AAG Gary Andrews Visiting Fellow Invited ArticleActive ageing: Realising its potentialAlan WalkerUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TU, UK

IntroductionActive ageing is now established as the leading global policystrategy in response to population ageing. This pre-eminencewas assured by its promotion by international governmentalorganisations (IGOs) such as theWorld Health Organisation,UnitedNations andOrganisation for Economic Co-operationand Development. In practice, however, the term activeageing often serves merely as a convenient label for a widerange of contrasting policy discourses and initiatives concern-ing ageing and demographic change. A key theme of thisarticle is that this lack of clarity about precisely what activeageing entails is a serious barrier to its widespread adoption asa policy strategy. There are other barriers too and these arealso examined. It is argued that the over-emphasis on produc-tivity and the labour market in active ageing discourses hasdetracted from the major potential of this approach topromote much wider well-being across all age groups. Thusthe article concludes with an outline of the steps necessary torealise this greater potential.

A key reference point for active ageing as a policy conceptand one of the main reasons why it has attracted globalinterest is demographic ageing and its social and economicimplications but, as these are already well known, they willnot be repeated here. Policy interest in active ageing hastended to follow in the wake of demographic change. BecauseEurope is the oldest region in the world it is not surprisingthat the idea of active ageing has been a prominent policyinterest there for some time [1,2]. Indeed 2012 was desig-nated as the European Year of Active Ageing and SolidarityBetween the Generations. In countries where the demo-graphic transition has come later than in Europe the policydiscourses on active ageing have also been delayed but theyare certainly present, especially in Australia [3] and, increas-ingly, in Asia [4]. Whilst as we shall see later, couched inslightly different terms the US scientific analysis of therelationship between ageing and activity dates back to the1950s, it was the WHO that turned the idea of active ageinginto a global policy concept [57] a status confirmed by theMadrid International Action Plan on Ageing [8].

The origins of active ageingAlthough the actual term active ageing is of relatively recentorigin its roots stretch back to the 1950s and 1960s when theactivity perspective in gerontology was developed. This wasderived from the empirical observation of the connection

between different forms of physical activity and well-being[9]. This approach was a reaction to what was the first majortheory of social gerontology, disengagement, which arguedthat old age is an inevitable mutual period of withdrawalfrom roles and relationships [10]. Activity theorists recog-nised that this was an erroneous, depressing and empiricallyweak conception of later life. From a much sounder empiricalvantage point the activity perspective argued that the key tosuccessful ageing [11,12] was the maintenance in old age ofthe activity patterns and values typical of middle age [1315].In short, successful ageing was to be achieved by denying theonset of old age and by replacing those relationships, activi-ties and roles of middle age that are lost, with new ones inorder to maintain life satisfaction and well-being.

Later Rowe and Kahn extended their initial model of success-ful ageing to focus on three main components: low probabil-ity of disease and disease-related disability, high cognitiveand physical functional capacity, and active engagement withlife. In the US this idea became a reference point for publicand political discourses on ageing and made an importantcontribution to the case for rejecting the negative notion thatolder age is an inevitable succession of losses [16]. It alsoattracted scientific interest to inquire into the factors thatdetermine ageing well and also clinical practitioner interest todevelop preventative measures [17]. In essence there was asubtle shift in the research and practice focus from thosedoing poorly to those doing well [18].

While successful ageing derived from the broad activityperspective, the adjective successful brought a negativejudgment to the concept which has proved to be its majorweakness [2]. For one thing it placed an unrealistic expecta-tion on ageing individuals themselves to maintain levels ofactivity and to defeat the causes of disease. Overlooked werenot only the biological or anatomical limitations but also theeconomic and social structures that frequently inhibit orprevent people from remaining active enforced retirementand age discrimination being obvious examples [1921]. Inmoral terms the adjective successful implies that there arenecessarily winners and losers in the ageing process. This istrue of course, because ageing is unequal everywhere [22] butthe fault is less often with individuals than society. Moreoverit is stigmatising to label someone unsuccessful because theyhave a disease or disability, the origins of which are likely tobe beyond their personal influence. Finally, even if a personsuffers from such limitations, they may still engage in a rangeof activities and experience a relatively high quality of life[23,24]. In other words, they may regard their ageing assuccessful despite apparent limitations. Notwithstanding itscontinuing currency, the idea of successful ageing tends to beexclusionary and discriminatory and also lacks a clear singledefinition. Nonetheless the empirical link between activity

Correspondence to: Prof. Alan Walker, Department of SociologicalStudies at University of Sheffield. Email: a.c.walker@sheffield.ac.uk

bs_bs_banner

DOI: 10.1111/ajag.12219

2 Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

and well-being in later life, established by the activity school,remains true today and has an even stronger evidence base.

