Inequality of income acquisition: the role of childhood circumstances

Many studies have estimated the effect of circumstances on income acquisition. Perhaps surprisingly, the fraction of inequality attributable to circumstances is usually quite small—in the advanced democracies, approximately 20%. One reason for this is the lack of data on circumstance variables in empirical research. Here, we argue that all behaviors and accomplishments of children should be considered the consequence of circumstances: that is, an individual should not be considered to be responsible for her choices before an age of consent is reached. Using two data sets that contain data on childhood accomplishments, other environmental circumstances and the income as an adult, we calculate that the fraction of income inequality due to circumstances in the US rises from 27 to 43% when accounting for childhood circumstances. In the UK it rises from 18 to 27%.

[1]  D. Wiggins,et al.  Handling attrition and non-response in the 1970 British Cohort Study , 2014 .

[2]  P. Lanjouw,et al.  Reinterpreting between-group inequality , 2008 .

[3]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Individual Responsibility and Equality of Opportunity , 2016 .

[4]  Xavier Ramos,et al.  Approaches to Inequality of Opportunity: Principles, Measures and Evidence , 2012 .

[5]  Alexander W. Cappelen,et al.  The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[6]  Nicolas Pistolesi.  Inequality of opportunity in the land of opportunities, 1968–2001 , 2009 .

[7]  M. Fleurbaey,et al.  Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Equality of Opportunity , 2013 .

[8]  D. Checchi,et al.  Fair and Unfair Income Inequalities in Europe , 2010, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[9]  Stephen P. Jenkins,et al.  How Much Inequality Can We Explain? A Methodology and an Application to the United States , 1995 .

[10]  Alain Trannoy,et al.  Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement , 2016 .

[11]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Inequality of Opportunity, Income Inequality and Economic Mobility: Some International Comparisons , 2013, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[12]  J. Roemer.  On the Importance of Circumstances in Explaining Income Inequality , 2017 .

[13]  D. Checchi,et al.  Inequality of opportunity in Italy , 2010 .

[14]  Alexander W. Cappelen,et al.  Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility , 2010 .

[15]  Raj Chetty,et al.  Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States* , 2014 .

[16]  Anthony F. Heath,et al.  Equality of Opportunity , 2017 .

[17]  Dan W. Brockt,et al.  The Theory of Justice , 2017 .

[18]  Judith Niehues,et al.  Upper bounds of inequality of opportunity: theory and evidence for Germany and the US , 2014, Soc. Choice Welf..

[19]  Anders Björklund,et al.  Intergenerational Income Mobility in Sweden Compared to the United States , 1997 .

[20]  Christina Fong,et al.  Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution , 2001 .

[21]  John E. Roemer,et al.  A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner , 1992 .

[22]  Ilpo Kauppinen.  Preferences for Redistribution , 2012 .

[23]  U. Barcelona,et al.  Empirical Approaches to Inequality of Opportunity: Principles, Measures, and Evidence , 2012, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[24]  A. Wagstaff,et al.  How Useful is Inequality of Opportunity as a Policy Construct? , 2014 .

[25]  F. Bourguignon,et al.  Inequality of Opportunity in Brazil , 2007 .

[26]  F. Ferreira,et al.  The Measurement of Inequality of Opportunity: Theory and an Application to Latin America , 2008 .

[27]  A. Peichl,et al.  Lower Bounds and the Linearity Assumption in Parametric Estimations of Inequality of Opportunity , 2016, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[28]  Richard J. Arneson.  Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare , 1990 .