Hungary's pension system has undergone substantial reforms that are relatively uncommon in the European context.

Notably, the system lacks early retirement options and disability pensions, a situation highlighted by pension expert András Farkas in his weekly newsletter aimed at male audiences.

The expert noted that these conditions have not always been the case.

Between 2010 and 2011, four major interventions significantly affected the sustainability of Hungary’s pension structure:

1. The retirement age was raised gradually from 62 to 65 years, with this change fully implemented by 2022.
2. The private pension fund system (the capital-funded pension pillar) was effectively nationalized in September 2010.
3. Early retirement and disability pensions were eliminated as of January 1, 2012.
4. A preferential retirement scheme for women, known as Nők40, was introduced on January 1, 2011.

Farkas emphasized that while several countries are raising their retirement age and may lack a capital-funded pillar, it is unique to Hungary that:

- No age concessions are available for particularly harmful or dangerous occupations, making it impossible to obtain early retirement benefits on that basis.

- Disability pensions have been dramatically cut from the pension system.

The abolishment of early retirement, service pensions, and disability pensions at the end of 2011 has placed hundreds of thousands in difficult situations.

According to evaluations from the Hungarian National Bank (MNB) at that time, these changes improved the pension fund's balance by approximately 0.4% of GDP annually.

However, this gain was offset and more than negated by the financial impact of the Nők40 scheme, which contributed to a deficit equivalent to approximately 0.57% of GDP. The reform measures introduced by the government thus resulted in minimal net gain while inflicting considerable distress on those affected.

A potential future reform of Hungary's pension system might revolve around the future structure of the Nők40 initiative, a subject the government has previously refrained from addressing.

Consideration of re-establishing flexible retirement conditions for men is also pertinent; this topic was part of the OECD’s pension reform suggestions but has not been endorsed by the Hungarian government.

Farkas pointed out that the cost of flexible retirement would require a deduction on pensions accessed before reaching the legal age, with the amount of the deduction based on how many years early the pension is claimed.

In this scenario, the constitutionally mandated positive discrimination towards women could manifest as a reduced level of deduction.

Under these changes, men could once again claim pensions before reaching the retirement age, an option deemed necessary due to demographic realities.

Hungarian men have one of the lowest life expectancies in old age across Europe—averaging over four years shorter than the EU average and more than six years shorter than wealthier states.

Furthermore, the additional healthy life expectancy for men at age 65 in Hungary severely trails the EU average, surpassing just four additional years.