In the 1980s the concept re-surfaced in the US in the guise ofproductive ageing. Its emergence reflected various socio-political developments. Researchers had begun to shift thefocus of ageing research from older people to the process ofhuman development over the life course. Underlying thisattention to the life coursewas the realisation that chronologi-cal age is not a good predictor of performance. A significantgroup of older US citizens were making it clear that theywanted something else besides leisure and family obligationsafter traditional retirement. Productive ageing became arallying cry for elder advocates and others looking for a morepositive approach to ageing [25]. These changes chimed veryclosely with policy-makers growing concerns about thepension and health care costs of an ageing population and theytoo were keen to extend productivity. Thus active ageing wasraised at the G8 Summit in Denver in June 1997 and delegatesdiscussed ways of removing disincentives to labour forceparticipation and lowering barriers to part-time employment.Since then it has become a key feature of social policy propos-als from the European Union (EU) and the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Most of the variants of productive ageing are focussed nar-rowly on the production of goods and services and thereforetend to be instrumental and economistic. For example, pro-ductivity means activities that produce goods and servicesthat otherwise would have to be paid for [26] or, morebroadly, productive ageing is any activity by an older indi-vidual that produces goods or services, or develops the capac-ity to produce them, whether they are paid for or not [25].

Partly in reaction to the deficiencies of the successful andproductive ageing concepts, the idea of active ageing began toemerge in the 1990s, under the influence of the WHO, which,not surprisingly, emphasised the vital connection betweenactivity and health [27] and the importance of healthy ageing[5,28]. Given the link with health and the influence of theEuropean Union (EU) on its development, this approach toactive ageing has focussed on a broader range of activitiesthan those normally associated with production and thelabour market, and has emphasised health and the participa-tion and inclusion of older people as full citizens (see forexample Walker, [29,30]). The thinking behind this newapproach is expressed perfectly in the WHO dictum yearshave been added to life now we must add life to years [30].This suggests a general lifestyle strategy for the preservationof physical and mental health as people age rather than justtrying to make them work longer. Thus the essence of theemerging modern concept of active ageing is a combinationof the core element of productive ageing plus a strong empha-sis on quality of life and mental and physical well-being[31,32]. The WHO [5,6], for example, sees active ageing interms of the health, independence and productivity of olderpeople and defines it as:

the process of optimising opportunities for health, partici-pation and security in order to enhance quality of life aspeople age [7].

Active ageing in this conceptualisation concerns theoptimisation of activities related to a wide range of endeav-ours: employment, politics, education, the arts, religion,social clubs and so on, as well as increasing the paid andunpaid contributions older people make to society, chal-lenging views of older age which emphasise passivity anddependency by alternatively emphasising autonomy andparticipation. At the same time there is an emphasis onactivities designed to ensure protection, dignity and care ofolder people, including physical, social and financial needsand rights [33]. The WHO (2002) [2] definition addedfurther impetus to the case for re-focusing perceptions ofageing away from employment and productivity (whichrisks the marginalisation of those unable to work or whochoose not to) towards a more holistic approach whichconsiders a variety of factors which contribute to well-being, in connected policy terms, including quality of life,mental and physical well-being and participation [34].

Barriers to active ageingDespite the radical promise of the WHO formulation ofactive ageing and its rhetorical prominence in Europe andacross the globe the actual realisation of this promise, interms of fully formulated and implemented strategies, isincredibly limited. Any radical policy proposal faces barriersto acceptance and take-up because institutions and profes-sions are inherently conservative in nature and, through theirbureaucratic rules, training and supervision processes, theyconstantly reproduce this conservatism. But, in the case ofactive ageing, while the concept is at least superficiallyappealing to policy-makers, there are additional barriers tothorough acceptance and implementation. Five such barriersare identified here.

