social mobility

Poverty and equality of opportunity: three pictures to motivate policy for social mobility

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 26/11/2019 - 9:56am in

Read my comments presented to the Public Economics Forum on “Intergenerationally Disadvantaged: Newest Evidence and What it Means for Policy,” organized by the Melbourne Institute for Applied Economic and Social Research, on November 26th, 2019 in Canberra, Australia.

Social mobility varies across countries, but it varies in a particular way, a way that I argue is relevant for the conduct of public policy.

Inequality begets inequality. Up to 50% of income inequality is passed on to the next generation in countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States, but only 20% or even less in countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland, where there is a much smaller gap between parent incomes.

Incomes are stickier across generations where inequality is higher

But different kinds of inequality matter in different ways for social mobility.

Research using the variation of social mobility within countries like the United States and Canada shows that intergenerational cycles of low income are more likely in communities that have more bottom half inequality, the correlation with overall inequality and with top end inequality being much weaker. Upward mobility is easier when the poorest incomes are not that far off from middle incomes.

The bottom line for public policy is don’t let inequality increase in the bottom half of the income distribution, indeed strive to reduce it in a way that encourages labour market and social engagement.

This is something that is pretty accurately flagged by a commonly-used measure of low-income, the fraction of the popultIon with incomes below half of the middle income.

The proportion of children living in households with less than half the income of those half way up the income latter also varies significantly across countries, averaging about 13 per cent across the rich countries, but more than 6 percentage points higher in the United States, but about 10 percentage points lower in Finland and Denmark.

Eliminating child poverty goes hand-in-hand with promoting social mobility.

Child poverty rates average 13% in rich countries, but vary significantly

Australia finds itself at about the average, with 13 out of every 100 children living in households with low income during 2015. My country, Canada, is well above this average but more recent data for 2017, released by Statistics Canada and also the OECD, shows an important drop, documenting rates below the overall rich country average, and now below that for Australia

What happened?

I would like to argue that what happened is a change in policy and policy priorities, changes that offer concrete examples for policy learning across countries.

The election of a progressive government in October 2015 opened the door for policy that was of relatively more advantage to the middle class and the relatively disadvantaged. This included a number of measures spearheaded by the then Minister of Families, Children and Social development, Jean-Yves Duclos. These included important improvements in housing, education, and income transfers, most notably the introduction of the Canada Child Benefit.

These changes culminated with the passing into law of Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, an overarching framework to guide policy, to monitor progress, and to engage citizen feedback in a spirit of continual improvement.

Canada’s poverty reduction strategy has three elements: (1) it establishes an official poverty line and sets associated targets for significant yet feasible reductions in poverty; (2) it establishes a series of supporting indicators that recognize aspects of poverty beyond income; and (3) if offers an implicit “contract” to future governments, embedding poverty reduction as a social priority in the future.

The strategy—particularly an appropriate country-specific definition of poverty and associated targets for its elimination—is concretely informed by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, but also more abstractly by Michael Barber’s approach to policy implementation, targets being intended to promote public engagement, making government accountable in a transparent and timely way.

With poverty falling in a way that closes the gap between what the less advantaged have and what they need to participate normally in society, in a way that facilitates opportunity for children, and in a way that fosters resilience and security among the middle class, my guess is that the playing field is becoming a bit more leveled, and the odds of less advantaged children growing up to become the next generation of less advantaged adults are falling. This is both an aspiration and a concrete policy lesson for other countries.


You can download a copy of the slides I used  to frame my comments to the Public Economics Forum held on November 26th, 2019 in Canberra, Australia. : Poverty and equality of opportunity .

Book Review: Higher Education and Social Inequalities: University Admissions, Experiences and Outcomes edited by Richard Waller, Nicola Ingram and Michael R.M. Ward

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 27/10/2019 - 8:30pm in

In Higher Education and Social Inequalities, Richard Waller, Nicola Ingram and Michael R.M. Ward bring together contributors to explore and evidence how university admissions, experiences and outcomes are influenced by wider inequalities within society. This collection adds to the contemporary re-emergence of class analysis within the sociology of education and will contribute to debates surrounding the future of higher education in the UK, writes Ross Goldstone. This […]

Book Review: Social Mobility and its Enemies by Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 25/09/2019 - 9:10pm in

In Social Mobility and its EnemiesLee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin offer a thought-provoking assessment of the state of social mobility in Britain. In the context of much social and political change and rising levels of inequality in Britain, this book is able to dispel the myth of meritocracy and suggest evidence-informed avenues for achieving a fairer society for all, writes Ross Goldstone

Social Mobility and its Enemies. Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin. Pelican. 2018.

