Absolute and Relative Deprivation: Application to Debates over Global Justice
click image for link to essay collection
The Millennium Development Goals represent a consensus that at the very least alleviation of the most extreme forms of poverty and human suffering are important moral aims. Beyond those modest aims there are substantial disagreements on what improvements in human well-being are required by justice.
Strong Statism: One prominent view of global justice is sometimes known as "strong statism." The core claim of the string statist is that there are no duties of distributive justice beyond the borders of a nation-state. What exactly that claim amounts to can be somewhat tricky to decipher. But the most common interpretation of the strong statist's point of view is one in which the only cross-border duties pertaining to the well-being of non-nationals are duties of humanitarian assistance. While such duties might be construed as ongoing, the general assumption is that humanitarian duties are triggered by extraordinary circumstances such as famine or natural disaster.
What the strong statist denies is clearer: there are no duties to work toward a fair system of global cooperation beyond what parties agree to in arms-length negotiations among self-interested nation-states, and there are no duties of nations to ensure anything like egalitarian aims of equality of opportunity or a global minimum standard of living. A just global order is thus a system of internally just nation-states, each primarily concerned with securing the well-being of its own citizens, according to the view each has of the requirements of domestic justice.
Human rights and Sufficiency theories: A variety of theories take a different, though still quite modest approach. Various theories focus on a global requirement to combat absolute deprivation. The claim is often made that the requirements of global justice, or of universal human rights is some minimum standard of well-being or standard of living, or some metric of resources sufficient for realizing the more general aim of a decent human life, a minimally good life, or a dignified human life.
Still other theories go beyond the modest aims of most human rights and sufficiency theories who focus solely on absolute deprivation. They argue that relative deprivation, or inequalities in resources, well-being, or advantage also matter globally. For example, they argue on instrumental grounds that extreme inequalities in income and wealth or political and economic power are incompatible with national self-determination, equal moral standing for the most vulnerable populations on the planet, or the secure realization of other aspects of human well-being when some nations and peoples are subject to the threat of domination by more powerful parties. In addition, some cosmopolitans argue that some inequalities are inherently unjust. They tend to argue that national boundaries are morally irrelevant, such that the accident of birth should not be allowed to determine differential life prospects.
Whatever general view of global justice one holds, some metrics are needed for identifying and assessing absolute deprivations in well-being, insufficiency of resources, and the various kinds of global inequalities that specific theories count as unjust.
Strong Statism: One prominent view of global justice is sometimes known as "strong statism." The core claim of the string statist is that there are no duties of distributive justice beyond the borders of a nation-state. What exactly that claim amounts to can be somewhat tricky to decipher. But the most common interpretation of the strong statist's point of view is one in which the only cross-border duties pertaining to the well-being of non-nationals are duties of humanitarian assistance. While such duties might be construed as ongoing, the general assumption is that humanitarian duties are triggered by extraordinary circumstances such as famine or natural disaster.
What the strong statist denies is clearer: there are no duties to work toward a fair system of global cooperation beyond what parties agree to in arms-length negotiations among self-interested nation-states, and there are no duties of nations to ensure anything like egalitarian aims of equality of opportunity or a global minimum standard of living. A just global order is thus a system of internally just nation-states, each primarily concerned with securing the well-being of its own citizens, according to the view each has of the requirements of domestic justice.
Human rights and Sufficiency theories: A variety of theories take a different, though still quite modest approach. Various theories focus on a global requirement to combat absolute deprivation. The claim is often made that the requirements of global justice, or of universal human rights is some minimum standard of well-being or standard of living, or some metric of resources sufficient for realizing the more general aim of a decent human life, a minimally good life, or a dignified human life.
Still other theories go beyond the modest aims of most human rights and sufficiency theories who focus solely on absolute deprivation. They argue that relative deprivation, or inequalities in resources, well-being, or advantage also matter globally. For example, they argue on instrumental grounds that extreme inequalities in income and wealth or political and economic power are incompatible with national self-determination, equal moral standing for the most vulnerable populations on the planet, or the secure realization of other aspects of human well-being when some nations and peoples are subject to the threat of domination by more powerful parties. In addition, some cosmopolitans argue that some inequalities are inherently unjust. They tend to argue that national boundaries are morally irrelevant, such that the accident of birth should not be allowed to determine differential life prospects.