First and perhaps foremost are two distinct political barriers.On the one hand there is a simple confusion about aims andpurposes while, on the other, there is a purposeful and some-times cynical hijack of the concept which both betrays itsoriginal intentions and denies its radical potential.

The policy confusion arises primarily out of the array ofcognate terms that are employed simultaneously to describeageing well: successful ageing, productive ageing, healthyageing, positive ageing, optimal ageing and so on. Of coursethere is always a risk attached to the transfer of scientificterms into policy and popular discourses that their originalmeanings and intentions will be forgotten, purposely or oth-erwise. Scientists must themselves take some of the blame forboth using terms loosely, as synonyms, and for failing tocorrect incorrect usage in the policy domain. As indicated inthe previous section, successful ageing and active ageing aretwo fundamentally different concepts and should be recog-nised as such. The continuing tendency for US academics to

A c t i v e a g e i n g : R e a l i s i n g i t s p o t e n t i a l

3Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

favour successful ageing means that they are, in effect,speaking a different language to their European counterpartswho favour active ageing. (The idea of positive ageingfavoured in Australia appears to be an attempt to capture thebest of both worlds but the adjective positive carries some ofthe same disadvantages as successful). The important pointis not a semantic but a policy one: in policy terms theimplications of these two formulations are very different.Similarly with the term often conjoined to active ageing,healthy ageing. The latter is an important idea and goal but itis not the same as active ageing. Healthy ageing concernshealth and health interventions and, therefore, is mono-dimensional, it tends to be institutional in focus (healthservices) and top-down in operation. In other words it privi-leges professional perspectives. In contrast active ageing ismulti-dimensional and demands a joined-up approach thatincludes health. It favours wide stakeholder engagement andis inclusive rather than exclusive. In practice healthy ageingshould be treated as an important sub-set of active ageing,but this is rarely the case. The EU, for example, frequentlyemploys the couplet active and healthy ageing and its stra-tegic framework for research and innovation includes amajor initiative on active and healthy ageing [35,36].

The second political barrier is ideological and hence muchmore fundamental than the issue of nomenclature. Under theinfluence of neo-liberalism, promoted by international gov-ernment organisations such as theOECD, policy-makers havecome to see the concept of active ageing as a narrowlyproductivist one. Thus an idea that is intended to embrace thewhole life course, with a focus on human development, hasbecomeapolicy instrument almost exclusively concernedwithencouraging, enabling and even forcing older people to worklonger. This tendency is particularly marked in Europe and itsevolution has been discussed elsewhere [1,36]. The workinglonger priority is dominant at national level in the EUand also,at European level, it has had high political prominence. Forexample the Lisbon Agenda, which set the strategic frame-work forEUpolicies between2000and2010, included the keytargets to increase to 50% the employment rate of those aged5564 years and the average retirement age by five years targets incidentally that few EU countries achieved in the caseof the former and none achieved in the case of the latter [1,37].

It would be wrong to suggest that the narrow productivistinterpretation of active ageing as working longer is so domi-nant that it excludes other interpretations and clearly thereare competing ones within the European Commission (theEUs governing body) itself. Thus we may contrast thesefollowing statements. The first is from a demographic reportand the second is from the announcement that 2012 wouldbe the European Year for Active Ageing and SolidarityBetween Generations.

Active ageing constitutes in itself a comprehensive andsustainable approach which must employ a range of toolsbeyond retirement reforms [38].

The European Year 2012 aims to help create better jobopportunities and working conditions for the growingnumber of older people in Europe, help them to take anactive role in society and encourage healthy ageing [35].

Faced with policy-makers ambivalence it is not difficult tosee why Europe has not succeeded in developing a concertedstrategy for active ageing which all of the potentially influen-tial policy domains. Given this situation, the neo-liberalreduction of active ageing to working longer remains themain policy goal.

The second barrier to active ageing is cultural. Of highestimportance here are misleading and often damaging stereo-types. The most common active ageing stereotype is of asuper-fit pensioner who performs extraordinary feats of gym-nastics or athletics. Such stereotypes severely distort themeaning of active ageing by transforming it from a poten-tially mass pursuit to an exclusive minority one. Althoughthere is no evidence to support this contention, these mislead-ing stereotypes are likely to deter anyone other than the fityoung-old from believing that active ageing has any relevanceto their lives. Moreover, these stereotypes always emphasisephysical prowess and rarely focus on mental capacity.

