1 / 43

Social Inequalities and Education Part 3: Welfare regime stratification and social mobility

Explore static and dynamic inequality, role of education, and class intergenerational mobility in welfare regimes for social progress. Learn how Sorokin's theories shape social stratification and mobility dynamics.

qhorne
Download Presentation

Social Inequalities and Education Part 3: Welfare regime stratification and social mobility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Inequalities and Education • Part 3: Welfare regime stratification and social mobility • Louis ChauvelSite : www.louischauvel.org/socineqeduEmail : louis.chauvel@uni.lu

  2. Welfare Regimes and mobility • Static and dynamic inequality – Sorokin • Stratification, mobility and welfare regimes • Class intergenerational mobility • Income intergenerational mobility • The role of education – Jerrim 2015

  3. 1. Static and dynamic inequality – Sorokin • The difference between static inequalities (stratification) and dynamic inequalities (mobility) * Static and dynamic inequalities * The role of education * Ethno/urban inequalities and discrimination

  4. Pitirim Sorokin, Social Mobility (1927) …and: Social and Cultural Dynamics Cincinnati: American Book Company, 1937-41. 4 vol • “Social stratification means the differentiation of a given population into hierarchically superposed classes. It is manifested in the existence of upper and lower social layers. Its basis and very essence consist in an unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values and privations, social power and influences among the members of a society.” (chap 2) • “Since vertical mobility actually functions to some degree in any society, there must be in the “membranes” between the strata “holes,” “staircases,” “elevators,” or “channels” which permit individuals to move up and down, from stratum to stratum. The problem to be discussed now is : What are these channels of social circulation ? • Various Social Institutions Perform This Function . —Among them there are few especially important from our standpoint. Of these few, which may be in different societies or in the same society, at different periods, one or two are particularly characteristic for a given type of society. The most important institutions of this kind have been: army, church, school, political, economic, and professional organizations”. (chap 8) Full text at archive.org https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275737

  5. Pitirim Sorokin and Social Mobility • 1. The principal forms of social mobility are horizontal and vertical. Vertical mobility exists in the form of ascending and descending currents. Both have two varieties: individual infiltration and collective ascent or descent of the whole group within the system of other groups. • 2. According to the degree of the circulation, it is possible to discriminate between immobile and mobile types of society. • 3. There scarcely has existed a society whose strata were absolutely closed. • 4. There scarcely has existed a society where vertical mobility was absolutely free from obstacles. • 5. The intensiveness and the generality of vertical mobility vary from group to group, from time to time (fluctuation in space and in time). In the history of a social body there is a rhythm of comparatively immobile and mobile periods. • 6. In these fluctuations there seems to be no perpetual trend toward either an increase or decrease of vertical mobility. • 7. Though the so-called democratic societies are often more mobile than autocratic ones, nevertheless, the rule is not general and has many exceptions. Full text at archive.org https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275737

  6. 2- Stratification, mobility and welfare regimes Walter Korpi and Joakim Palme, 1998 http://www.louischauvel.org/korpiclasswelfare2657333.pdf

  7. Another important dimension : (in)equality of opportunities at birth Hierarchy + Brazil US ??? UK??? Italy Fluidity – (closure) Fluidity + (openness) France Finland Germany Sweden Hierarchy –

  8. Another important dimension : (in)equality of opportunities at birth Hierarchy + Brazil Liberal model Extreme inequality US ??? UK??? Italy Fluidity – (closure) Fluidity + (openness) Conservativeparadox Soc-democrat dream Finland France Germany Sweden Hierarchy –

  9. 3- Class intergenerational mobility Homonyms : Goldthorpe, Erikson–Goldthorpe, EGP (Erikson–Goldthorpe–Portocarero), and CASMIN (Comparative Study of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations) typology. Goldthorpe class scheme

  10. Class mobility Goldthorpe class scheme Is Social Mobility Really Declining? Intergenerational Class Mobility in Britain in the 1990s and the 2000 by Yaojun Li and Fiona Devine Sociological Research Online, 16 (3) 4, 2011 <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/3/4.html>

  11. Class mobility Is Social Mobility Really Declining? Intergenerational Class Mobility in Britain in the 1990s and the 2000 by Yaojun Li and Fiona Devine Sociological Research Online, 16 (3) 4, 2011 <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/3/4.html>

  12. Main references for the methodology www.louischauvel.org/yuxie1992.pdf www.louischauvel.org/torcheasr2005chile.pdf www.louischauvel.org/vallet2001fourtyyears3323052.pdf www.louischauvel.org/pisati522871.pdf

  13. Portugal N=5536 Child Father or Mthr Fluidity = log odds ratios (up+mid / lower class intergenerational mobility) = ln (658x3519/(235x1124)) = 2,17 (+/- 0,17) CI [Ln(odds ratio)] = Ln(odds ratio) +/- 2 S 1ni,j

