A Case of Intergenerational Conflict: The 2015 Finnish Citizens’ Initiative on Pension Indexation

ABSTRACT Pension reforms become more common in times of population aging. In 2015, a Finnish citizens’ initiative recommended increasing pension benefits. Opponents argued this may be at the cost of youths and middle-agers. We investigate the initiative from the viewpoint of intergenerational conflict. A mixed methods analysis reveals no conflict during the signature collection. It only became visible during the newspaper debate, when experts explained the reform effects. The parliament rejected the reform. Findings reveal a unique conflict dynamic in citizens’ initiatives: a reflected judgment gradually emerges during the public debate. Policymakers may use this insight to advance pension-related direct democracy.


Introduction
Pension reforms become more common in times of population aging. Finland's population is one of the oldest and fastest aging worldwide. The share of those aged 65 and older in the Finnish population increased from 15% in 2000 to 22% in 2019. Researchers expect it to further increase to 28% by 2050 (United Nations, 2019). This demographic shift challenges pension schemes, especially pay-as-you-go-financed ones. Such pension schemes use the pension contributions of today's workers to finance the pension benefits of today's pensioners (Myles, 2002). This redistribution may become challenging when populations age, because fewer persons pay contributions while more persons receive benefits. Policymakers introduce pension reforms to meet this challenge. Common reform strategies are to increase the pension age, increase the pension contributions that younger people pay, and to lower the pension benefits that older people receive (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019). These reform strategies ignite intergenerational conflicts.
Intergenerational conflicts are disagreements between younger and older individuals pursuing their self-interests. Here, the term "generation" denotes an age group with a common interest. This understanding connects to Mannheim (1928) suggestion that a generation is an age group with a common identity, because a common interest can lead to a common identity. Pay-as-you-go-financed pension schemes create two generations: A younger one that pays pension contributions, and an older one that receives pension benefits. The interests of these generations may conflict in questions of how much money should be redistributed via pension schemes (Myles, 2002). The moral economy theory suggests that such conflicts arise because of different ideas of justice. Thus, not only the characteristics of pension schemes, but also the prevailing values, norms, and culture play a role in intergenerational conflicts (Kohli, 1987;Komp-Leukkunen & Im, 2019). Researchers worry that intergenerational conflicts may escalate as populations age. Older individuals may leverage their growing number to steer policymaking according to their self-interests. If this happens at the cost of younger generations, then an intergenerational conflict may result (Chrisp & Pearce, 2019;Hess et al., 2017;Otjes & Krouwel, 2018). Some even fear that a gerontocracy may emerge, which is a society ruled by older people (Atella & Carbonari, 2017).
However, older people pursue not only old age-specific interests. Research on welfare attitudes shows that they consider their age and socioeconomic status when judging policies. Also, a supportive relationship with their children makes them more supportive of public childcare which benefits the younger generation (Busemeyer et al., 2009;Goerres & Tepe, 2010;Litwin et al., 2009). In representative democracies, self-interests are watered down. Individuals in these democracies elect officials as policymakers, e.g. by voting for political parties (Berry, 2014). Some older individuals founded pensioners' parties to run in elections. However, instead of voting for pensioners' parties, most older individuals choose parties according to their socioeconomic characteristics and their political party experiences as youths (Goerres, 2008;Iecovich, 2001). In direct democracies, self-interests emerge more clearly. Here, the individuals themselves decide about political proposals, for example through referenda. Referenda are votes in which the electorate decides about specific policy proposals (Jäske, 2017). Studies simulating public votes found that older individuals decide on policy proposals according to their age-specific interests and socioeconomic status. However, the better citizens understand a pension system and the social consequences of pension reforms, the more likely they are to abandon their self-interests (Boeri & Tabellini, 2012;Cattaneo & Wolter, 2009;Litwin et al., 2009).