Although without the same global impact as ageist stereo-types there is evidence of a semantic barrier created by theterm active ageing, in one region at least. In the centralEuropean, Eurasian, Commonwealth of Independent States(Russian Federation, Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and soon) active ageing has two negative connotations. On the onehand it means accelerated ageing at the individual levelbecause of the impact of harsh living and working conditionsleading to premature death. At the societal level, on the otherhand, it means rapid ageing due to low fertility and highmortality among the young [39]. In this, albeit limited case, itis clear that an alternative term, such as healthy ageing, isessential.

The third barrier is bureaucratic. As indicated active ageingrequires a holistic approach but governments, local andnational, are not geared to respond to such strategic needs.Instead, everywhere (even in socialist China) responsibilitiesare strictly divided between ministries and departments. Thisdivision of labour encourages silo thinking and militatesagainst the implementation of an effective active ageingapproach. In the same vein this division supports the reduc-tion of the strategic potential of active ageing only to olderworkers or older people, rather than emphasising the full lifecourse. Thus, in governments everywhere, older people andchildren are usually represented by (usually separate) minis-tries but no-one is responsible for ageing.

The fourth barrier, or set of barriers, is societal. This includesthe age segmentation that predominates across thought andpractice in all developed societies. As illustrated below thetraditional paradigm segments the life course into three

W a l k e r A

4 Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

major stages. Although the life course and working life havebeen transformed over recent decades the former forexample by increased longevity and the latter by the replace-ment of secure careers for significant sections of the workingpopulation by insecure and discontinuous employment [40] social institutions and popular discourses still operate asif the traditional model were the dominant one. Thisembeddedness again encourages silo thinking in policy andpractice: active ageing is for the retired and so on. In contrast,an age integrated paradigmwhich does not tie major life rolesand pursuits to fixed age categories [41] opens the door to alife course active ageing approach (see Figure 1).

Equally important are the barriers created by age discrimina-tion or ageism [19,21,42]. These can include direct discrimi-nation, when older workers are excluded from jobs orvulnerable older patients are abused, but also encompassesless direct, more insidious, stereotyping such as when olderpeople are described as a burden or accused of robbingresources from the young. Discrimination has two unfortu-nate effects. On the one hand it excludes and stigmatisesolder people, particularly frail older people and, on the other,it encourages younger people to ignore later life, to push it tothe back of their minds. Both effects limit the potential of theactive ageing concept and policies arising from it. Forexample among older people there is often a resigned stoi-cism at my age what can you expect? which militatesagainst active engagement.

The fifth barrier is unequal ageing the deep-seated inequali-ties that exist both between older people and, over the lifecourse, between different age groups. Within countries thereare inequalities between different groups of older people,based on social class, gender and race, which segment theexperience of later life. These inequalities are usually creatednot in old age but at earlier stages of the life cycle [22]. Thereare also substantial inequalities in ageing and later lifebetween countries at similar levels of development. In the EUthere are large differences between member states in healthylife expectancy 10 years between Denmark and Estonia for

example [43]. There are huge disparities between rich andpoor countries the global north and south. These threeaspects of unequal ageing make the task of implementing anactive ageing strategy more difficult than it already is becausethey call for flexibility in the design and implementation ofsuch a strategy when the preference of policy markers isinvariably closer to one size fits all.

These five barriers help to account for the fact that theconcept of active ageing is not yet reaching its full potential inglobal policy terms. So, what steps are necessary to confrontthese barriers and enable the comprehensive approach that iscalled for? The next section considers this question.

Realising the potential of active ageingAs indicated above there are formidable barriers confrontinga comprehensive active ageing approach of the kind origi-nally espoused by the WHO. Some of these stem directlyfrom ideology and are beyond the scope of this article. Thefight for social justice is taking place elsewhere but we shouldbe in no doubt about its importance for the active ageingagenda [44]. Here my concern is with the nature of the activeageing strategy itself, adopting the scientists public role toensure that policy makers and wider society are adequatelyequipped to pursue specific goals. Thus it is essential to startby clarifying what an active ageing strategy should look like,including the principles upon which it should be based. This,in turn, will expose its promise and the opportunities itcontains. Seven key principles have been proposed as thebasis for a strategy on active ageing to ensure that it is bothcomprehensive and consistent [34].

