Intergenerational Mobility in Singapore: Lessons from International Research

Intergenerational Mobility in Singapore:

Lessons from International ResearchIrene Y.H. Ng

swknyhi@nus.edu.sg

27 March 2014Civil Service College

Outline1. Definition 2. The Singapore case 3. Explaining mobility patterns– Inequality– Welfare system– Education system

4. Education & mobility5. Wrap-up

Defining MobilityMobility: I can achieve a different

status from where I started off

Intergenerational mobility: I can achieve a different status from my parents

Absolute mobility: I earn more than

my parents

Relative mobility: I earn more than my peers

although my parents earned less than their peers

b (Gradient) in Singapore

Current intergenerational mobility moderate to moderately low=> consistent with our political economy=> will be of increasing challenge in future

Explaining Mobility: Income Inequality

The Great Gatsby curve Andrews & Leigh (2009), Corak (2013) – empirical

Solon (2004), Ho (2010) - theoretical

-> Inequality leads to immobility

Market & Net Standardized Gini Index (Solt 2011)

Source: Ng (2013). Welfare Attitudes of Singaporeans

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mar

ket G

ini

Net Gini

Hong Kong (2006) Germany

Denmark France

Singapore UK

Switzerland Finland Australia

USA Sweden

Canada Norway

Belgium Japan S. Korea

Mean Market Gini

Mea

n N

et G

ini

Explaining Mobility: Welfare SystemsBlack & Devereux (2010):• Scandinavia mobility increased due to establishment

of welfare states• U.S. mobility decreased due to weakening labour

unionsCausa et al. (2009)• Studied 14 European OECD Countries• More progressive tax system, stronger unions

=> higher income mobility

Explaining Mobility: Education System

Solon, 2004; Ichino, Karabarbounis, & Moretti, 2009; Davies, Zhang & Zeng, 2004; Ho, 2010: Lower mobility from• Private education• Differentiated system• Less progressive spending

Figure 1. Intergenerational Transmission of Parental Resources to Children

Parents Children’s Education

Children’s income

Education system

Source: Ng (forthcoming) Social Class, Poverty and Family Life – An East Asian Perspective

Explaining Mobility: Education SystemPekkarinen et al. (2009)Comprehensive school reform in Finland – replaced two-track system with uniform nine-years- Shifted streaming to academic and vocational tracks

from age 11 to 16Þ income correlation decreased by 23% from .3 to .23

http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/landscape/print/sg-education-landscape-print.pdf

200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310490

510

530

550

570

590

610

BelgiumCanadaEstonia Finland

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

LiechtensteinMacao

Netherlands

OECD Average

Poland

Shanghai-China

Singapore

Taiwan

90th – 10th Decile

Mea

n M

ath

Scor

eMean Value and Distribution of PISA 2012 Mathematics Scores (Top 15 Economies)

Switzerland

Relationship between PISA Mathematics Performance and Socioeconomic Background

(Top 15 Economies)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2010

20

30

40

50

60

Shanghai-China

Singapore

Hong Kong

Taiwan

Korea

Macao

Japan

Liechtenstein

Switzerland

Netherlands

Estonia

Finland

Poland

Canada

Belgium

OECD Average

Strength of gradient

Slop

e of

gra

dien

t

Dependence of PISA 2012 Mathematics Performance on Parents’ SES explained by…

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Shanghai-China Singapore

Hong Kong

TaiwanKorea

Macao

Japan

Liechtenstein

Switzerland

Netherlands

Estonia Finland

PolandCanada

Belgium

OECD Average

Within Schools

Betw

een

Scho

ols

Explaining Mobility: Education SystemPark (2013) using PISA various years2007 education reform in Japan & Korea: decentralize, individualize, increase flexibility and choice

Before Reform

Top students do as well as top students

in other top countries

Bottom students do better than bottom students in other

top countries

After reform

Top students’ performance unchanged

Bottom students do worse than other

top countries

Explaining Mobility: Higher Education

Blanden, Gregg & Machin (2005): UKYeung (2012): ChinaHong Kong Institute of Education (2013) Expansion of higher education widens disparity

in educational attainment of rich and poor

Singapore’s Education System• Increasing differentiation• Expansion of university spaces • Increasing tuition feesÞfavour students from wealthier families?

Singapore’s Education System

BUT• Heavy government investments in the

different tracks • Many bursaries and scholarships• Continuing education and training framework

Intergenerational Mobility: Accumulation through Life Course

Early childhood

• E.g. Age 5 disparity in vocab scores by family background largest in USA, followed by UK, Australia and Canada

Middle childhood & adolescence

• p468: “Average differences in measurable child outcomes encountered early on in life persist throughout children’s lives up to university age…”

• U.K.: achievement gap by SES widens between age 11 and 14 -> secondary school sorting

Adolescence to adulthood

• P469: Cognitive ability account for 2/5 of correlation between father’s and son’s educational attainment

• Same gap in college attendance in USA & Canada, higher income mobility in Canada. Why?

• Educational attainment more dependent on parents’ education in Sweden than UK, but higher income mobility in Sweden. Why?

Conclusion

IP/IBUniversity

Professiona

l jobs

Normal streamITE

Technical/service job

Wide & widening wage gap

Residual welfare

Eton School

House

PCF

ConclusionIntergenerational mobility will be an increasing challenge• Immobility-reinforcing effects of our systemsÞPolicy can shape intergenerational mobility

ÞBroad, not remedial & peripheral, policiesE.g. Ermisch et al.: “A reduction in the variance of school quality…..would make a larger contribution (than more equal access to good secondary schools)”E.g. labour market reforms, not just financial handouts

ÞEvaluate policy changes

Thank you

Streams, school types, programs

Early high-stakes exams

Differential labelsDifferential networksDifferential resources

Increased inequality in student performance

Unceratin improvement in overall standard

Lower intergenerational

mobility

Social segregationLower empathy

Lower connectedness with community

Hyper competition=> Stress

StrategizingOver-reliance on

private tuition

Ng et al. (forthcoming) Social Infrastructure Development