  14. ISCO-88 (COM)International Standard Classification of Occupations recode PL050 PM070 (23 11 24 21 12 22 =1) (1 13 31 32 33 34 41 42=2) (else = 3) , gen(cat catp); Upper cl Middle cl Pop cl

  15. Portugal N=5536 Child Father or Mthr Fluidity = log odds ratios (up+mid / lower class intergenerational mobility) = ln (658x3519/(235x1124)) = 2,17 (+/- 0,17) Netherlands N=5041 Child Father or Mthr Fluidity = 0,86 (+/- 0,13)

  16. Portugal N=5536 Child Father or Mthr Fluidity = log odds ratios (upper / lower class intergenerational mobility) = ln (658x3519/(235x1124)) = 2,17 (+/- 0,17) Netherlands N=5041 Child Father or Mthr Fluidity = 0,86 (+/- 0,13)

  17. Hierarchy + (d9/d1) Fluidity + Fluidity – Source : 2005 EU-SILC (Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) microdata N=201.315 Fluidity = log odds ratios (upper / lower class intergenerational mobility) Hierarchy –

  18. Unidiff=>

  19. clear all set mem 400m use "http://www.louischauvel.org/mobsoc2005extr.dta" gen wgt=DB090 gen rev=HX090 tabstat rev [weight = wgt], statistics( mean p10 median p90 ) /// by(COUNTRY) columns(statistics) save table cat catp, by(COUNTRY) contract cat catp COUNTRY, zero freq(count) findit unidiff unidiff count, row(catp) col(cat) lay(COUNTRY) effect(add) pattern(fi)

  20. Hierarchy + (d9/d1) Fluidity + Fluidity – Fluidity = unidiff Kappa coefficient Hierarchy –

  21. 4- Income intergenerational mobility Static and dynamic inequalities = Discuss the accuracy of the model • May be we can accept more static inequality if it goes with more intergenerational mobility (=meritocracy?) • Anyway, we have a difficulty: • On occupations, static and dynamic inequalities are independent • On incomes (Corak 2012) the results are rather different • => the “Great Gatsby curve” www.louischauvel.org/corak_2012.pdf

  22. “Great Gatsby” Curve R-sq = 0.75 !!(slope close to 1) Corak, Miles. 2013. “Inequality from Generation to Generation: The United States in Comparison.” Chap. 6 in The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st Century, edited by Robert S. Rycroft. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC - CLIO. http://milescorak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inequality-from-generation-to-generation-the-united-states-in-comparison-v3.pdf

  23. https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.564651.de/diw_sp0926.pdfhttps://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.564651.de/diw_sp0926.pdf More inequality, more viscosity? intergenerational Mobility in Europe Louis Chauvel Anne Hartung louis.chauvel@uni.lu anne.hartung@uni.lu IRSEI Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality University of Luxembourg

  24. Context • Great Gatsby Curve: “More inequality, less social mobility”? (Andrews and Leigh 2009; Blanden 2013, Corak 2013, Torche 2015) • Relatively little is known about the link between income inequality and intergenerational mobility (Jäntti and Jenkins 2013) • Is intergenerational mobility indeed greater in more equal countries? R-sq = 0.75 !!(slope close to 1) Corak, Miles. 2013. “Inequality from Generation to Generation: The United States in Comparison.” Chap. 6 in The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st Century, edited by Robert S. Rycroft. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC - CLIO.

  25. Intergenerational mobility (IM) in economics (income elasticity) and sociology (fluidity) The Great Gatsby curve (elasticities) Fluidity of societies (social class mobility tables, unidiff)

  26. State of the arts & gaps in the literature Skip if no time … • Relative level of intergenerational mobility differs depending on the measure used: income, education or social class (Blanden 2013, Torche 2014, Breen et al 2016) • Relatively little work on the mechanisms behind (Solon 2004, Breen and Jonsson 2005, Corak 2013, Jerrim and Macmillan 2015) • Doubts on the Great Gatsby Curve (GGC) • Corak’s version is a patchwork of surveys and methods / need direct comparisons • 2S2SLS overestimates the slope and lacks robustness (Jerrim et al 2014, Lefranc) • Parents’ incomes are often estimated on the base pf education and occ class • The method is very sensitive to income distribution/inequality The role of education for intergenerational income mobility: A comparison of the United States, Great Britain, and Sweden / P Gregg, JO Jonsson, L Macmillan, C Mood 2017 Social Forces 96 (1), 121-152

  27. Is GGC trivial?  higher elasticity whan Gini is higher So we have to work on ranks but we lose tails… ` Issues with currency-elasticity II Skip if no time … with the formula a ln(p/1-p) = ln(medianised income) where a = Gini (Fisk-Champernowne-Dagum distributions), we simulate changes in the Ginis for fathers and sons based on the PSID • 2SLS estimation of currency elasticity after rescaling of fathers’ and sons’ Gini • Currency elasticity (in dollars) is Gini-change-dependent • When sons’ Gini > fathers’ Gini, elasticity increases

  28. Research questions • Can we confirm the link between income inequality (Gini index) and intergenerational mobility net of structural changes (Even with Gini independent measures of mobility)? • What is the difference between “economic” approaches (income based) and “sociological” ones (occupational class)? • What about countries versus welfare states?