First of all, activity should consist of all meaningful pursuitswhich contribute to the well-being of the individual con-cerned, his or her family, local community or society at largeand should not be limited only to paid employment or pro-duction. Thus, in terms of active ageing, volunteering shouldbe as highly valued as paid employment. Secondly, it shouldbe primarily a preventative concept. This means involving allage groups in the process of ageing actively across the wholeof the life course. The challenge of prevention is summarisedin the following diagram showing the path of the commondecline in functional capacity with age, until the disabilitythreshold is crossed (Figure 2). The aim of active ageing is toprevent such a decline and maintain capacity for as long aspossible. Although the diagram illustrates physical capacity asimilar path is followed by many cognitive functions.

Thirdly, active ageing should encompass all older people,even those who are, to some extent, frail and dependent. Thisis because of the dangers, hinted at earlier, that a focus onlyon the young-old will exclude the old-old and the fact thatthe link between activity and health (including mental stimu-lation) holds good into advanced old age [5]. There is also animportant gender aspect to this principle in that most of thevery old are women. Thus this strategy is framed to begender-sensitive not gender neutral [2]. Fourthly, the mainte-

Figure 1: Life course segmentation.

Source: [36] (derived from [41]).

A c t i v e a g e i n g : R e a l i s i n g i t s p o t e n t i a l

5Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

nance of intergenerational solidarity should be an importantfeature of active ageing. This means fairness between genera-tions as well as the opportunity to develop activities that spanthe generations. Fifthly, the concept should embody bothrights and obligations. Thus the rights to social protection,life-long education and training and so on should be accom-panied by obligations to take advantage of education andtraining opportunities and to remain active in other ways.Again, from a gender perspective, this requires support toenable women to participate. Sixthly, a strategy for activeageing should be participative and empowering. In otherwords, there must be a combination of top-down policyaction to enable and motivate activity but, also, opportuni-ties for citizens to take action, from the bottom up, forexample in developing their own forms of activity. Seventhly,active ageing has to respect national and cultural diversity.There are differences in the forms of participation under-taken between Europe and East Asia, as well as within thoseregions, e.g. between majority and ethnic minority groups,therefore value judgements about what sort of activity isbest are likely to be problematic [46]. Within some EUcountries, such as Belgium, there are major cultural varia-tions that require a flexible approach to the implementationof an active ageing strategy. Indeed this cultural diversity andthe unequal ageing discussed in the previous section suggestthat flexibility should perhaps be an eighth principle [2].

These principles indicate that an effective strategy for activeageing will be based on a partnership between the citizen andsociety. In this partnership the role of the state or localcommunity is to enable, facilitate and motivate citizens and,where necessary, to provide high quality social protection foras long as possible. This will require interrelated individualand societal strategies. Individuals have a duty to take advan-tage of lifelong learning and continuous training opportuni-

ties and to promote their own health and well-beingthroughout the life course. As far as society is concerned thepolicy challenge is to recognise the thread that links togetherall of the relevant policy areas: employment, health, socialprotection, social inclusion, transport, education and so on.A comprehensive active ageing strategy demands that allareas are joined up and become mutually supportive. Theprimary discourse behind this strategic vision of active ageingis the UNs one of a society for all ages (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/iyop/iyopcfo.htm).

With regard to the scope of the actions necessary to achievesuch a comprehensive strategy the WHO has highlightedeight main determinants of active ageing: culture and gender(both of which are cross-cutting), health and social service,behavioural, the physical environment, the social environ-ment, economic determinants and those related to the indi-vidual (e.g. biology, genetics, and psychology) [7]. In policyterms this would mean linkage between policy domains thathave hitherto been separated: employment, health, socialprotection, pensions, social inclusion, technology, economicpolicy and research. At the same time, in line with theWHOs call, there is a need to mobilise all stakeholders topopularise . . . active ageing through dialogue, discussionand debate in the political arena, the education sector, publicfora and media [7]. The basis for such a comprehensiveapproach exists already in some countries but appears to bestymied by the huge challenge of transcending traditionaldepartmental boundaries and changing deeply entrenchedreactive policies into preventative ones. A case in point is theUK, which has had in paper form a comprehensive strategyon active ageing since 2005 that has yet to be implemented[47].