Previous research has not yet establish how intergenerational conflicts play out in citizens' initiatives. Citizens' initiatives are processes where individuals collect signatures for a specific policy proposal, which policymakers consider for implementation if the number of signatures is sufficiently high (Jäske, 2017). Therewith, they are an element of direct democracy that is added to a representative democracy. They became increasingly common across Europe over the last few years, especially since the Lisbon Treaty introduced citizens' initiatives at the European level in 2009 (Bouza Garcia & Greenwood, 2014;Raunio, 2019). Citizens' initiatives are particularly interesting from the perspective of intergenerational conflict: they are an element of direct democracy that exists within a representative democracy, and brings about public discussions. Previous research shows that intergenerational conflicts play out differently in direct democracy, representative democracy, and public discussions. However, such research has not yet determined how intergenerational conflicts play out when these three arenas are combined. Will the three intergenerational conflicts play out independently from one another, or will they influence one another and create new dynamics? This study will help to fill this gap in knowledge.
To explore intergenerational conflict in citizens' initiatives, we study the 2015 Finnish citizens' initiative on pension indexation. The Finnish Seniors' Movement launched this initiative, aiming to change the pay-as-yougo-financed part of the Finnish pension system. It proposed to adapt the pension indexation, meaning the way of calculating the amount of pension benefits distributed: older people would have received higher pension benefits, and middle-agers would have paid higher pension contributions (Finnish Centre for Pensions, 2016). The Finnish parliament debated the initiative in 2017 and ultimately rejected it (Parliament of Finland, 2017). The citizens' initiative attracted media attention, with journalists, citizens and experts debating it. They discussed characteristics of the pension system, arguments for changing it, and the rights of the different generations. Therefore, this citizens' initiative is a classic case of an intergenerational conflict.
This study studies and compares the different forms of intergenerational conflict brought about by the citizens' initiative. To do so, it answers three research questions: (1) How did the intergenerational conflict play out in the signature collection for the citizens' initiative? This collection documents the element of direct democracy in the citizens' initiative. (2) How did the intergenerational conflict play out in the newspaper discussion on the citizens' initiative? This discussion reflects public opinion and welfare attitudes. (3) How did the intergenerational conflict play out in the parliamentary discussion on the citizens' initiative? This discussion documents the element of representative democracy in the citizen's initiative. The answer to each research question describes whose interests the younger and the older generation pursue, and what arguments they consider.

The 2015 citizens' initiative on pension indexation
The Finnish Seniors' Movement organized the 2015 citizens' initiative on pension indexation (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a). This movement is a nongovernmental association without party affiliation. It aims to facilitate dignified aging and a good life for older people. It defines its target group as pensioners, while paying particular attention to those pensioners in need of full-time care. To support these individuals, it educates and advocates for pensions, health care and long-term care, and organizes presentations and discussion events about these topics, among other things . In 2015, it had about 2000 members (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015b).
The Finnish Seniors' Movement started to collect signatures for the citizens' initiative in September 2015. Half a year later, almost 85,000 Finns had signed (Kansalaisaloite, 2016). This number by far exceeds the membership of the Finnish Seniors' Movement (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015b), showing that the initiative gained support in the general population. Because the number of signatures exceeded 50,000, the initiative became a legislative proposal to the parliament. The parliament discussed the proposal in April 2017 and rejected it one month later (Parliament of Finland, 2017).
Citizens' initiatives are still rather new in Finland. They were introduced in 2012 to bring the parliamentary system closer to the citizens and open it for input from citizens (Seo & Raunio, 2017). Citizens took to this option. From 2012 until the end of 2019, 1081 initiatives were filed. Thirty-eight of them passed the threshold of 50,000 collected signatures and became legislative proposals to the parliament. The parliament approved five of them by the end of 2019 . Therewith, the 2015 citizens' initiative on pension indexation is among the initiatives with the most support, but not among the few successful ones.