Whatever general view of global justice one holds, some metrics are needed for identifying and assessing absolute deprivations in well-being, insufficiency of resources, and the various kinds of global inequalities that specific theories count as unjust.
Gauging Inequality through the Geni Coefficient
click image for larger view
There are a variety of ways by which inequality within a society can be assessed. Perhaps the most familiar index is the Gini coefficient. It was first articulated in a 1912 paper by the Italian economist Corrado Gini (1884-1965). The coefficient measures the degree the degree of concentration in a country’s income distribution.
The coefficient's scale runs from 0 to 100. A Gini coefficient of 100 represents 100 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution in a single person. A Gini of 0 represents 0 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution. With a Gini coefficient of 0, everyone receives exactly the same income.
A Geni coefficient of 50 is not as easy to interpret. It is theoretically possible for half of the country to have all of the income while the other half has none. But equally possible, and far more likely, is a distribution in which the top 10% gets 30% of the income, the bottom 40% gets a small share and the middle 50% gets more or less the same incomes. The lack of specificity is one of its shortcomings.
In addition, income inequality can be assessed under different assumptions about how total income is calculated. In the chart on the left, compare Norway and the United States When using wages alone, the coefficient for the US is 45.3 and 37.6 for Norway. But when wages, other government cash transfers, government-provided services such as health care and education are factored in (see column 3) the respective coefficients shift to 30.3 and 19.3 respectively. This makes the index of inequality for the US the most extreme among OCED countries.
The coefficient's scale runs from 0 to 100. A Gini coefficient of 100 represents 100 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution in a single person. A Gini of 0 represents 0 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution. With a Gini coefficient of 0, everyone receives exactly the same income.
A Geni coefficient of 50 is not as easy to interpret. It is theoretically possible for half of the country to have all of the income while the other half has none. But equally possible, and far more likely, is a distribution in which the top 10% gets 30% of the income, the bottom 40% gets a small share and the middle 50% gets more or less the same incomes. The lack of specificity is one of its shortcomings.
In addition, income inequality can be assessed under different assumptions about how total income is calculated. In the chart on the left, compare Norway and the United States When using wages alone, the coefficient for the US is 45.3 and 37.6 for Norway. But when wages, other government cash transfers, government-provided services such as health care and education are factored in (see column 3) the respective coefficients shift to 30.3 and 19.3 respectively. This makes the index of inequality for the US the most extreme among OCED countries.
How Do the OECD States Compare on Indices of Social Justice?
click image to enlarge
A New York Times blog entry by Charles Blow noted the findings of a recent report by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation of Germany entitled “Social Justice in the OECD — How Do the Member States Compare?” Blow notes that the" report analyzed some metrics of basic fairness and equality among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and ranked America among the ones at the bottom."
Click on the image for a larger view showing the metrics the Foundation relied upon, or click here for Blow's original online chart.
Click on the image for a larger view showing the metrics the Foundation relied upon, or click here for Blow's original online chart.
Inequality in Wealth vs. Inequality in Income
Gini coefficients also can be used to measure the concentration of wealth. NYU economist Edward N. Wolff estimates the Gini coefficient for household wealth in the United States to be 86.5, based on 2009 data.
Wolff has produced widely cited estimates of the distribution of income and wealth in the US, based on the Survey of Consumer Finance data. As the chart on the left illustrates, wealth is much more concentrated than income. The top 1% of income earners received 21% of the income in 2007, while the top 1% of wealth holders held 35% of the total wealth.
There are many who argue that wealth concentration reveals more about comparative social vulnerability inasmuch as assets offer a hedge against ruin in times of economic adversity that those who are dependent on income alone do not have.