Of course the key stakeholders are not dormant while theywait for the perfect strategic framework to be assembled.

Figure 2: The relationship between functional capacity and age.

Source: [45].

W a l k e r A

6 Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

There are countless examples of local community and grassroots level initiatives by older people, non-governmentorganisations and municipalities aimed at raising the partici-pation and well-being of this group [48]. In some countriesthere are national programs to encourage healthy ageing suchas FinnWell in Finland. There is also evidence that someemployers, albeit a minority, have developed a variety of agemanagement measures designed to retain, recruit and max-imise the potential of an ageing work force [48,49]. What iscurrently lacking is a comprehensive strategy on activeageing, which would include the sharing of the many exam-ples of good practices between countries.

Research and development have a critical role to play inadvancing the active ageing agenda and, especially, in provid-ing the evidence base for policy. European research, underFramework Programmes 5, 6 and 7, has already added con-siderably to this knowledge base and the future research,priorities have been mapped by, for example, coordinatedactions like FORUM and ERA-AGE [50] and the roadmap project [51]. Current research is examining ways tooptimise the mobilisation of active ageing in Europe (http://mopact.group.shef.ac.uk/).

ConclusionThis article set out to examine the concept of active ageing,its origins and meaning, the barriers to its implementationand how to overcome them. A key theme of the discussionhas concerned the lack of clarity that exists about preciselywhat active ageing consists of. This creates a substantialbarrier to the implementation of active ageing strategies,impeding the full realisation of the concepts potential. It isreadily acknowledged that conceptual clarity is often lostwhen a scientific idea is transferred into the public policydomain. In addition, the challenge that a whole life courseperspective poses to traditional policy systems organisedaccording to rigid life course segmented domains, cannot beunderestimated. None the less it is possible to envisage acomprehensive approach, rooted in a preventative life courseorientation, by which active ageing could be realised for themajority of people in any society. The main challenge is notconceptual but political: do policy-makers have the will toundertake the substantial institutional reorganisation neces-sary to achieve active ageing across the life course? On thenegative side is the short time horizons of politicians indemocracies but, on the positive side, the active ageingapproach provides answers to the pressing policy questionsbeing posed by population ageing.

References1 Walker A. The emergence and application of active ageing in Europe.

Journal of Aging & Social Policy 2009; 21: 7593.2 Foster L,Walker A. Gender and active ageing in Europe. European Journal

of Ageing 2013; 10: 310.3 Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians. Realising

the economic potential of senior Australians: turning grey into gold.Commonwealth of Australia. 2011.

4 Aspalter C, Walker A, eds. Active Ageing in Asia. London: Routledge,2015.

5 World Health Organization. Health and Ageing: A Discussion Paper,Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001a.

6 World Health Organization. Active Ageing: From Evidence to Action,Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001b.

7 World Health Organization. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework, Geneva:World Health Organisation, 2002.

8 United Nations (UN). Madrid International Action Plan on Ageing, NewYork: UN, 2002.

9 Blau ZS. Old Age in a Changing Society. New York, NY: New Viewpoints,1973.

10 Cumming E, Henry W. Growing Old The Process of Disengagement.New York, NY: Basic Books, 1961.

11 Pfeiffer E (ed.). Successful Aging: A Conference Report. Durham, NC:Duke University, 1974.

12 Rowe J, Kahn R. Human aging: Usual and successful. Science 1987;237: 143149.

13 Havighurst R. Flexibility and the social roles of the retired. AmericanJournal of Sociology 1954; 59: 309311.

14 Havighurst R. Successful ageing. In: Williams R, Tibbitts C, Donahue W,eds. Processes of Ageing. New York, NY: Atherton, 1963: 299320. 1.

15 Havighurst R, Albrecht R. Older People. London: Longmans, 1953.16 Boudiny K. Active ageing: From empty rhetoric to effective policy tool.

Ageing and Society 2013; 33: 10771098.17 Villar F. Successful ageing and development: The contribution of

generativity in older age. Ageing and Society 2012; 32: 10871105.18 Strawbridge WJ. Active aging and successful aging. Journal of Aging and

Health 2012; 24: 12791297.19 Townsend P. The structured dependency of the elderly: The creation of

social policy in the twentieth century. Ageing and Society 1981; 1: 528.20 Walker A. The social creation of poverty and dependency in old age.

