Suchergebnisse

Generational income mobility in North America and Europe: an introduction /Miles Corak --A model of intergenerational mobility variation over time and place /Gary Solon --Equal opportunity and intergenerational mobility: going beyond intergenerational income transition matrices /John E. Roemer --Intergenerational mobility for whom? The experience of high- and low-earning sons in international perspective /Nathan D. Grawe --What do trends in the intergenerational economic mobility of sons and daughters in the United States mean? /Susan E. Mayer,Leonard M. Lopoo --Changes in intergenerational mobility in Britain /Jo Ermisch,Marco Francesconi --Non-linear patterns of intergenerational mobility in Germany and the United States /Kenneth A. Couch,Dean R. Lillard --Family structure and labor market success: the influence of siblings and birth order on the earnings of young adults in Norway, Finland, and Sweden /Anders Björklund [and others] --New evidence on the intergenerational correlation in welfare participation /Marianne E. Page --Intergenerational influences on the receipt of unemployment insurance in Canada and Sweden /Miles Corak [and others] --Unequal opportunities and the mechanisms of social inheritance /Gøsta Esping-Anderson.

The objective of this paper is to examine the extent to which an individual's use of unemployment insurance (UI) as a young adult is influenced by past experience with the program, and by having had a parent who also collected UI. A major methodological challenge is to determine the extent to which the intergenerational correlation of UI status is spuriousʺ or causal. Both the time to a first UI claim and the entire sequence of claims over an extended period are examined using two alternative ways of controlling for unobserved heterogeneity. The analysis is based upon longitudinal data on a cohort of young Canadian and Swedish men. It is found that parental use of UI shortens the time to a first UI claim in Canada, but not in Sweden. Subsequent participation in the Canadian program is influenced by parental UI history. In Sweden individual learning through past participation in UI-not family background-is the dominant avenue determining repeated participation.

AbstractInequality threatens intergenerational income mobility, but different types of inequality threaten mobility in different ways, raising distinct policy challenges. This is why empirical researchers should be agnostic in the choice of statistics they use to measure intergenerational mobility. I argue that Australia is on the whole characterised by a good deal of intergenerational mobility, but that a full picture requires judicious international comparisons across different dimensions of mobility citizens care about, mobility not just of incomes, but also of position and direction, particularly the scope for upward mobility.

Abstract
Intergenerational income mobility varies significantly across Canada, with the 266 Census Divisions in the 1986 Census clustering into five non-contiguous regions. Nine complementary indicators are calculated for each Census Division using administrative data on a cohort of men and women born between 1963 and 1970. Collectively these indicators underscore the importance of simultaneously examining different dimensions of intergenerational mobility and also show that higher mobility is most strongly associated with less income inequality in the bottom half of the income distribution.

Income inequality is on the rise, and everyone, from President Obama and Pope Francis to Prince Charles and Standard & Poor's, is talking about it. But these conversations about what are arguably the most significant changes in the distribution of incomes and earnings since the 1940s are leading to very different views on how public policy should respond. This is as true in Canada as it is in almost all of the other rich countries where inequality has risen. In this paper, I tell two stories about inequality—one from the perspective of those who feel it is not a problem worth the worry, and the other from the perspective of those who see it as the defining challenge of our time—to clarify the issues facing Canadians and what public policy should do about them.

To understand the degree of intergenerational mobility in the United States, and the differences between Americans and others, it is important to appreciate the workings and interaction of three fundamental institutions: the family, the market, and the state. But comparisons can also be misleading. The way in which families, labor markets, and government policy determine the life chances of children is complicated; the result of a particular history, societal values, and the nature of the political process. It might be one thing to say that the United States has significantly less intergenerational mobility than Denmark or Norway, but it is entirely another thing to suggest that these countries offer templates for the conduct of public policy that can be applied on this side of the Atlantic. There is no way to get from here to there. It is helpful to focus on a particularly apt comparison, that between the United States and Canada, in order to illustrate how the configuration of the forces determining the transmission of inequality across generations differs in spite of the fact that both of these countries share many other things in common, particularly the importance and meaning of equality of opportunity and the role of individual hard work and motivation.

This paper has three objectives. The first is to discuss the major issues involved in defining and measuring child poverty. The choices that must be made are clarified, and a set of six principles to serve as a guide for public policy are stated. The second objective is to take stock of child poverty and changes in child poverty in the majority of OECD countries since about 1990 when the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force. Finally, the third objective is to formulate a number of suggestions for the setting of credible targets for the elimination of child poverty in the rich countries. This involves a method for embodying the ideal of children having priority on social resources into a particular set of child poverty reduction targets, it involves the development of appropriate and timely information sources, and finally it involves the clarification of feasible targets that may vary across the OECD.