  29. Logit rank controls inequality And keep the power tails Methods Our approach: Logit rank transformation Condense if no time … • Let us introduce logitrankbased elasticity (RE) • Society as a set of ranked positions p on the segment ]0,1[ • We just have to replace the yearly / country logged incomes by the logit of p • “Logit rank” (O’Brien, 1978; Copas, 1999, Chauvel 2014) • Similar to log(PSI) (Positional Status Index, RotmanShavit, Shalev 2015) • Strong correspondence with incomes Fisk-Champernowne approximation of medianized incomes m => ln(m) = α logit(p) with α = Gini (Champernowne, 1953; Fisk, 1960; Dagum 1975) => We compute elasticity not on log-incomes but on logitranks • This rank based elasticity is a fathers’ and sons’ Gini-neutral measure of mobility net of structural changes in fathers/sons distributions Coded on stata’s subroutine of our abg  ssc install abg

  30. Same method in the context of social gradient of health: Louis Chauvel and Anja K. Leist 2015 “Socioeconomic hierarchy and health gradient in Europe: the role of income inequality and of social origins International Journal for Equity in Health 2015 14:132 Methods Models • Multilevel random intercepts random slopes model (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal 2012) • Random country-specific intercept ζ1j • Random country-specific slope for parental background β2+ζ2j • DV: yij “logit rank” in the equalized disposable income distribution (post-tax, post-transfer) • EV: yij “logit rank” of the score of socio-economic origins (parents occupational class and education level) • Loglinear association model • Log-multiplicative layer model (Xie 1992, Pisati, xxxx) http://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-015-0263-y ζ2j measures the logitrank elasticity from parents to kids when ζ2j is high, socioeconomic reproduction is strong

  31. Methods Data and variables Condense if no time … • Data: EU-SILC 2005 and 2011 • Modules “intergenerational transmission of poverty/disadvantages” • 26 countries: AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IS IT LT LU LV NL NO PL PT SE SI SK UK • 52 subsamples • PSID 2001-2007 are the 53rd sample => “US2005” • EV: max. available information on parents’ background • MCA Multiple Correspondence Analysis (Burt method) of education and occupation of father/mother (6 classes EGP scheme) • Predict factor coordinates: dim 1 explains 88.6% inertia • We mimic the same for US-PSID data (head of household’s father’s education and occupational group)

  32. Results The origin gradient in different types of welfare states Nordic ζ2j = slope U.S. Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  33. The origin gradient across EU countries ζ2j = slope Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2005.Notes: Best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP)based on random coefficient null model. Labels: lower cases - 2005 (e.g. uk), upper cases - 2011 (e.g. UK).

  34. Logit-rank based GGC Europe and the US R2=.343 ζ2j value Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  35. Results Logit-rank based GGC • Europe and the US (b) excluding post-socialist countries • R2=.343 R2=.570 ζ2j value ζ2j value Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  36. Log-income based GGCThis overestimates the R2 due to the trivial fact income gradient is higherif gini is higher • Europe and the US (b) excluding post-socialist countries • R2=.661 R2=.773 ζ2j value ζ2j value Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  37. Results Social-class based GGC(unidiff)(this captures nothing…) • Europe (b) excluding post-socialist countries • R2=.012 R2=.079 ζ2j value ζ2j value Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  38. Explained country-level variance of the three approaches Skip if no time … Source: EU-SILC 2005/2011, PSID 2001-2007

  39. 5- intergenerational mobility & education • John Jerrim, Lindsey Macmillan; Income Inequality, Intergenerational Mobility, and the Great Gatsby Curve: Is Education the Key?, Social Forces, Volume 94, Issue 2, 1 December 2015, Pages 505–533 • https://johnjerrim.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jerrim_macmillan_2015.pdf

  40. https://johnjerrim.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jerrim_macmillan_2015.pdfhttps://johnjerrim.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jerrim_macmillan_2015.pdf

  41. 6- Conclusion • Knowledge improved massively over the last decades • A lot is still to be done in this respect • Forecast: times of extreme inequalities are back • Social rigidities – social immobility – should come back too ? • Let’s be prepared …

More Related