Search results

This chapter examines the relative influence of parents (vertical channel) and friends (horizontal channel) when deciding between employment in the public or private sector. Using a novel database and applying network analysis, the influence of peers is first measured. Next, the peer effect is compared with the impact of parental background on individual preferences. For the private sector, findings indicate that the influence (marginal effect) of friends is greater than that of parents. The opposite is observed for the public sector. However, in the case of public sector employment, the overall effect of the horizontal channel may surpass the vertical channel, as individuals typically have two parents but may have many friends. Additionally, it is found that both parents and friends exert a greater influence on women than on men.

This study examines the effects of firm-level collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) on workers’ welfare within Spanish firms, focusing on the trade-off between wage inequality and mean wage levels within firms. Results indicate that while firm-level CBAs contribute to increased intra-firm wage inequality, they also significantly enhance intra-firm average wage levels, with these positive effects being consistently observed across firm types and employee skill levels. Most notably, the increase in mean wages tends to offset the adverse effects associated with wage disparities, thereby leading to an overall improvement in workers’ welfare within firms. These findings provide crucial policy implications, advocating for tailored approaches in supporting effective collective bargaining practices that can foster equitable wage growth and enhance workers’ welfare, particularly in smaller firms and those employing low-skilled workers. Our results underscore the importance of firm-level negotiations in shaping equitable and prosperous labour market outcomes in contemporary economic settings.

In this paper, the theory of inequality of opportunity is applied to examine health inequality among adults in Spain. Using a survey module conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS) in 2017, the role played by and the contributions of circumstances, efforts and lifestyles, and demographic variables in explaining adult health inequality are assessed. Additionally, the mediating role of individual education in the relationship between circumstances and health is analyzed. The findings underscore the significant relevance of unfair factors (circumstances) and demographics in generating adult health inequality, as opposed to the minimal contribution of fair factors (efforts and lifestyles). Furthermore, education is shown to significantly influence health, mitigating the impact of certain circumstances and serving as a transmission channel for others. In light of these results, efforts and lifestyles alone are insufficient to counterbalance unfair circumstances beyond an individual’s control. Therefore, improving circumstances and early-life factors, or reducing their impact on health through the implementation of compensatory policies, is essential for reducing health inequality and promoting equal opportunities for inclusive development.

What are the factors that affect social mobility? How are early adulthood educational and labour trajectories correlated with intergenerational mobility? This chapter presents three contributions to the intergenerational mobility literature. First, this chapter develops one of the first attempts to measure intergenerational mobility using administrative panel data sets in a developing country. A panel data set was created using a national educational test and surveys and follows students, starting in 8th grade, and analyzes their intergenerational income mobility in their late twenties. Second, this chapter uses social class and role model proxies and shows that college educational outcomes are related to initial social and educational environments. Third, a detailed analysis of academic and labour market trajectories is used, indicating that students with irregular educational and labour market trajectories show lower intergenerational income mobility. The results of this research open a new approach for analyzing life decisions and expect to provide further guidance for public policies that intend to promote social mobility among low-income individuals.

The aim of this study is to investigate the determinants of Inequalities of Opportunity (IOP) among the young in Cameroonian labour market. IOP are the differences in outcomes which are explained by the circumstance factors, meaning that the variables which are beyond individual controls. For this purpose, this study performs the Human Opportunity Index (HOI) in order to quantify the IOP among employee over 10- to 25-year-olds. Using the data from the Fourth Cameroon Household Survey (FCHS4) carried out in 2014 by Statistical National Institute, IOP is quantified for each of 14 Cameroonian’s geographical areas. Based on the Dissimilarity index (D-Index) value, two main trends are outlined: a spatial subgroup including North-West, East and the urban regions which is characterized by a higher D-Index; meaning that IOP is relatively significant. In contrast, a more homogeneous subgroup with a lower IOP is found in rural, North and East regions. Moreover, regarding on the one hand the Shapley-Shorrock’s decomposition method, it appears that the mayor circumstances contributing to the D-index are socio-professional category, primary education and religious obedience of the household head which explain from 51% to 79% the overall IOP. While on the other hand, the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition shows that 80% of the gap in D-Index is explained by disparities in circumstances, rather than individual efforts. Finally, our conclusions argue in favour of effective decentralization, for a more inclusive employment policy that takes into account local labour market features.

In this study the effect of the level of economic development on inequality is estimated. The goal is to determine whether the classical Kuznets curve hypothesis (1955) is applicable to Russia. The idea of Kuznets was that income inequality first rises with economic growth on the low stages of development and then falls as the economy matures. The empirical evidence of the curve applicable for the Russian regions has been found. The reverse casualty problem by using internal and external instruments has been also taken into the consideration. For the internal instruments, the System GMM method, which implies two functions – one in first difference and the other one in levels, has been used. For the external instruments, the net oil export per capita and trade per capita as instruments have been applied. If the quadratic term is not implied, the estimations show a significant robust positive effect of economic development on inequality. Thus, it is assumed that it happens due to the fact that Russia is still on the first upbeat of the curve, and it has not yet reached sufficient levels of development to tear down inequality.

Beyond just equalizing opportunities, ‘levelling up’, ‘inclusive growth’ and ‘no child left behind’ policy initiatives require inequality measurement from a different perspective than conventional measures provide. Whereas standard inequality measures quantify normalized aggregate distance from some centrality parameter or distribution, these imperatives demand equalization towards targets that are not necessarily a centrality parameter or distribution dependent upon the underlying egalitarian philosophy. Here, Inequality Modulated Success Indices are proposed in the face of Utilitarian, Prioritarian and Sufficientarian Imperatives. The techniques meet the challenges of both continuously measured and ordered categorical environments and are exemplified in a study of human capital acquisition in Spain over the 2009–2015 period. When such considerations are introduced in the final analysis, wellbeing improvement is no longer universally observed across the three imperatives. Whilst, under a First Order wellbeing indicator, Utilitarians and Egalitarians see an improvement in wellbeing whereas Prioritarians do not, under a second order indicator Utilitarians see an improvement whereas both Egalitarians and Prioritarians see a deterioration.