A Broken Social elevator? How to promote social mobility
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
3 recomendaciones•140,874 vistas
A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. Presentation by Stefano Scarpetta, Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD Webinar 15 June 2018.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a A Broken Social elevator? How to promote social mobility
Similar a A Broken Social elevator? How to promote social mobility (20)
Más de OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs
Más de OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs (20)
Último
Último (20)
A Broken Social elevator? How to promote social mobility
- 1. How to Promote Social Mobility A Broken Social Elevator? LIVE WEBINAR Friday 15th June, 16:00-16:30 CEST (Paris time) / 10:00-10:30 EDT (Washington DC) @OECD_Social
- 2. How to Promote Social Mobility A Broken Social Elevator? Stefano Scarpetta Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD Stéphane Carcillo Head of the Jobs and Incomes Division, OECD Michael Förster Senior Economist, Jobs and Incomes Division, OECD
- 3. Join the discussion Ask questions and comment throughout via the webcast chat function. After today’s event, don’t forget to follow us at: @OECD_Social @stescarpetta Publication URL: oe.cd/social-mobility-2018 For more information: www.oecd.org/social
- 4. The OECD has been at the forefront to document the rise in inequality “Inequality can no longer be treated as an afterthought. We need to focus the debate on how the benefits of growth are distributed.” Angel Gurría, Secretary General of the OECD
- 5. A Broken Social Elevator? 6 main messages There is a lack of social mobility in our societies. High levels of inequality and low social mobility reinforce each others Sticky floors prevent movement at the bottom. Sticky ceilings protect better-off families at the top. This has economic, societal and political consequences It could take 5 generations for the offspring of low- income families to reach the average income level We can make our societies more mobile by designing policies promoting social mobility
- 6. Source: OECD Income Distribution Database (www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm), as at 15-Jun-2018 Note: the Gini coefficient ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality). Income refers to cash disposable income adjusted for household size. Data refer to 2015 or latest year available. Large country differences in levels of income inequality 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Emerging economies 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Gini Coefficient of income inequality OECD countries Moreinequality
- 7. Rising trend of income inequality Source: OECD Income Distribution Database, www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm. Note: Income refers to real household disposable income. OECD-17 refers to the unweighted average of the 17 OECD countries for which data are available: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Some data points have been interpolated or use the value from the closest available year. Trends in real household incomes 1985 = 1 OECD-17 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Top 10% Mean Median Bottom 10%
- 8. 8 More inequality does not mean more social mobility OECD24 DNK NOR FIN SWE ESPNZL GRC CAN BEL AUS JPN PRTNLD IRL KOR USA ITA GBR CHEAUT FRA CHL DEU HUN ARG INDCHN BRA ZAF COL 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Earnings mobility across generations today Inequality 25 years ago (Gini coefficient) Moremobility More inequality
- 9. It would take 5 generations for a descendant of a bottom-10% family to reach the mean income 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 4.5 6 7 7 9 9 11 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Number of generations it would take for descendants of families at the bottom 10% to reach the mean income in society
- 10. Sticky floors at the bottom, Sticky ceilings at the top Children from disadvantaged background struggle a lot to move up the ladder % of people in the upper earnings quartile, by father’s earnings position 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Father in the bottom earnings quartile Father in the top earnings quartile
- 11. Patterns of mobility across countries and dimensions United States Germany Italy Sweden DenmarkHungary OECD United States Earnings mobility Occupation mobillity IcelandKorea OECD United States Education mobility KoreaPortugal OECD United States Minimum Maximum Iceland MexicoOECD United States Income inequality DenmarkHungary OECD Italy Earnings mobility Occupation mobillity IcelandKorea OECD Italy Education mobility KoreaPortugal OECD Italy Minimum Maximum Iceland MexicoOECD Italy Income inequality DenmarkHungary OECD Sweden Earnings mobility Occupation mobillity IcelandKorea OECD Sweden Education mobility KoreaPortugal OECD Sweden Minimum Maximum Iceland MexicoOECD Sweden Income inequality DenmarkHungary OECD Germany Earnings mobility Occupation mobillity IcelandKorea OECD Germany Education mobility KoreaPortugal OECD Germany Minimum Maximum Iceland MexicoOECD Germany Income inequality
- 12. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Poorest 2 3 4 Richest % Move one quintile or more up Stay in the same quintile Move one quintile or more down Similar patterns of low mobility at the bottom and at the top over shorter periods A majority of people remain stuck at the bottom/top of the income distribution Income changes are shaped by Share of individuals moving up, moving down, or staying in the same income quintile, disposable income, 4 years, early 2010s or latest
- 13. Risk for lower middle-income households to slide down to the bottom Risk to fall down the ladder in the middle Share of individuals from lower middle income groups (2nd quintile) moving down to the lowest income quintile, 4 years, early 2010s or latest 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Greece Spain Belgium Denmark Slovenia Austria Australia Hungary Chile United Kingdom Italy Ireland France Finland Turkey Poland United States Portugal Switzerland Czech Republic Netherlands Norway Germany Latvia Sweden Luxembourg Korea Slovak Republic Estonia OECD34
- 14. Why policy-makers should care • Social mobility is not a zero-sum game. • It can be win-win for all. economic societal political
- 15. There is room for policies to make societies more mobile Countries which in the past spent more on public education tend to have higher educational mobility Countries which devoted more resources to health tend to feature higher health mobility SVN DNK CZE BEL AUT SWE LUX HUN DEUPOL FRA KOR IRL NLD CAN ITA EST PRT AUS GRC ESP ISR GBR USA OECD26 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Health status mobility Health resources 2005 BEL CZE DNK FIN FRA DEU HUN IRL NOR PRT SVK ESP SWE GBR USA OECD15 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 Public expenditure on education as a percentage of the GDP in 1995 Intergenerational educational mobility
- 16. Policies can make our societies more mobile What the OECD offers
- 18. Thank you for your attention http://oe.cd/social-mobility-2018