The 2015 citizens' initiative on pension indexation received wide support because of its goal: To increase pension benefits. It suggested that the amount of pension benefits that a person receives should develop according to changes in wages (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a). At the time of the initiative, the amount developed according to changes in the price levels. Individuals with little or no earnings-related pensions received guaranteed pension benefits (International Social Security Association, 2020). The arguments for making the change were that it would increase social justice and prevent old age poverty (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a). The Finnish Center for Pensions calculated the actual reform effects. They found that it would increase the earningsrelated pensions on average by 17% on the long run. To finance the change, pension contributions would need to increase by an additional 6% of wages, on top of the amount of 30% that was already collected in 2015. If the increased benefits were to be paid from the earnings-related pension funds instead, then these funds would run out of money by 2060. Therefore, the Finnish Center for Pensions concludes that today's older people would benefit from the change, whereas today's and tomorrow's middle-agers would have to foot the bill (Finnish Centre for Pensions, 2016). This assessment shows grounds for an intergenerational conflict.

Methods
This study analyzes the process of collecting signatures for the initiative, the public discussion this process brought about, and the discussion in parliament. To study the signature collection, it uses two information sources. First, it analyzes the list of signatures supporting the initiative. An anonymized dataset of the signatories was obtained from the Population Register Center of the Finnish Government, which provides this information to Finnish citizens to guarantee their freedom of information. The dataset contains information on the signatures given digitally. With 64,833 digital signatures out of a total of 84,820 signatures, it contains information on 76% of the signatories (Kansalaisaloite, 2016). Descriptive statistics in SPSS explore the signatories' age, gender, and geographical distribution. Second, this study analyzes the document initiating the signature collection in a qualitative content analysis, which summarizes and structures information using categories found in the text itself (Neuendorf, 2017). The analysis is carried out for this text together with the texts of the public discussion and parliamentary debate. We read all texts and took turns in suggesting a set of subcategories and categories. We reached an agreement after four iterations.
To study the public discussion on the citizens' initiative, we analyze newspaper articles. The newspaper articles provide information of particularly high quality, because they document the authors' argumentations, and they identify the authors. Therewith, they contain all the information needed for an analysis of generational differences in the public debate. The articles stem from the four Finnish newspapers with the largest readerships: Helsingin Sanomat, Ilta-Sanomat, Iltalehti, and Kauppalehti (Kantar TNS Oy & MediaAuditFinland Oy, 2018). Ilta-Sanomat and Iltalehti are tabloids, Helsingin Sanomat is a politically independent daily newspaper, and Kauppalehti is businessoriented. All these newspapers are published in a paper version and in an online version. We used search engines of the newspaper archives to identify articles published from 2015 on that mentioned citizens' initiatives, pension indexation, or the signature collection. Then we manually selected those articles explicitly dealing with the 2015 citizens' initiative on pension indexation (N = 104). Supplementary Table 1 shows the number of articles by year and newspaper. About half of the articles (N = 57) were letters from citizens. We created an Excel file to count frequencies, describing each article's positioning to the initiative ("for"/"against"/"other") and the generational membership ("younger"/"older"/"unknown") of its author. Both of us initially screened the articles and jointly decided on the categories. Then we separately coded them (interrater reliability 88%) and discussed open questions. Additionally, we conducted a qualitative content analysis.
To explore how the citizens' initiative was discussed in parliament, this article analyzes transcripts of the complete parliamentary debates and all expert statements to the parliament. These documents were obtained from the homepage of the parliament. They contain 192 statements that were made by 46 members of parliament and 26 experts. Supplementary Table 2 shows these numbers by political party. The expert statements were made upon invitation from the parliament. They were made by three individuals and by representatives of pensioner associations, youth associations, business associations, trade unions, pension providers, ministries and research institutes. They contained research reports, presentations, letters, and explanations of the presentations and research reports. Supplementary Table 2 shows the number of statements. We created an Excel file to count frequencies, describing each individual's positioning to the initiative ("for"/"against"/"other"), the party membership of the members of parliament, and the generational membership of the experts ("younger"/"older"/"unknown"). To do this, we coded the texts separately (interrater reliability 83%) and discussed open questions. Moreover, we conducted a qualitative content analysis.

