Education as a Factor towards Social Mobility: Its Benefits and Systematic Wrongs Yang, Edward

Education as a Factor towards Social Mobility: Its Benefits and Systematic Wrongs

Author 1 Full Name : Yang, Edward

(Last Name, First Name)

School Name : Korea International School

Abstract:

Education is a key facet of social mobility, and many theories exist as to what exactly its role has become. Some believe its role to be beneficial; some believe it to be detrimental. To better understand this, however, the concept must be divided into two sections: on an individual and societal level. A higher level of education remains an effective means for income advancement: individuals with higher degrees will, on average, have a higher salary, have a wider availability of career paths, and often hold careers that are more stable. However, on a societal level, education may also serve as a factor against social advancement, especially when considering its high price and commitments. A post-secondary education is both expensive and time-consuming, thus preventing those with a lower income from fully engaging in it; this may lead only to reproduction within the upper class, and further stratification. Thus, education as a factor in facilitating social mobility and increasing one’s income is twofold: while it is effective in its role when applied, in the absence of it, the current state of education, especially in the United States, discourages mobility. This research will focus wholly on education’s role in facilitating or preventing social mobility, especially relating to income.

Keywords: Social Mobility, Education, Income, Stratification, Reproduction

Introduction

In the United States, the median income in 2019 for individuals with a bachelor’s degree was, on average, nearly 1.5 times that of individuals with only high school diplomas (at $30,000 compared to $44,000). Furthermore, bachelor degree holders had a 3.5 times lower poverty rate, and were more likely to be employed. This gap becomes more noticeable in the coming years, with these holders making $1.3 million in additional earnings on average over their lifetime, over their high school graduate peers (Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, 2019). According to data published in 2004, it was expected that more than 42 percent of all jobs in the United States would require a postsecondary degree (Morris); as of 2020, the number has risen to 65 percent, a 23 percent increase in only sixteen years. This steady increase is a noted pattern: in 1973, only 28 percent of jobs were held by individuals with a postsecondary education, with the above increase to 42 percent in 2004, and 59 percent in 2010 (Carnevale, Smith & Strohl, 2020). Thus, it is probable that the percentage of jobs being held by individuals with postsecondary degrees will only increase in the future; the role of a college (or further) education in determining one’s career and future selection of jobs (and in turn one’s socioeconomic status) will become even more significant. With this, the perception that a higher level of education will allow an individual to reach a higher social level income-wise will become more prevalent. This idea is not a modern phenomenon; ever since even the founding of the United States, for example, the role of an education in influencing one’s social status (mainly through the taking of imperial examination) was held in importance. The nation maintained no nobility or birthright; income determined one’s place in society, and education was seen as a method towards reaching a higher status. However, this perception has become more prevalent in recent times, and it is natural to assume that this perception will remain. Even now, this paper’s consideration and the conclusions drawn in it will be significant in influencing policy and allowing for a secondary view into the United States’ complex educational system. In the United States, social mobility has remained unchanged or decreased since the 1970s (Hungerford, 2011). While the government has no obligation to facilitate social mobility for every one of its citizens, even a slight decrease in it is worrying; even as absolute mobility occurs (and it has, looking at US living conditions since the 1970s), the demographic has remained similar, and no large changes have occurred. When income inequality is factored in, it is more concerning: in recent years, it is increasing and is becoming more permanent. This is led by the increase in “permanent inequality”- the advantaged becoming permanently better-off, while the disadvantaged becoming permanently worse-off (Brookings Institution, 2013). Society is becoming more stratified, something that is detrimental to society and its citizens; the significance of this fact cannot be denied or disregarded, especially in such a contentious state, as it is now. Yet with all this in mind, it becomes clear that with the current systems in place regarding educational barriers, it becomes increasingly difficult, as beneficial as education is on an individual level, for education to facilitate social mobility. Furthermore, as education cannot always be individual and is instead dependent on societal factors, it serves as a hindrance towards it on a larger level, as the systems in place preventing those with lower