Find this book: amazon-logo

Have you ever wondered why those at the top tend to come from the same backgrounds? Or how severe the social mobility crisis in Britain really is—and what has, and continues to, cause it? If so, then Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin’s recent contribution to the Pelican Books series, Social Mobility and its Enemies, is a must-read.

Through critically engaging with rigorous and reputable research in this area, the book provides a thought-provoking assessment of the state of social mobility in Britain. In so doing, the authors spell out what might be done to reverse the trend of low social mobility which has accelerated over decades, so that a fairer society, with opportunities for all to achieve social mobility, can be created. The book comes at a time of growing economic and social inequality in Britain that has ushered in a social mobility crisis and thus holds contemporary policy relevance. Considering the part played by stagnant opportunities for significant proportions of the population in current political events, such as the UK EU referendum result (71), also enables the book to contribute to existing debates over how to move forward in post-Brexit Britain.

Social mobility ‘tells us how likely we are to climb up (or fall down) the economic or social ladder of life’ (4). The ‘enemies’ referred to in the book’s title are those privileged social elites who are able to hoard opportunities to prevent sliding down the social ladder, and in so doing, limit opportunities for social mobility for those at the bottom (195). However, the measurement of this complex social phenomena is not straightforward, with the measures, variables and forms of social mobility used (such as absolute or relative) being influential on findings produced on the topic. For example, it may be possible to discover increased absolute social mobility, but stagnant relative mobility (16). What Major and Machin are able to do in this book is provide an accessible and evidence-based account of complex statistics on the social mobility problem in Britain; the mechanisms underpinning this, including the key role education plays in hindering, as much as enabling, social mobility; and the consequences of low social mobility for British society, be these economic, social or political. This review focuses on the authors’ discussion of the two latter areas: firstly, the implications of immobility in contemporary Britain; and secondly, the contentious relationship between education and social immobility.

Image Credit: (Pixabay CC0)

Throughout the book, there are telling indications of the importance of social mobility both economically and socially. Major and Machin demonstrate throughout Part One that the UK has one of the highest levels of inequality and the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility (see Figures 1.3 and 3.6) amongst a range of developed nations. Whilst there are political and economic differences between many of these and the UK, similar Anglophone countries perform better: ‘Australia and Canada have lower betas [levels of intergenerational immobility] and more income mobility than Britain’ (25-31). Thus, this suggests that ‘Britain is less mobile than it could be’ (29). This trend is not reversing: instead ‘income mobility [has] declined across recent generations’ (26). Partly, this has taken place during a time when the gap between rich and poor in the UK has increased, largely as a consequence of property-based wealth, because ‘in developed economies, housing wealth is the largest component of […] overall wealth’ (39).

This immobility is, for Major and Machin, damaging for British society economically (127), socially (Chapter Five) and politically (73). Economically, the price of immobility is estimated at ‘an annual increase in the country’s GDP of between 2 and 4 per cent’ (57). Furthermore, enhancing social mobility is believed to be an important element of solving Britain’s productivity problem. This is because in ‘more mobile societies jobs are filled by those with the highest level of potential to perform well in that role, rather than someone who may be less well suited but better connected’ (57). But there are social and political implications to not enabling everyone an equal opportunity to achieve social mobility. The authors illustrate how immobility in Britain can be understood as a factor in the result of the EU referendum. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 demonstrate ‘a strong link between areas of low mobility and [… voting] to leave the European Union’ (73). What this suggests is that immobility breeds discontent and disaffection, enabling those with objectives of social change to capitalise on the frustrations of the immobile. A similar story can be said of the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.

