Volume 29 - Article 13 | Pages 323-354

Impact of different mortality forecasting methods and explicit assumptions on projected future life expectancy: The case of the Netherlands

By Lenny Stoeldraijer, Coen van Duin, L.J.G van Wissen, Fanny Janssen

Print this page  Send this article to a friend  Twitter

 

 
Date received:07 Jun 2012
Date published:27 Aug 2013
Word count:8010
Keywords:Europe, extrapolation, Lee-Carter model, Netherlands, non-linear models, smoking
DOI:10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.13
 

Abstract

Background: With the rapid aging of the population, mortality forecasting becomes increasingly important, especially for the insurance and pension industries. However, a wide variety of projection methods are in use, both between and within countries, that produce different outcomes.

Objective: We review the different mortality forecasting methods and their assumptions in Europe, and assess their impact on projections of future life expectancy for the Netherlands.

Methods: For the Netherlands, we assess the projections of life expectancy at birth (e0) and at age 65 (e65) up to 2050 resulting from different methods using similar explicit assumptions regarding the historical period and the jump-off rates. We compare direct linear extrapolation, the Lee-Carter model, the Li-Lee model, a cohort model, separate projections of smoking- and non-smoking-related mortality, and the official forecast.

Results: In predicting mortality, statistical offices in Europe mostly use simple linear extrapolation methods. Countries with less linear trends employ other approaches or different assumptions. The approaches used in the Netherlands include explanatory models, the separate projection of smoking- and non-smoking-related mortality, and the projection of the age profile of mortality. There are clear differences in the explicit assumptions used, including assumptions regarding the historical period. The resulting e0 in 2050 varies by approximately six years. Using the same historical period (1970-2009) and the observed jump-off rates, the findings generated by different methods result in a range of 2.1 years for women and of 1.8 years for men. For e65, the range is 1.4 and 1.9 years, respectively.

Conclusions: As the choice of the explicit assumptions proved to be more important than the choice of the forecasting method, the assumptions should be carefully considered when forecasting mortality.

Author's Affiliation

Lenny Stoeldraijer - Statistics Netherlands, Netherlands [Email]
Coen van Duin - Statistics Netherlands, Netherlands [Email]
L.J.G van Wissen - Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, Netherlands [Email]
Fanny Janssen - University of Groningen, Netherlands [Email]

Other articles by the same author/authors in Demographic Research

» Distortion of regional old-age mortality due to late-life migration in the Netherlands?
Volume 29 - Article 5

» The contribution of smoking to regional mortality differences in the Netherlands
Volume 27 - Article 9

» 150 Years of temperature-related excess mortality in the Netherlands
Volume 21 - Article 14

» The Netherlands: Childbearing within the context of a "Poldermodel" society
Volume 19 - Article 21

Most recent similar articles in Demographic Research

» The contribution of smoking to regional mortality differences in the Netherlands
Volume 27 - Article 9    | Keywords: Netherlands, smoking

» The Netherlands: Childbearing within the context of a "Poldermodel" society
Volume 19 - Article 21    | Keywords: Europe, Netherlands

» The Netherlands:Paradigm or Exception in Western Europe‚Äôs Demography?
Volume 7 - Article 12    | Keywords: Europe, Netherlands

» Varying association between education and second births in Europe: Comparative analysis based on the EU-SILC data
Volume 31 - Article 27    | Keywords: Europe

» Certainty of meeting fertility intentions declines in Europe during the 'Great Recession'
Volume 31 - Article 23    | Keywords: Europe