![]() ![]() For many countries in Figure 1, the regression coefficient ranges between 0.53 and 0.84, indicated by the lightest shade of blue (lighter colours indicate lower levels of mobility). We find that for large parts of the world’s population born in the 1980s, an individual’s education is still too closely tied to the education of one’s parents. Note: darker colour indicates higher mobility. The trends and patterns of relative mobility using the correlation coefficient are found to be broadly similar to those with the primary measure (see Narayan et al. 2018).įigure 1 Relative mobility in education around the world (1980s cohort) Alternative measures considered include the correlation coefficient between individual and parental years of schooling, as well as selected transition probabilities (more on this below). A higher coefficient indicates greater persistence, and lower mobility. Our primary measure of relative intergenerational mobility is the regression coefficient from a regression of an individual’s years of schooling on the years of schooling of his/her most educated parent. We also compile estimates of relative income mobility – complementing comparable estimates from other sources with our own estimates – for 75 economies, to provide a partial picture of income mobility globally and examine the relationship between education and income mobility. And crucially, intergenerational data on education is much more widely available than that on income. We focus primarily on mobility in education, since education is a key aspect of economic wellbeing and educational mobility has a strong association with income mobility. The 1980s cohort represent the youngest generation of adults to have completed their education at the time of data collection. For 111 economies, or 87% of the world’s population, estimates of mobility span five decades, from those born in the 1940s to those born in the 1980s. The Global Database on Intergenerational Mobility (GDIM), compiled for this study, provides estimates of intergenerational mobility – both relative and absolute – for 148 economies representing around 96% of the world’s population born in the 1980s. ![]() These questions are at the heart of our new global study (Narayan et al. 2018). If there is indeed an equality of opportunity gap between the developing world and the developed world, has that gap been closing over time? What would a global map of mobility look like? If the geographic patterns observed in the US are also observed across countries, then the least mobile countries are more likely to be found in the developing world. In other words, lower intergenerational mobility (or higher inequality of opportunity) tends to be concentrated in the lagging areas of the US, which constrains the prospects for convergence. The empirical observation that more equal societies tend to be more mobile is also known as the Great Gatsby curve (Corak 2013). ![]() households from different socioeconomic backgrounds and different races reside in the same neighbourhoods) and have lower inequality, higher quality public school systems, stronger social networks, and stronger family structures. They also find that areas with relatively high rates of mobility tend to be ones that are less residentially segregated (i.e. In some parts of the country, mobility (or equality of opportunity) is on a par with some of the most mobile countries in Europe, while in other parts, children struggle to escape poverty when born into it. (2014) estimate intergenerational mobility for the US down to highly disaggregated geographic areas (commuting zones) and find that it varies considerably. And since the waste of human potential is more likely at the bottom of the income distribution, policies promoting higher relative mobility are likely to promote growth that is more inclusive in nature.Ĭhettyet al. Reducing such inefficiency is likely to be good for economic growth. Also, low mobility leads to unrealised human potential and misallocation of resources, as talented individuals from disadvantaged families are excluded from opportunities that favour those born in greater privilege rather than those with the greatest potential. When mobility is low, one’s chances of success are largely pre-ordained by the accident of birth, which goes against a basic notion of fairness in most societies. Arguably, there are two main reasons why higher relative mobility in a society should be a goal for public policy: fairness and economic efficiency. A society with high (relative) intergenerational mobility is one where an individual’s wellbeing, relative to others of his or her generation, is less dependent on the socioeconomic status of his or her parents. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |