When we think of gender discrimination in law, most assume it’s a relic of the past — barriers to property ownership or banking rules requiring male guarantors. Yet one glaring example persists today: mandatory retirement ages that push women out of the workforce earlier than men.
Vietnam illustrates this problem vividly. Until 2021, women in the Vietnamese public sector were required to retire at 55, five years earlier than men. Recent reforms will gradually raise the retirement age to 60 for women and 62 for men — but not until 2035. Even then, women will still be required to retire two years earlier than their male counterparts. This is not a minor technicality. It is a structural barrier embedded in law, shaping career trajectories and reinforcing gender norms.
Retirement age is not just about when someone stops working. It has significant implications for career progression and opportunities for professional development. In Vietnam’s public administration, officials must join a formal “leadership pipeline” to be considered for top roles. Women cannot enter this pipeline after 50 because they would not have enough time before mandatory retirement to complete required rotations and assessments. Men, by contrast, have until 55. This five-year gap effectively locks women out of leadership opportunities long before retirement and much earlier than men.
The consequences ripple across the system. Women are less likely to receive training because decision-makers weigh the return on investment — why train someone who will retire sooner? Rotation opportunities, a prerequisite for promotion, are denied to women over 45 because they need at least ten years before retirement to qualify. These kinds of rules are not just discriminatory — they are self-reinforcing, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women’s capacity and place in public life.
The Vietnamese government’s national strategies for gender equality have set targets for women’s representation in leadership since1997. Yet these targets remain unmet. A 2021 review found none of the goals for increasing the number of women in managerial roles had been achieved. The reasons are complex — cultural norms, care responsibilities, workplace bias — but the lower retirement age is a clear and fixable factor. Removing this barrier would not only advance equality but also improve governance. Evidence shows that gender-diverse leadership enhances responsiveness and accountability in public administration.
Around the world, mandatory retirement ages are increasingly viewed as a form of age-based discrimination and in many countries have been abolished altogether.
Australia has provided $3 billion in development assistance to Vietnam since 1973. In 2025–26, official development assistance from Australia to Vietnam totalled $96.6 million. This includes helping the Government of Vietnam achieve the goals it has repeatedly committed to on gender equality. Yet there is serious doubt as to whether the collaborative efforts between these two governments will amount to anything if the systemic issues, that ultimately cement inequality, remain unchanged.
Around the world, mandatory retirement ages are increasingly viewed as a form of age-based discrimination and in many countries have been abolished altogether. Where they remain (in at least 62 countries according to the World Bank), the trend is towards equalisation between men and women. The European Union prohibits sex-based differences in mandatory retirement ages. The Committee overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) has called out lower retirement ages for women as discriminatory on the basis of age and sex under international law. Even within Asia, countries such as China have faced public pressure to close gaps. Vietnam’s slow reform — stretching over 14 years and not resulting in equalisation — stands out as anachronistic.
Defenders of the status quo argue that early retirement is a “benefit” for women, compensating them for their dual responsibilities at home and in the workplace. This rationale, rooted in Soviet-era thinking, ignores the reality that many women want and need to work longer — for financial security, professional fulfillment and equal standing. It also overlooks the irony: women are required to retire from the workplace earlier, but expected to continue to meet traditional expectations of family and society and continue unpaid care work, reinforcing the very gender roles reform should dismantle.
The economic implications are stark. Peak earnings occur in the years before retirement. Forcing women out earlier means lost income, smaller pensions and greater risk of poverty in old age. But the deeper harm lies in what laws such as Vietnam’s signal: that women’s contributions are valued less, that leadership is a male domain and that gender equality is negotiable.
Accelerating reform to equalise retirement ages would send a powerful message that Vietnamese women belong in leadership and that equality is not optional. It would also align Vietnam with global norms and with the country’s stated commitments. More broadly, it could spark a rethinking of policies that shape women’s work lives, from parental leave to the design of pensions.
2035 is too far away. Closing the gap — and closing it completely — is not just about fairness. It is about building a public sector that reflects the talent and diversity of the nation it serves.
This commentary is based on Lucy Quinn and Ramona Vijeyarasa’s chapter, “A glass ceiling in law: Retirement age discrimination in Vietnam and its impact on women’s leadership in the public administration”, in Women’s Pathways to Power: Cracking the Glass Ceiling, edited by Andrea Carson.