Wolff has produced widely cited estimates of the distribution of income and wealth in the US, based on the Survey of Consumer Finance data. As the chart on the left illustrates, wealth is much more concentrated than income. The top 1% of income earners received 21% of the income in 2007, while the top 1% of wealth holders held 35% of the total wealth.
There are many who argue that wealth concentration reveals more about comparative social vulnerability inasmuch as assets offer a hedge against ruin in times of economic adversity that those who are dependent on income alone do not have.
|
|
Great Video On Inequality of Wealth In the USThe video on the left has been viewed more than 5 million times. The author is unknown (though there is much speculation) and posts under the screen name 'Politizane'. The claims in the video are not sourced, but the origins of the data are easy to find. The video refers to a Harvard Business School professor's study of what people think the wealth distribution in the US is and what they think the ideal distribution can be. It turns out to be a survey of Harvard alums and it's available in the Harvard Magazine. The wealth distribution data show an even greater share (42% instead of 35%) using sociologist William Domhoff's slightly different method for calculating wealth concentration (a measurement that subtracts the value of an individual's home). You can see the source of this other data presented in the video in this great summary piece in Think Progress. And see also Joseph Stiglitz's widely cited 2011 article in Vanity Fair.
|
Real Family Income Trends in the US
click image for larger view
One way to assess inequality in a country is to compare real family income - adjusted for inflation - among segments of society. The graph to the left from the Center for Budget Policy Priorities shows how much the top 5% of family incomes increased changed over a 60 year period from 1950-2010. While all segments fell in the recession year starting in 2008, the long-term trends are striking, but so too are the comparisons between family income in 1950 and the late 1970s.
On the one hand the glass is half empty. Real family income for all segments of society doubled during that period. On the other hand, critics note that it is half full. The top 5% pulled away from the families at the 50 percentile and pulled away drastically from those in the bottom 20 percent of income.
Critics of those who dwell on the half-empty scenario point to some complicating factors in interpreting what the trend means. The income goes further in producing well-being because family size is smaller. Income is not the whole story inasmuch as government and employer benefits have increased as well. And some of the seeming stall in the previous trend toward rising family income is explained by waves of expanded immigration that brings down the median real family income.
For one of the best summaries of the sometimes bewildering array of statistics regarding inequality in the US, few are better than
Timothy Noah’s The Great Divergence, a book expanded from his 2010 series of essays by the same name appearing in Slate.
On the one hand the glass is half empty. Real family income for all segments of society doubled during that period. On the other hand, critics note that it is half full. The top 5% pulled away from the families at the 50 percentile and pulled away drastically from those in the bottom 20 percent of income.
Critics of those who dwell on the half-empty scenario point to some complicating factors in interpreting what the trend means. The income goes further in producing well-being because family size is smaller. Income is not the whole story inasmuch as government and employer benefits have increased as well. And some of the seeming stall in the previous trend toward rising family income is explained by waves of expanded immigration that brings down the median real family income.
For one of the best summaries of the sometimes bewildering array of statistics regarding inequality in the US, few are better than
Timothy Noah’s The Great Divergence, a book expanded from his 2010 series of essays by the same name appearing in Slate.
Income and Wealth Trends within the US: the 1% and the rest
click image to enlarge
Data from the US Census show that median inflation-adjusted family income in the US peaked in 2000 at $64,232, it has fallen roughly 6 percent. One reason for the substantial decline - the greatest percentage decline for a similar period since the Great Depression - is the lack of economic growth that would increase the size of the economic pie. Another issues is the fact that a larger proportion of the pie is being captured by a smaller, richer segment of the population. Income data from the Census analyzed by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty show the top 1 percent of earners taking 93 percent of the income gains in 2010, the first full year of the recovery. In addition, the Economic Policy Institute concludes that the top 1% in the US have greater wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
More detailed current information regarding wealth, income, and other indicators of poverty and their demographic distribution can be found at the Census website.
More detailed current information regarding wealth, income, and other indicators of poverty and their demographic distribution can be found at the Census website.
