1. Intergenerational Mobility in Singapore: Lessons from International Research Irene Y.H. Ng swknyhi@nus.edu.sg 27 March 2014 Civil Service College

2. Outline 1.Definition 2.The Singapore case 3.Explaining mobility patterns – Inequality – Welfare system – Education system 4.Education & mobility 5.Wrap-up

3. Defining Mobility Mobility: 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 Absolute mobility: I earn more than my parents Relative mobility: I earn more than my peers although my parents earned less than their peers Relative mobility: I earn more than my peers although my parents earned less than their peers

4.  (Gradient) in Singapore Current intergenerational mobility moderate to moderately low => consistent with our political economy => will be of increasing challenge in future

5. Explaining Mobility: Income Inequality The Great Gatsby curve Andrews & Leigh (2009), Corak (2013) – empirical Solon (2004), Ho (2010) - theoretical -> Inequality leads to immobility

6. Market & Net Standardized Gini Index (Solt 2011) Source: Ng (2013). Welfare Attitudes of Singaporeans

7. Explaining Mobility: Welfare Systems Black & Devereux (2010): Scandinavia mobility increased due to establishment of welfare states U.S. mobility decreased due to weakening labour unions Causa et al. (2009) Studied 14 European OECD Countries More progressive tax system, stronger unions => higher income mobility

8. 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

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

10. Explaining Mobility: Education System Pekkarinen 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 16  income correlation decreased by 23% from.3 to.23

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

12. Mean Value and Distribution of PISA 2012 Mathematics Scores (Top 15 Economies) Switzerland

13. Relationship between PISA Mathematics Performance and Socioeconomic Background (Top 15 Economies)

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

15. Explaining Mobility: Education System Park (2013) using PISA various years 2007 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

16. Explaining Mobility: Higher Education Blanden, Gregg & Machin (2005): UK Yeung (2012): China Hong Kong Institute of Education (2013) Expansion of higher education widens disparity in educational attainment of rich and poor

17. Singapore’s Education System Increasing differentiation Expansion of university spaces Increasing tuition fees  favour students from wealthier families?

18. Singapore’s Education System BUT Heavy government investments in the different tracks Many bursaries and scholarships Continuing education and training framework

19. 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?

20. Conclusion Wide & widening wage gap Residual welfare Eton School House PCF

21. Conclusion Intergenerational mobility will be an increasing challenge Immobility-reinforcing effects of our systems  Policy can shape intergenerational mobility  Broad, not remedial & peripheral, policies E.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  Evaluate policy changes

22. Thank you

23. Streams, school types, programs Early high-stakes exams Differential labels Differential networks Differential resources Increased inequality in student performance Unceratin improvement in overall standard Lower intergenerational mobility Social segregation Lower empathy Lower connectedness with community Hyper competition => Stress Strategizing Over-reliance on private tuition Ng et al. (forthcoming) Social Infrastructure Development