rather than channels of consumption in retirement.

Answer 3

Is it a concession made by a government in an attempt to 'pander' to older voters, who generally have a higher propensity to vote?

Pretty much. See here.

is it considered an issue (perhaps unfair to younger generations...)

It's definitely considered an issue by the Labour Party as our elder brethren tend to vote Conservative (see the link above).

Whether it's unfair is, of course a matter of opinion. Unless there is evidence that the 18-24 cohort are being prevented from voting, there's a strong argument to say that it's their bed they're making (and presumably staying in /s).