Progress toward the Millenium Goals
One bit of good news on the heels of the global recession is that the World Bank announced in 2012 that the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme poverty in half were estimated to have been met in 2010, five years before its 2015 target date. Extreme poverty is truly extreme. It is defined as living on less than $1.25 a day, a figure based on a calculation of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) with the US. An indicator of just how dire the condition of poverty is under this definition can be found by reflecting on what it would be like to live on an income of $1.25 daily (at 2005 prices) in the US. There are other significant methodological worries as well. See Angus Deaton, "Counting the World's Poor."
For a vivid portrayal of what life is like for those who must live on $1 per day, see the documentary, LivingOnOne.
While much of the progress is attributable to improvements resulting from transformation of the Chinese economy, which moved nearly 700 million people out of poverty between 1981 and 2008, Sub-Saharan Africa also showed improvements, where the proportion fell to 47.5 percent in 2008 from 55.7 percent in 2002. Still, China was the big performer, with the proportion of its population living in extreme poverty falling to 13 percent from 84 during the 1981-2008 period.
Many of the richer nations pledged to devote .7% of their own gross national income to global poverty alleviation, but in the context of (though not necessarily because of) the global recession beginning in 2008, the actual figures fell within a usual range of .2 to .4 percent. Much of the improvements in alleviation of extreme poverty therefore is attributable to factors other than the contributions from the global rich.
For a vivid portrayal of what life is like for those who must live on $1 per day, see the documentary, LivingOnOne.
While much of the progress is attributable to improvements resulting from transformation of the Chinese economy, which moved nearly 700 million people out of poverty between 1981 and 2008, Sub-Saharan Africa also showed improvements, where the proportion fell to 47.5 percent in 2008 from 55.7 percent in 2002. Still, China was the big performer, with the proportion of its population living in extreme poverty falling to 13 percent from 84 during the 1981-2008 period.
Many of the richer nations pledged to devote .7% of their own gross national income to global poverty alleviation, but in the context of (though not necessarily because of) the global recession beginning in 2008, the actual figures fell within a usual range of .2 to .4 percent. Much of the improvements in alleviation of extreme poverty therefore is attributable to factors other than the contributions from the global rich.
UNICEF Report on Child Poverty in the Developed World
click image for larger view
A new 2012 report, Measuring Child Poverty from the Office of Research at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), shows the relative poverty rates for the 35 most developed countries. Only Romania has a child poverty rate higher than the 23 percent rate in the U.S.
The report defines the relative poverty as used by the OECD study as follows: a child is deemed to be living in relative poverty if he or she is growing up in a household where disposable income, when adjusted for family size and composition, is less than 50% of the median disposable household income for the country concerned. By this standard, more than 15% of the 200 million children in the 35 countries listed in Figure 1b are seen to be living in relative poverty.
The report also provides a portrait of child deprivation in 29 economically advanced countries. Contrast the figure on the left with Figure 1a in the report, which shows the percentage of children (aged 1 to 16) who lack two or more of 14 items considered normal and necessary for a child in an economically advanced country. The report provides an illuminating discussion of these two measures, why they differ, and how each reveals something of moral and public policy importance.
The report defines the relative poverty as used by the OECD study as follows: a child is deemed to be living in relative poverty if he or she is growing up in a household where disposable income, when adjusted for family size and composition, is less than 50% of the median disposable household income for the country concerned. By this standard, more than 15% of the 200 million children in the 35 countries listed in Figure 1b are seen to be living in relative poverty.
The report also provides a portrait of child deprivation in 29 economically advanced countries. Contrast the figure on the left with Figure 1a in the report, which shows the percentage of children (aged 1 to 16) who lack two or more of 14 items considered normal and necessary for a child in an economically advanced country. The report provides an illuminating discussion of these two measures, why they differ, and how each reveals something of moral and public policy importance.
