Aging and Hyperaging in Different Institutional Skill Formation and Firm Organization Contexts: Older Workers’ Vocational Changing and Training in Germany and Japan

Societies in Germany and Japan are aging and hyperaging respectively because of longer lifespans and fewer children. This can motive, or force, workers to stay in the labor market longer than in the past, this can collide with firms pushing older workers out or into other areas. Successful transitions for both individuals and society more generally, requires acquisition of new skills to perform this work. In this study we investigate the learning and training activities, desires and potential barriers of adults in these two societies working in medium to large firms who are shortly before retirement. We hypothesize that the vertical organization of firms in Germany (where firms tend to operate in a single industry, as in Europe more generally) may lead to greater incidence of forced unemployment or retirement, whereas the horizontal organization of firms in Japan (where firms operate across industries, as in East Asia more generally) may keep workers employed in the same company but shift them to completely new jobs and/or industries. Using institutional skill formation regime perspectives and literature on firms in both countries, we hypothesize that society is better equipped in Germany to provide training for individuals outside of firms, but the highly embedded institutional structures in Germany may be slower to adapt to changing demographics and workers’ needs; at least when compared with a liberal market setting as in Japan. We have work-in-progress with PIAAC data to uncover if perceived barriers to training such as lack of time, opportunity or financial support differ in ways that reflect the different organizational forms and availability of training in these two societies. Finally, we aim to identify what types of change are observed among such workers based on their previous job tasks and industry, compared to their current ones as evidence of differential impact of firms.