Results
The discussions around the citizens' initiative show clear indication of an intergenerational conflict. They consider intergenerational justice and weigh the rights of the older and the younger generations against each other. Figure 1 shows the categories of arguments made. The arguments for the citizens' initiative stressed the need for and right to higher pensions, and the positive economic impact of the suggested reform. The arguments against the initiative pointed out wrong information on the pension system and on the reform effects. Moreover, they stressed the concept of intergenerational justice. Figure 1 also shows how the arguments relate to one another. The arguments about the need for and right to higher pensions were countered with the arguments about the use of wrong information about the pension system and reform effects. The argument about a positive economic impact was likewise countered with the argument concerning wrong information about the reform effects. The argument of intergenerational justice was used to counter the arguments of the right to higher pensions and of a positive reform impact. The next paragraphs explore the argumentation during the signature collection, public debate, and parliamentary debate, in turn.

Intergenerational conflict in the signature collection
The signature collection was driven by the older generation. They presented the initiative as a positive development for both generations. Therefore, no intergenerational conflict was apparent. Table 1 summarizes the arguments made.
The signature collection started with a document outlining the goals of the initiative. This document was written by the Finnish Seniors' Movement, an association that advocates the rights of pensioners (Suomen Senioriliike, 2020). The individuals who electronically signed the signature list were also mainly older individuals. Even though some individuals were as young as 18 years, 95% of the signatories were 50 or older, and the average age was 66. Supplementary Figure 1 shows the age distribution of the signatures. Their gender and geographical distribution is representative for the Finnish population in 2016 (Statistics Finland, 2020a, 2020b. However, only three quarters of the signatures were given electronically, while one quarter were submitted on paper. People who respond to online surveys and those who respond to paper surveys have the same socio-demographic characteristics. Yet, older people especially lack internet access (Neves et al., 2018). Therefore, those who signed the citizens' initiative on paper are probably older than those who signed electronically.
The document initiating the signature list presented three arguments for the initiative. First, it argues that older people need higher pensions, because some pensioners experience poverty (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a). In 2016, 12% of the Finns aged 65 or older were at risk of poverty, if one uses 60% of the median equivalized income as an indicator. This number is three percentage points below the European Union average (Eurostat, 2020). The citizens' initiative blames the Finnish pension system, suggesting three causal links. First, pensions are lower than wages. Second, those individuals who accumulated fewer pension rights and live of the guaranteed pension benefits only are particularly likely to experience poverty. Third, younger generations accrue higher pensions rights due to pension reforms, which concentrates old age poverty among the oldest old. The Finnish Seniors' Movement concludes that pension benefits need to be increased (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a).
Second, the document suggests that older people have the right to higher pensions. It states that pensions are deferred wages, adding that the Finnish Constitutional Law Committee considers them constitutionally protected property. Moreover, it explains that the reserves that pension insurances hold are wrongly invested abroad and used for managing the pension funds: "Pension funds are compiled for pensions and not instruments of investor power for the management of pension companies." (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a: 17). To correct this situation, the reserves of pension funds should be paid out to pensioners: "The income of pension funds would finally be put to what it is intended for." (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a: 16). Moreover, the document specifies that pensions benefits should be sufficiently high to maintain the purchasing power of the income earned during working life. It interprets this maintenance of purchasing power as tying the pension benefit level to developments in wages -and not to developments in price levels as the current pension indexation does (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a).
Third, the document suggests the reform would have a positive economic impact. It states that the change would have marginal costs, requiring no public funding. It would be funded by liquidating the reserves of pension insurances, which the citizens' initiative considers the rightful property of pensioners. Older people's disposable income would rise, increasing their consumption. Consequently, the Finnish economy would experience an upturn and new jobs for youths and middle-agers would be created (Suomen Senioriliike, 2015a). This line of argumentation suggests that the reform would benefit all generations.

