Transcript K.U: Family Polarization and Child Inequalities

Family Polarization and Child
Inequalities
SNS Stockholm
September 1, 2014
Trends in Household Income Inequality .
Disposable Incomes
Gini 1980
Gini 2000s
%Change
Denmark
.254
.266
+4
Norway
.223
.251
+13
Sweden
.197
.252
+28
France
.270
.280
+3
Germany
.244
.286
+11
Italy
.306
.333
+9
Spain
.318
.334
+5
UK
.270
.345
+28
US
.301
.368
+24
The Persistency of Income Poverty in Families with Children.
Kaplan-Mayer Survival Functions.
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
U.K.
U.S.
Year
One
Year
Two
Three+ years
.410
.590
.490
.635
.597
.494
.814
.282
.418
.303
.411
.369
.287
.704
.026
.128
.091
.161
.120
.110
.576
A Skill Profile of Tomorrow’s Workforce.
% with only
ISCED 1-2
(age 20-24)
Mean Math
score
(native born)
% below PISA
minimum
(Math)
%Pisa ´Elite´
(Math)
Denmark
14
526
5
4
Finland
8
547
7
19
France
14
507
7
4
Germany
15
527
9
5
Spain
31
487
19
4
Sweden
10
518
12
11
UK
8
511
13
16
USA *)
20
499
18
12
The Immigrant Deficit in Different Countries
(difference from country mean)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
UK
US
Raw Immigrant
Effect
-60
-82
-33
-18
-33
-68
15
-73
-21
-37
-21
-35
Adjusted Immigrant
Effect
-36
-56
-17
-22
-20
-40
+13
-43
-23
-25
-21
+14
Source: PISA 2000 data files.
Adjusted effect includes controls for:
mother education, parental SEI, sex, and books in home.
US female employment rate by education
100
90
81
80
74
73
73
70
60
College +
61
61
59
56
50
High School
53
51
40
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Table 2.3. Women’s role in Household Income: Couples aged 25-59.
Earnings ratio; top/bottom quintile
Men
Women
Household
Denmark
5.8
4.3
5.2
France
5.7
8.5
6.3
Germany
4.1
4.8
4.3
Ireland
9.3
12.0
9.7
NL
5.2
7.7
5.7
Spain
8.8
23.2
10.6
UK
7.0
5.3
6.4
Figure 8. Percent Dual Earner Couples in the US
% of dualearner households
(among all couple households)
100
80
60
40
20
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
year
bottomrate
middlerate
toprate
lowermidrate
uppermidrate
2005
The family-demografic U-turn and
child welfare
TFR
3,5
US; 3,3
3
I; 2,6
2,5
D; 2,5
DK; 2,5
ESP; 2,4
DK
SWE; 2,3
US; 2,1
D
SWE; 1,9
I
2
US; 1,7
DK; 1,85
SWE; 1,6
1,5
D; 1,35
DK; 1,4
D; 1,2
ESP; 1,2
1
I; 1,4
I; 1,2
ESP; 1,3
0,5
0
1960
NADIR
NOW
ESP
SWE
US
Gender
egalitarian
countries
Fertility
2010
Gender
traditional
countries
Fertility:
2010
Denmark
1.9
Germany
1.4
Norway
2.0
Italy
1.4
Sweden
1.9
Portugal
1.4
U.S.
2.1
Spain
1.4
The Polarization of Family Life. US Data
Acitivity
Rate
Mothers
Activity
rate
Mother
Divorce
rate
Divorce
rate
Single
mom
Single
mom
1960
2000
Cohort
1970s
Cohort
1990s
1960
2000
Low
Educ
10
30
35
31
15
42
High
Educ
10
65
40
18
5
8
Divorce Trends
Gender
egalitarian
countries
% change in CDR Gender
1985-2010
Unequal
countries
% change in CDR
1985-2010
Denmark
-4
Germany
0
Iceland
-28
Ireland
0
Norway
-13
Italy
80
Sweden
-4
Portugal
190
US
-30
Spain
267
The Socioeconomic Gradient of Divorce. United States
Kaplan-Meier survival estimates
Duration of Marriages by Income Quintiles
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0
5
10
15
20
Years
Bottom
Middle
Top
Lowermiddle
Uppermiddle
25
US Example: Percent Divorced by Marriage Cohort
Low education
High Education
1975-79
36
31
1985-89
35
21
1990-95
40
18
Married in:
Figure 2.3. Trends in Marital Homogamy in the US by Income
Quintiles.