Global Health Inequality
Click for link to the 7 articles and podcasts
Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
Published Dec 13, 2012
Differential health outcomes are among the most important kinds of global inequality and they are indicators of other forms of inequality that contribute to relative health deprivations. The Executive summary of the latest Global Burden of Disease Study, contained in 7 articles, covering 187 countries, reads as follows:
"The Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010) is the largest ever systematic effort to describe the global distribution and causes of a wide array of major diseases, injuries, and health risk factors. The results show that infectious diseases, maternal and child illness, and malnutrition now cause fewer deaths and less illness than they did twenty years ago. As a result, fewer children are dying every year, but more young and middle-aged adults are dying and suffering from disease and injury, as non-communicable diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, become the dominant causes of death and disability worldwide. Since 1970, men and women worldwide have gained slightly more than ten years of life expectancy overall, but they spend more years living with injury and illness.
The exceptions are significant. Childhood illnesses and maternity-related causes of death still account for about 70 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa's disease burden, a measure of years of life lost due to premature death and to time lived in less than full health, and the region also lagged behind the rest of the world in mortality gains, with the average age of death rising by fewer than 10 years from 1970 to 2010, compared with a more than 25-year increase in Latin America, Asia and North Africa.
In addition to the 7 articles posted on the website of The Lancet, you can find two podcasts that provide and overview and background of the studies and a summary of some of the key findings.
Published Dec 13, 2012
Differential health outcomes are among the most important kinds of global inequality and they are indicators of other forms of inequality that contribute to relative health deprivations. The Executive summary of the latest Global Burden of Disease Study, contained in 7 articles, covering 187 countries, reads as follows:
"The Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010) is the largest ever systematic effort to describe the global distribution and causes of a wide array of major diseases, injuries, and health risk factors. The results show that infectious diseases, maternal and child illness, and malnutrition now cause fewer deaths and less illness than they did twenty years ago. As a result, fewer children are dying every year, but more young and middle-aged adults are dying and suffering from disease and injury, as non-communicable diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, become the dominant causes of death and disability worldwide. Since 1970, men and women worldwide have gained slightly more than ten years of life expectancy overall, but they spend more years living with injury and illness.
The exceptions are significant. Childhood illnesses and maternity-related causes of death still account for about 70 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa's disease burden, a measure of years of life lost due to premature death and to time lived in less than full health, and the region also lagged behind the rest of the world in mortality gains, with the average age of death rising by fewer than 10 years from 1970 to 2010, compared with a more than 25-year increase in Latin America, Asia and North Africa.
In addition to the 7 articles posted on the website of The Lancet, you can find two podcasts that provide and overview and background of the studies and a summary of some of the key findings.
International Comparisons of Infant Mortality Rates
click image for larger view
The CIA World Fact Book is a great source for all sorts of information. You can see their 2012 estimates of infant mortality rates for 223 nations and territories here. The number 1 slot, of course, is the highest and the worst, but the US comes in at 174. The World Health Organization map on the left provides a quick visual profile of the world distribution of deaths under the age of 5 for 2003.
Access to Essential Medicines and Avoidable Health Burdens
click image to download
One of the most important indicators of human deprivation is the lack of access to essential medicines.
In the words of the World Health Organization (WHO), "essential medicines are medicines that satisfy the priority health care needs of a population. They are selected with regard to disease prevalence, safety, efficacy, and comparative cost-effectiveness." Lack of access to essential medicines results in enormous avoidable premature death and disability. For example, WHO estimates that nine million children under five years old die every year, many of them from conditions that could be treated with safe, effective medicines.The upshot is that identification of essential medicines is a crucial first step toward solving an enormous global health problem. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines includes over 350 medicines to treat priority conditions.
The next step involves creation of financial mechanisms that allow greater access by poor residents of poor countries. Activists have pushed pharmaceutical companies to become more involved in programs that make medicines available at low cost or no cost to countries that are heavily burdened by disease and economic underdevelopment.
The 2012 Access to Medicine Index was published on November 28th, 2012. The report evaluates the top 20 pharmaceutical companies' access to medicine activities. Click here for an interactive chart that allows you to click on a company name to find out more about its 2012 Index performance and, or you can use the tabs at the top to see company rankings in specific areas. So for example, you can click on the Donations Tab and find out about the scale and scope of donated products and commitments to ensuring that donated drugs get to patients, as well as their Investments in health infrastructure-related philanthropic projects and their relevance to long-term sustainable access to medicine.