incomes from taking in such education is often final. As education in itself is an effective tool, but the system of it is often not, it leads to education becoming a tool for dividing social class further. Thus, I will attempt to look at education from two decidedly different sides: as both a benefit and a detriment. In this paper, I will be analyzing existing research from a variety of sources to formulate my conclusion and answer the extent to which education helps or hinders social mobility. On this topic, I will be examining education as two factors: the first on the effect it plays on individuals, purely as education, and second on a societal level, addressing its limitations and barriers. The sources of this research will be widespread. Included in this paper are field statistics, expert opinions, and census data; there is also the inclusion of text already written on this topic, which I will reference as both a motivator and demotivator towards my final argument. Addressing the key questions relating to education and social mobility, such as whether the individual benefits are able to trump the detrimental societal barriers towards education, will add another view to the questions relating to education as a facet to the problem (which is a popular topic among researchers, granted, but another opinion may become helpful), and inform policy regarding this matter on a state level. Only when all have been evaluated will a conclusion be made.

The Relation Between Individual and Societal Effects of Education

Preliminary Information

Before going into the main argument of this report, I find it prudent to define some terms that will be crucial to understanding the intentions behind this paper. The focus of this paper will be on social mobility, and how (or how not) it is facilitated: the term is defined by Economic Policy Reforms (2010) as “the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society”. The most obvious of this would be through income; that will be the main focus for this report, and its relation to education. However, one’s social standing (often called “strata”) is not dependent solely on income: there are multiple socioeconomic factors that categorize an individual’s social strata, such as wealth, income, race, ethnicity, gender, occupation, social status or derived power (Cole, 2019). Society in the United States is an open system for mobility; there are no guidelines, systems, or safeguards in place preventing one from attaining a higher social class. There are still limits to this, however, and it will be explained in a later portion of this paper. I will be examining this phenomenon in terms of relative mobility, not absolute mobility. In the simplest terms, relative mobility refers to an average American’s change in income compared to another average American; in comparison, absolute mobility refers to an individual’s change in living standards based on the conditions in America. Thus, this can be thought of as an individual vs. a collective change: I wished to examine this from an individual perspective, and weigh an individual’s mobility against another individual’s mobility. The reason for this can be seen in research conducted in 2012 by the Pew Economic Mobility Project: the majority of Americans, about 84 percent, exceeded their parents’ income. However, this is an absolute income gain, not a relative one: due to a myriad of factors, including inflation

or changing price indexes, such an individual was not shown to be able to move up on the next rung of the economic ladder, their relative income and standard of living remaining similar to their parents’. Thus, it becomes clear why an individual evaluation must be made, and I will attempt to do so in the fullest. Furthermore, in this paper, I will be evaluating one’s social status, and mobility relating to it, by income. As aforementioned, there are many factors that determine one’s social status. However, some are not clearly measurable (and/or clear, universal indexes for determining the factor it plays on one’s social stratum are not developed), such as in race or ethnicity, or difficult to place within the context of social mobility, such as in the case of occupation. Income and general wealth, however, remains easy to measure and place within this context. In many, if not all cases, those who enjoy a higher social status tend to have larger incomes that reflect such a position. Thus, while this paper will attempt to determine the general effect education has on an individual’s social standing, the more specific focus of this paper will be on income, and how education influences such.

Education as an Individual Benefit

While it may seem as if education will always be a motivating factor in facilitating social advancement, this is only if this education is received. And not all education is always effective- a correct and high level of education is what is usually beneficial. It thus becomes harder to find data on this matter for the general population, not just those who receive education. However, if we consider education only as education in itself, it becomes an effective tool. Multiple reports have found that education promotes economic mobility. Over the past decades, it was proven that the median family income of adults aged 30 to 39 increased much more rapidly among those with college degrees or advanced degrees than among those who attained some college or less (Haskins, Holzer & Lerman, 2009). This figure was based on family income rather than individual earnings, owing to the fact that the measurement for intergenerational mobility is family income. Even when the focus is on individual income, however, the differences across educational groups and their trends over time are very similar to family income (Haskins, Holzer & Lerman, 2009).