Intergenerational conflict in the public debate
The public debate showed a rich discussion and clear intergenerational conflict. Members of the younger and older generations used the arguments presented in the signature collection as a starting point, commenting on them and on each other's statements. The dialogue was almost balanced: 37 articles opposed and 42 supported the initiative. Two thirds of these articles were written by members of the younger generation, and one third by members of the older generation. The debate turned into an intergenerational conflict at times. Generally speaking, the older generation spoke out in favor of the initiative, with four out of every five older individuals supporting it. In contrast, the younger generation took a more diverse approach. Almost half of them neutrally compared the pros and cons, one third spoke out against the initiative, and the remaining individuals supported the initiative. Table 2 provides an overview of the arguments made. The public debate picked up on all three arguments for the initiative that were made by the document initiating the signature list. First, the debate underlined the need for higher pensions. Most individuals supporting the initiative pointed to financial difficulties in old age, often their own difficulties to pay for rent, food costs, or leisure activities. To resolve this situation, they would welcome higher pension benefits. Second, the debate iterated the right to higher pensions. Some articles repeated the arguments made in the signature list document. Others made this point while drawing on the idea of a moral economy. They suggested society had an obligation to older people, because older people built up Finnish society throughout their lives. For example, they fought in wars and increased the standard of living. An article written by a senior citizen illustrates: "Today's youths don't have to sit with a freezing butt in an outhouse, they do not need to carry water from wells or to heat fireplaces and stoves. Pensioners worked to create this well-being for them, which should be respected by this ungrateful generation." These ideas suggest a version of moral economy where contributions to society generate pension rights. Financial contributions to pension schemes have no place in this line of argumentation. Third, the debate echoed the idea of positive economic effects for all that the signature list already made. However, this argument played a minor role, being voiced in three articles only.
The public debate introduced three arguments against the citizens' initiative. First, it stressed that the signature collection had presented wrong information about the pension system. Researchers, representatives of pension insurances, and members of governments were the first to make this argument, and others echoed it afterward. These individuals pointed out that the Finnish pension system is pay-as-you-go-financed, redistributing money across generations. Therefore, any suggestion that the funds handled by pension insurances today are the wages of today's pensioners is wrong. Moreover, even though companies handle part of the Finnish pension insurances, they do so on behalf of the state. Therefore, the funds they manage are public funds. Using these funds for the reform would mean using public funding. Additionally, the reserves these companies hold have an important function: they generate interest, which is distributed as pension benefits. This income stream makes the situation of pension insurances more robust, because it lowers financial risks through diversification. Liquidating these reserves would threaten the longterm financial sustainability of pension schemes. Finally, other means for ensuring the financial sustainability of pension schemes include pension indexation and adjusting the level of pension benefits. These means can be used as needed, and any suggestion that there is only one correct way of using them is wrong.
Second, the participants in the debate pointed out that the actual reform effects would differ from the suggested effects. Researchers explained that to finance the reform, either pension contributions would need to increase by an additional 6% of the wages or all pension reserves would need to be liquidated within 45 years (Finnish Centre for Pensions, 2016). Moreover, well-off pensioners would benefit over-proportionally, whereas pensioners in poverty would see little change. The reason is that the poorest pensioners are those living on the guaranteed pension benefits. The reform would not change these benefits. It would only change the earnings-related pensions, with higher earnings-related pensions bringing higher benefits from the reform. As a result, the reform would miss its goals in terms of economic stimulus and old age poverty alleviation. While most researchers presented these facts in a neutral way, others echoed them and used them as arguments against the initiative. Third, the participants in the debate argued that the initiative threatens intergenerational justice. This argument was made with increasing certainty as the discussions progressed, due to the information that the experts provided. The statements from researchers, pension insurances and members of government provided concrete information and evidence on this point, which others used to take a stance. The most common argument was that youths and middle-agers would need to bear the cost of the suggested change. Improving the situation of the older generation at the cost of the younger generation was considered unjust.