In the words of the World Health Organization (WHO), "essential medicines are medicines that satisfy the priority health care needs of a population. They are selected with regard to disease prevalence, safety, efficacy, and comparative cost-effectiveness." Lack of access to essential medicines results in enormous avoidable premature death and disability. For example, WHO estimates that nine million children under five years old die every year, many of them from conditions that could be treated with safe, effective medicines.The upshot is that identification of essential medicines is a crucial first step toward solving an enormous global health problem. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines includes over 350 medicines to treat priority conditions.
The next step involves creation of financial mechanisms that allow greater access by poor residents of poor countries. Activists have pushed pharmaceutical companies to become more involved in programs that make medicines available at low cost or no cost to countries that are heavily burdened by disease and economic underdevelopment.
The 2012 Access to Medicine Index was published on November 28th, 2012. The report evaluates the top 20 pharmaceutical companies' access to medicine activities. Click here for an interactive chart that allows you to click on a company name to find out more about its 2012 Index performance and, or you can use the tabs at the top to see company rankings in specific areas. So for example, you can click on the Donations Tab and find out about the scale and scope of donated products and commitments to ensuring that donated drugs get to patients, as well as their Investments in health infrastructure-related philanthropic projects and their relevance to long-term sustainable access to medicine.
Energy Poverty
click image for larger view
We often think of poverty in terms of economic deprivation, or more recently, in terms of levels of achievement for certain kinds of social functionings such as health and educational attainment. Or we think of certain kinds of resources that are scarce, such as food insecurity or lack of clean water. The concept of energy poverty is one more way in which resource inequalities of great significance can be appreciated. As the graph on the right shows, a substantial portion of the world lacks access to energy sources generally necessary for improvement of well-being. Indeed, a large issue in global climate change mitigation negotiations is the importance of greenhouse gas (GHG) development rights, or the claim of some lesser developed nations to be able to increase their per capita GHG emissions even as the overall global aim is reduction of the rate of emissions, then stabilization of the cumulative GHG stocks in the atmosphere, and finally absolute reduction of GHG atmospheric stocks.
Energy poverty, like other ways of conceptualizing forms of deprivation and disadvantage, can be defined and measured using a variety of assumptions and tools for comparison. For more on these topics, see the website for Energy for Development and Poverty Reduction.
Intergenerational Social Mobility
A 2010 assessment of intergenerational social mobility offers another snapshot of social justice in various societies. The OECD report, A Family Affair: Intergenerational Social Mobility Across OECD Countries, assesses recent cross-country patterns and examines the role that public policies play in affecting mobility. Intergenerational earning, wage and educational mobility vary widely across OECD countries. In the language of the report:
"Intergenerational social mobility refers to the relationship between the socioeconomic status of parents and the status their children will attain as adults. Put differently, mobility reflects the extent to which individuals move up (or down) the social ladder compared with their parents. A society can be deemed more or less mobile depending on whether the link between parents’ and childrens’ social status as adults is looser or tighter. In a relatively immobile society an individual’s wage, education or occupation tends to be strongly related to those of his/her parents. Intergenerational mobility depends on a host of factors that determine individual economic success, some related to the inheritability of traits (such as innate abilities), others related to the family and social environment in which individuals develop. Among environmental factors, some are only loosely related to public policy (such as social norms, work ethics, attitude towards risk and social networks), while others can be heavily affected by policies."
While the report cites many factors that explain levels of mobility in OECD countries, the key piece of the equation appears to be education, and how much your parents' education affects your education. For example, see the graph on the left for the strength of the link between individual earnings and parental earnings. Mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in France, southern European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. By contrast, such mobility tends to be higher in Australia, Canada and the Nordic countries.