The role of education in social (im)mobility is a contentious one. For those in policy circles buying into notions of human capital theory, education is the ‘great social leveller’ (87). While education is vital for social mobility, the role education plays in mobility is complicated. Major and Machin problematise this relationship by discussing what they call ‘education’s dark side’ (83). Their particular focus is on ‘the extra investments made by middle-class families to enable their children to get ahead during the early years’ (95) as well as ‘Britain’s Privately Educated Elites’ (129), who are able to monopolise the most advantageous educational opportunities and lucrative labour market destinations. In an increasingly knowledge-based, globalised economy, where education is a basic requirement for most skilled work, it is the poorest that are least capable of capitalising on this, even when they attain highly. For those that consecutive governments have failed, lacking basic skills, the prospects of mobility are bleak. Major and Machin starkly conclude that the ‘education system remains tilted in countless ways to the already advantaged’ (112). It is for this reason that education reform is key to their proposals for change. Ideas are provided in Part Three, including a rethinking of education beyond the academic (183) and education system reform, focusing specifically on access to ‘good’ educational opportunities (206). However, education is not the sole driver of change for Major and Machin, as a restructuring of the labour market and work remuneration are also recommended.

However, one limitation of this book is the lack of consideration of the ‘costs’ of social mobility. There is increasing recognition that social mobility is far from a straightforward process of smoothly ascending the social hierarchy as depicted in policy texts. Despite this, the book does not critically explore the notion of social mobility and whether contemporary ideas as to whether those not from privileged backgrounds can achieve this are outdated. The strong policy focus of the book would enable such a problematisation of social mobility to be pushed into current debates and for a more fruitful understanding of the troubles of traversing the social ladder to be at the heart of these.

Irrespective of this omission, Major and Machin offer a timely contribution to debates surrounding social mobility. The book joins other recent publications that have considered notions of social mobility, in addition to those critically exploring education in contemporary society in terms of equality, opportunity and mobility. These include Miseducation by Diane Reay, The Class Ceiling by Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison and Engines of Privilege by Francis Green and David Kynaston. Given the authors are from academic and policy-focused backgrounds, the book will appeal to academics across the social and policy sciences interested in issues surrounding social mobility, inequality and education, as well as those from outside of the academy interested in creating a fairer society. In the context of much social and political change and rising levels of inequality in Britain, this book is able to dispel the myth of meritocracy and suggest evidence-informed avenues for achieving a fairer society for all.

Ross Goldstone is an ESRC-funded PhD candidate at the School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, where he is studying the relationship between social class and further education participation and experience. His current interests are in educational inequality and the sociology of education, in addition to wider debates around social class, and the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and their application in educational research. He tweets at @GoldstoneRoss.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 

Diversity troubles – comprehensive solutions to HE’s racial segregation

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 24/08/2017 - 9:01am in

Sol Gamsu and Michael Donnelly examine the geography of ethnicity and higher education in the UK and argue that a comprehensive university system may hold some of the answers.

The post Diversity troubles – comprehensive solutions to HE’s racial segregation appeared first on Wonkhe.

A real step change for fair access

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/08/2017 - 9:01am in

As the work of the Office for Fair Access begins to transfer to the new Office for Students, Les Ebdon offers his perspective on the way the new body will need to approach this vitally important issue.

The post A real step change for fair access appeared first on Wonkhe.

The case for intersectionality in TEF

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 25/07/2017 - 9:01am in

The split metrics in TEF allow us to see potential issues with diverse groups, but do they go far enough? Catherine Boyd and David Kernohan consider how intersectional groups could be represented.

The post The case for intersectionality in TEF appeared first on Wonkhe.

Social mobility can be much more than just widening HE access

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/07/2017 - 9:01am in

Mary Stuart reflects on the diverse ways in which universities can and do work with local schools and businesses to kickstart social mobility and address economic disadvantage and inequality.

The post Social mobility can be much more than just widening HE access appeared first on Wonkhe.

POLAR opposites – LEO and the class effect on graduate earnings

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 15/06/2017 - 12:45am in

We already know that a graduates' social class origins have a big impact on their graduate earnings potential. This week's LEO release gives us the opportunity to test this for different subject areas.

The post POLAR opposites – LEO and the class effect on graduate earnings appeared first on Wonkhe.

Looking fair and wide on university access

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 27/03/2017 - 10:01am in

What if access to higher education was entirely 'fair', and more evenly split across social classes? David Morris has made a rough model of a 'fair' system to uniquely illustrate some of the challenges for fairer and wider access to university.

The post Looking fair and wide on university access appeared first on Wonkhe.