Intergenerational conflict in the parliamentary debate
The parliamentary debate showed little trace of an intergenerational conflict. Most individuals stressed that the proposed reform would be unjust from an intergenerational perspective, and that is should therefore be rejected. Only few adopted a different position. Table 3 summarizes the arguments made.
In parliament, only a few individuals supported the citizens' initiative, although many acknowledged the need for a pension reform. Forty percent of the experts who testified to parliament stressed that old age poverty exists and that measures against it should be taken. The members of parliament agreed. Only one expert statement repeated the arguments made during the signature collection: pensioners have the right to higher pensions, the pension funds are used wrongly, pension funds are the private property of pensioners, and the suggested reform would have an overall positive economic impact. This statement was made by the Finnish Seniors' Movement, the initiator of the citizens' initiative (Kiljunen et al., 2017). Two members of parliament agreed that the reform would create economic stimulus. When it came to positioning themselves, however, few voiced their support for the initiative. Among the expert statements, only the one from the Finnish Seniors' Movement comes to this conclusion. No political party voiced their support. Among the 200 members of parliament, only four declared their personal support: one Social Democrat, two Christian Democrats, and one member of the Left Alliance. Therewith, the support that existed goes across party lines.
In parliament, numerous arguments against the suggested reform were voiced. The most common argument was that the reform would threaten intergenerational justice. Seventy-three percent of the expert statements made this argument, and the political parties agreed. The experts explained that the reform would not bring about the desired economic upturn: "it would be a very clumsy way of stimulating the economy. Possible stimulating effects would not suffice to finance the reform" (Lassila et al., 2016, p. 1). Youths and middle-agers would have less disposable income and may need to limit their lifestyles (Ministry of Finance, 2017). This argumentation constitutes an example of a moral economy where the costs and benefits of the different generations are compared to one another. One expert added that there is also an intergenerational contract within pay-as-you-go-financed schemes, which the reform would break. Thirty percent of the expert statements underlined that the reform would not help the poorest pensioners. The political parties agreed. Some experts added further arguments against the initiative: the pension levels were calculated correctly, pension funds were used correctly, and pension funds did not belong to pensioners. One member of parliament likewise underlined that the pension levels were justified. Despite the strong argumentation against the reform, only half of the experts rejected it. This group consisted of 11 experts from the younger and two from the older generation. The reason for the low number of rejections from the older generation is that many forewent any conclusion. In contrast, the members of parliament came to a conclusion: they rejected the initiative.

Discussion
Pension reforms receive increasing attention in times of population aging. In 2015, a Finnish citizens' initiative sought to increased pension benefits at the cost of youths and middle-agers. This study analyzes it from the perspective of intergenerational conflicts. The first research question asks how the intergenerational conflict played out in the signature collection. Findings show that no intergenerational conflict emerged. Mainly older people voiced their opinions during this process, and they interpreted the suggested reform as a benefit to all generations. This finding suggests that intergenerational conflicts can play out at the level of objective numbers and at the level of subjective perceptions -with both levels possibly contradicting one another. Whatever researchers identify as an intergenerational conflict is not necessarily meant as one. It may simply be due to a difference in perception, or a misunderstanding. Therefore, future research on intergenerational conflicts should consider the option of conflicts arising inadvertently.
The second research question inquires how the intergenerational conflict played out in the newspaper discussion. Findings show that both the younger and the older generation engaged in a dialogue via the newspapers. They introduced new arguments and refined the arguments from the signature collection. In this dialogue, the downsides of the reform were also discussed. Generally speaking, the older generation stressed the advantages, whereas the younger generation stressed disadvantages and weighted the pros and cons. This situation is a classic case of an intergenerational pension conflict. An interesting aspect is that it was the involvement of experts, such as researchers, that helped the conflict develop into its classic form. These experts corrected misunderstandings about the pension system and explained the reform consequences. Thereby, they clarified that the generations have opposing interests and that the proposed reform is a zero-sum-game. Future research should further explore this role of experts as catalysts in intergenerational pension conflicts.