"Intergenerational social mobility refers to the relationship between the socioeconomic status of parents and the status their children will attain as adults. Put differently, mobility reflects the extent to which individuals move up (or down) the social ladder compared with their parents. A society can be deemed more or less mobile depending on whether the link between parents’ and childrens’ social status as adults is looser or tighter. In a relatively immobile society an individual’s wage, education or occupation tends to be strongly related to those of his/her parents. Intergenerational mobility depends on a host of factors that determine individual economic success, some related to the inheritability of traits (such as innate abilities), others related to the family and social environment in which individuals develop. Among environmental factors, some are only loosely related to public policy (such as social norms, work ethics, attitude towards risk and social networks), while others can be heavily affected by policies."
While the report cites many factors that explain levels of mobility in OECD countries, the key piece of the equation appears to be education, and how much your parents' education affects your education. For example, see the graph on the left for the strength of the link between individual earnings and parental earnings. Mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in France, southern European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. By contrast, such mobility tends to be higher in Australia, Canada and the Nordic countries.
Economic Mobility in the US
click image for link to book info
For information about economic mobility in the US, a great source of state information and current analysis of possible explanations of the impediments to mobility that are (arguably) specific to the US, see the website for the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Among the main impediments, according to a 10 country study conducted by the Russell Sage Foundation, From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage (summarized in this 2011 Pew Sheet), are the socioeconomic advantages, as measured by parents' education, that are transmitted over the course of a lifetime. A 2012 Pew Report, Pursuing the American Dream
Economic Mobility Across Generations, provides additional evidence regarding the extent of limited economic mobility in the US and the role of education as a pathway out of poverty.
For an interesting discussion of various controversies the 2011 Russell Sage study raises and important implications for public policy, see The National Journal article by Scott Winship, a Brookings researcher.
One issue is which measure of economic mobility is the best gauge of opportunity. We might choose to measure “relative mobility” which assesses how likely children are to move from their parents’ position in the income distribution, or absolute mobility, a measure of whether adult children have more money than their parents.The latter measure will show most Americans doing better simply because the US has grown richer.
Another problem that Winship notes is that it is so much harder for the bottom fifth in the US to work its way upward simply because the gap between the bottom fifth and the middle fifth and upper two fifths is so great in the US, compared to other nations surveyed.
Among the main impediments, according to a 10 country study conducted by the Russell Sage Foundation, From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage (summarized in this 2011 Pew Sheet), are the socioeconomic advantages, as measured by parents' education, that are transmitted over the course of a lifetime. A 2012 Pew Report, Pursuing the American Dream
Economic Mobility Across Generations, provides additional evidence regarding the extent of limited economic mobility in the US and the role of education as a pathway out of poverty.
For an interesting discussion of various controversies the 2011 Russell Sage study raises and important implications for public policy, see The National Journal article by Scott Winship, a Brookings researcher.
One issue is which measure of economic mobility is the best gauge of opportunity. We might choose to measure “relative mobility” which assesses how likely children are to move from their parents’ position in the income distribution, or absolute mobility, a measure of whether adult children have more money than their parents.The latter measure will show most Americans doing better simply because the US has grown richer.
Another problem that Winship notes is that it is so much harder for the bottom fifth in the US to work its way upward simply because the gap between the bottom fifth and the middle fifth and upper two fifths is so great in the US, compared to other nations surveyed.
Educational Achievement Gaps
click image for link
The significant role of parental education in economic mobility is amplified by the fact that the educational achievement gap between rich and poor in the US is widening. Two studies published in “Whither Opportunity?” compiled by the Russell Sage Foundation, show some striking trends.
First, one study found that that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s. The income linkage is significant in the light of the fact that it is double the achievement gap between black and white Americans.
Second, the gap in rates of college completion between rich and poor children in college completion has widened by about 50 percent since the late 1980s. That's significant because much evidence shows that it is the single most important predictor of success in the work force.
First, one study found that that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s. The income linkage is significant in the light of the fact that it is double the achievement gap between black and white Americans.
Second, the gap in rates of college completion between rich and poor children in college completion has widened by about 50 percent since the late 1980s. That's significant because much evidence shows that it is the single most important predictor of success in the work force.