Journal of Social Policy 1980; 9: 4975.21 Walker A. The new ageism. The Political Quarterly 2012; 83: 812819.22 Cann P, Dean M. Unequal Ageing: The Untold Story of Exclusion in Old

Age. University of Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2009.23 Tate R, Leedine L, Cuddy T. Definition of successful aging by elderly

Canadian males: The Manitoba follow-up study. The Gerontologist 2003;43: 735744. doi: 10.1093/geront/43.5.735.

24 Bowling A. Ageing Well: Quality of Life in Old Age. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press, 2005.

25 Bass S, Caro F, Chen Y, eds. Achieving a Productive Aging Society.Westport: Greenwood, 1993.

26 Morgan JN. Unpaid productive activity over the life course. In: Institute ofMedicine/National Research Council, ed. America's Aging: ProductiveRoles in an Older Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986: 73109.

27 Butler R, Oberlink M, Schecter M, eds. The Promise of Productive Aging.New York, NY: Springer, 1990.

28 World Health Organization. Health for All: Updated Targets. Copenhagen:World Health Organisation, 1994.

29 Walker A. Age and Attitudes. Brussels: EC, 1993.30 Walker A. Work and income in the third age an EU perspective. The

Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 1994; 19: 397407.31 European Commission.Towards a Europe forAll Ages. Brussels: EC,1999.32 Cabinet Office. Winning the Generation Game, London: The Stationery

Office, 2000.33 Stenner P, McFarquhar T, Bowling A. Older people and active ageing:

Subjective aspects of ageing actively. Journal of Health Psychology 2011;16: 467477.

34 Walker A. A strategy for active ageing. International Social SecurityReview 2002; 55: 121140.

35 European Commission (EC). 2012 to be the European Year for ActiveAgeing, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, 2010. [Cited 15October 2010.] Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=860.

36 Walker A, Maltby T. Active ageing: A strategic policy solution to demo-graphic ageing in the European Union. International Journal of SocialWelfare 2012; 21 (s1): S117S130.

37 Zaidi A, Zolyomi E. Active Ageing Research Note 7/2011, Produced by theSocial Situation Observatory, for the European Commission. Brussels:Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Euro-pean Commission, 2011.

38 European Commission. The Demographic Future of Europe From Chal-lenge to Opportunity. Brussels: EC, 2006.

39 Sidorenko A, Zaidi A. Active ageing in CIS countries: Semantics, chal-lenges, and response. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research.2013; doi: 10.1155/2013/261819.

A c t i v e a g e i n g : R e a l i s i n g i t s p o t e n t i a l

7Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.

40 Standing G. The Precariat. London: Bloomsbury, 2011.41 Riley M. Cohort Perspectives. In: Borgatta E, Borgatta M, eds. The Ency-

clopedia of Social Sciences. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992: 5265.

42 Piachaud D, Macnicol J, Lewis J. A Think Piece on IntergenerationalEquity. London, UK: Equality and Human Rights Commission, AgeConcern and Help the Aged, 2009. ISBN 9781842061985.

43 Jagger C, Gillies C,Moscone F et al. Inequalities in healthy life years in the25 countries of the European Union in 2005: A cross national metaregression analysis. Lancet 2008; 372: 21242131.

44 Walker A, Sinfield A, Walker C, eds. Fighting Poverty, Inequality Injustice.University of Bristol: The Policy Press, 2011.

45 Kalache A, Kickbusch I. A global strategy for healthy ageing.World Health1997; 50: 45.

46 European Commission. Social Agenda 20002005. Brussels: EC, 2000.47 Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Opportunity Age. London:

DWP, 2005.48 Naegele G, Walker A. A Guide to Good Practice in Age Management.

Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions, 2006.

49 Walker A. Managing an Ageing Workforce: A Guide to Good Practice.Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions, 1999.

50 ERA-AGE. The European Research Area in Ageing. [Cited 10 December2014.] Available from URL: http://era-age.group.shef.ac.uk/.

51 Futurage. A Road Map for European Ageing Research, 2011. [Cited 12December 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.futurage.group.shef.ac.uk/roadmap.html.

W a l k e r A

8 Australasian Journal on Ageing, Vol 34 No 1 March 2015, 28 2015 AJA Inc.