4.5 Article

A Nonparametric Nonclassical Measurement Error Approach to Estimating Intergenerational Mobility Elasticities

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & ECONOMIC STATISTICS
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 169-185

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07350015.2020.1787176

关键词

Inequality; Intergenerational mobility; Measurement error; Nonparametric estimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides a framework for estimating intergenerational mobility elasticities that allows for heterogeneity. Applying the framework to data, the study finds substantial heterogeneity in intergenerational mobility elasticities and confirms a U-shape pattern in relation to parental income.
This article provides a framework for estimating intergenerational mobility elasticities (IGEs) of children's income with respect to parental income. We allow the IGEs to be heterogeneous, by leaving the relationship of parental and child incomes unspecified, while acknowledging and addressing thelatentnature of both child and parentalpermanentincomes and the resulted life-cycle bias. Our framework enables us to test the widely imposed assumption that the intergenerational mobility function is linear. Applying our method to the Panel Studies of Income Dynamics data, we decisively reject the commonly imposed linearity assumption and find substantial heterogeneity in the IGEs across the population. We confirm an important finding that the IGEs with respect to parental income exhibit a U-shape pattern, which is occasionally highlighted in the analysis using transition matrices. Specifically, there is a considerable degree of mobility among the broadly defined middle class, but the children of both high- and low-income parents are more likely to be high- and low-income adults, respectively. This result also provides insights into the (intertemporal) Great Gatsby curve, suggesting that a higher level of inequality within one generation may lead to a higher level of social immobility in the next generation in the United States.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据