% of homogamy couples
(among all couple households)
55
50
45
40
1980
1985
1995
1990
2000
year
bottomrate
middlerate
toprate
lowermidrate
uppermidrate
2005
Polarized Parenting?
Ratio of Care Time: High versus Low Educated Parents
Mothers
Fathers
Denmark
2.2
1.7
Spain
1.7
2.7
US
1.2
1.7
.4
.6
.8
1
Predictive Margins with 95% CIs
.2
Linear Prediction
Marginal effects of the interaction between maternal hours a day in childcare
and parental education (Mundlak random effects model, controlling for mother
fixed effects). N=886.
Time investment reinforces SES inequalities of gymnasium line
0
2
4
6
8
10
Hours a day (mother)
Non-highly educ.
12
14
Both highly educ.
16
Socio-economic gradient of parent inputs
Income Inequality and Intergenerational Income
Mobility
0,6
0,5
0,4
gini
0,3
elasticity
0,2
0,1
uk
us
dk
no
rw
ay
f in
la
nd
ca
na
da
sw
ed
en
ge
rm
an
y
fra
nc
e
0
Table 2.5. Probability that Sons end up in their Father’s Income Quintile. (Percentages)
Denmark
Sweden
UK
US
Bottom
25
26
30
42
Middle
22
22
19
26
Top
36
37
35
36
Father´s Q
Low Educated Father Effects: Do their kids make it to upper-secondary level?
Controls for cognitive test scores, sex and immigrant status :odds ratios
USA
UK
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Germany
Cohort 1
.115***
.185***
.449**
.661*
.320**
.094***
Cohort 2
.097***
.153***
.248***
.447**
.164***
.067***
Cohort 3
.133***
.162***
.213***
.205***
.091***
.098***
Data source: IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey).
Cohort 1 is born 1970-75; cohort 2, 1955-64; cohort 3, 1945-54.
The cognitive test scores refer to reading comprehension. Reference group for estimations is fathers
with ISCED 3 or more.
Significance levels: * = 0.5; ** = 0.1; *** = 0.05 or better.
Table 1. Transitions Analysis for Upper Secondary (2nd) and Tertiary (3rd) Education.
Bivariate Probit Selection Models (SILC)
DK
France
Spain
Italy
UK
2nd
3rd
2nd
3rd
2nd
3rd
2nd
3rd
2nd
3rd
Cohort
50-63
-.13
-3.25*
.05
-.94*
-.10
-.19**
-.17***
-.21***
-.52***
.01
Cohort
64-77
-.11
-.25
-.11
-.42
.12
-.34
***
-.19***
-.13*
-.31***
-.08
Cohort
50-63
.77***
6.78***
.99**
2.49***
.14
.36***
.38***
.48***
.59***
.32**
Cohort
64-77
.37**
.38**
.05
1.48***
.22
.33***
.38***
.47***
.27***
.19*
Father
Low
EGP
Father
Highest
EGP
Table : Results from OLS Regressions of Children’s Reading Abilities in Denmark
β
Quality Care
Standard error
Standardized beta
.123***
.037
.056
Poverty
-.234***
.044
-.094
Low
birthweight
-.129
.083
-.026
.065
.041
.027
Divorce
-.073
.047
-.026
Boy
-.210***
.033
-.108
Low-educ
Mother
.007
.042
.003
Hi-educ
Mother
.376***
.041
.166
Mother
employed
.104
.056
.032
constant
-.213
.090
N
3327
Reading daily
0.00
0.50
Center-based
1.00
1.50
Figure 3 – Quantile Regression for Effect of School- or Center-Based Care on Reading at 5th Grade in the U.S.
0
.2
.4
Quantile
.6
.8
1
0.20
0.10
0.00
care_highq
0.30
0.40
Figure 1. Quantile Regression for Effects of High-Quality Child Care on Reading in Denmark
0
.2
.4
.6
Quantile
.8
1