The third research question asks how the intergenerational conflict played out in the parliamentary discussion. Findings identified little trace of intergenerational conflict in this discussion. There was a general agreement that old age poverty exists, but that the suggested reform could not alleviate it. Moreover, there was an agreement that the reform would benefit the older generation at the cost of the younger generation. These views were shared by the younger and the older generation. The reason is that the discussion in parliament built on the public discussion, drawing on the views that the public discussion converged on in the end. Because of these views, the proposed reform was rejected.
This study has theoretical implications. First, it enhances our understanding of intergenerational conflicts in citizens' initiatives. It shows that conflicts evolve over the lifetime of the initiative. In the signature collection, older individuals used their high number to put a topic on the political agenda. This development is in line with previous studies on gerontocracy (e.g., Atella & Carbonari, 2017). In the public debate, both the older and the younger generation pursued their self-interests, and the younger generation additionally weighted the pros and cons against one another. This development is in line with previous studies on welfare attitudes and on older individuals in direct democracies (Busemeyer et al., 2009;Litwin et al., 2009). However, older individuals did not consider the needs of the opposing generation in the public debate. Previous research on welfare attitudes and on older individuals in direct democracies had suggested that they would (Boeri & Tabellini, 2012;Goerres & Tepe, 2010). Older individuals only made these considerations during the parliamentary debate phase because they only learned about the needs of the younger generation during the public debate. This learning process constitutes an increase in pension literacy, meaning in knowledge on how pension systems work (Debets et al., 2020). Once the older individuals had the new information, they changed their perspective -which is in line with Litwin et al. (2009). Thus, the public debate is essential for creating this effects. This circumstance gives intergenerational conflicts in citizens' initiatives a unique dynamic.
Second, this study advances our knowledge on the moral economy. Previous research suggested that the moral economy justifies the financial redistribution in pay-as-you-go-financed pension schemes through an intergenerational contract (e.g., Komp & Van Tilburg, 2010). However, this study showed that individuals construct a moral economy of pensions independent of the idea of a redistribution within pension schemes. They argue that society owes older people and that the financial situation of all generations should be balanced. This layperson's construct of a moral economy differs from the scientific construct. Future research should further explore such laypersons' versions of a moral economy of pensions.
This study has practical implications. It shows how intergenerational pension conflicts can play out when the means of citizens' initiatives is employed. Such conflicts may become more common as populations age and as direct democracy popularizes. Policymakers may use the findings from this study to inform their approach to handling pension conflicts in citizens' initiatives. The lesson to be drawn is that increasing pension literacy can deescalate the conflict. The pension literacy can be increased through a public debate in the newspapers.

Limitations
Despite its merits, this study has some limitations. First, it studies a single case. This approach is useful for exploring a new phenomenon. It allowed this study to discover a mechanism that had hitherto been unknown. However, it does not allow for measuring the mechanism. Follow-up studies should conduct quantitative country-comparative analyses to capture it in numbers. Second, this study focusses on subjective assessments, without testing who is objectively right or wrong. The discourse analyses and descriptive analyses do not allow for testing what the actual redistributive effects of the suggested reform would have been. Follow-up studies with quantitative macroeconomic analyses, for example with overlapping generations models, should be conducted for this purpose.

Conclusion
This study gives an instructive and detailed account of an intergenerational pension conflict. It shows that intergenerational conflicts are sometimes not framed as such, and that they may arise inadvertently. Moreover, it shows that public debates in newspaper can broaden individuals' information basis, leading them to revise their position. This can help to spot and settle intergenerational conflicts. In times of population aging and an increasing number of citizens' initiatives, we can expect intergenerational pension conflicts to become more common. The insight from this study may help researchers to better understand these conflicts. Moreover, it may help policymakers to manage these conflicts constructively.

Key Points
• Intergenerational conflicts can emerge inadvertently. • Public discussions in newspapers can solve intergenerational conflicts. • Intergenerational conflicts in citizens' initiatives have unique dynamics.