The above figure (Brookings, 1965-2006) shows the income differences between different educational groups. By 2006, the income difference between those who received professional or graduate degrees and those who did not even obtain a high school degree was nearly $70,000. There are starker differences between a four-year degree and a level of education lower than it; the income comparison between a four-year education and a lower level of education (two-year degree) is larger than any other, at nearly $20,000. The pattern remains clear: the higher the degree, and thus higher the level of education one receives, the higher the income. The potential bias in these sources may be noted. Individuals with education are more likely to be more intelligent, come from families with larger incomes, and have attended better schools (Duncan, et al., 2009). It may seem like an obvious mistake to attribute one’s future income to only education, while disregarding all other factors, which will undoubtedly play a role in an individual’s future income. Thus, to prove the validity of the earlier study, research was conducted by Ashenfelter and his colleagues with 27 empirical studies conducted in the US and abroad; it was found that while controlling these sources of bias did reduce the rate to which education played a role, but the trend, overall, held (Ashenfelter, Harmon & Oosterbeek, 2000). This return proves once again that education generates real-world advantages relating to income, even when the other differences between those with more or less education are eliminated. Such benefits of education are seen when looking at advancement through income brackets as a result of it. While nearly half of all adults with parents in the bottom quartile stay at the bottom without a college degree, those who obtain one, even if it is a two-year and not a four-year degree, quadruple their chance of moving to the top quartile, from 5 to 19 percent (Haskins, Isaacs & Sawhill, 2008). With these returns with a college education, it cannot be said that education in itself is ever detrimental to social advancement.

Education as a Societal Barrier

While receiving an education is a proven and effective method of inducing social advancement (through income means), the sheer cost to attaining it may serve as a factor against social advancement as a whole. This is especially true in the United States. Several large studies among developed nations have found the United States ranking among the lowest in social mobility, with 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of the income bracket staying there as adults, compared to the 25 percent in Denmark or 30 percent in the United Kingdom (DeParle, 2012). This trend remains stable, with the United States still lagging behind both above nations and multiple other developed nations in 2020 (Global Social Mobility Report, 2020). While public education remains completely tuition-free, the same is not true for most colleges in the United States. The average tuition for a 4-year institution at any school was $28,123 in 2019, and the price had more than doubled in the last twenty years. The tuition for private non- and for-profit institutions was even higher, with an average of $44,662 in 2019 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Out of all 35 OECD nations, this is the highest average cost of tuition (going off of the total tuition for private institutions in the United States as defined by the OECD, at $11,951); compared other nations such as Hungary ($1,164) or Japan ($8,269), university tuition in the United States remains higher than any other (OECD, 2017). Considering that the median household income in the United States was $68,703 in 2019 (United States Census Bureau, 2019), tuition payment is unsustainable for many, factoring household expenses and other various spending needs. As said by Hauser (2010), educational attainment works at freeing “individuals from the constraints of their social origins”. However, education in the United States is more inaccessible for the majority of the population, and it is becoming clearer that these societal constraints are taking their toll. College enrollment rates have decreased in recent years, from a total of 21 million students in 2010 to 19.6 million in 2018 (Hanson, 2021), being nearly a seven percent decline in rates of enrollment. While the rates of enrolled graduate students have slightly increased (about three percent), the enrollment of undergraduate students has decreased more than the total number of all students, at around nine percent (Hanson, 2021). Overall, college enrollment rates are dropping, and there are fewer students receiving such an education than ever before, with enrollment rates at its lowest since 2010.

The above figure (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016) shows the difference in sheer enrollment rates between students with high, middle, and low incomes. By 2016, even with a near fifteen percent increase in enrollment rates for low-income students compared to 2013, the difference in rates between low and high-income students still reached up to 15%. An interesting phenomenon is that the enrollment rate for low-income families increased, and overtook, the enrollment rates for middle income families. On this personal level, social mobility is happening, to a degree. Yet enrollment rates within both low- and middle-income families remain very low compared to higher-income families. Furthermore, enrollment rates show no growth (rather, decline) within middle-income families. As enrollment rates for those that are not in the top 20 percent of family incomes converge, this further shows us that a college education remains prohibitively expensive for all but those with the highest of incomes; the class distinctions between low- and- middle-income families have become less evident, but in a rather negative light. We can assume that the individuals who received a college education (regardless of income bracket) saw improvements in their own income, as per the aforementioned statistics; however, the proportion of those who received such education would have been majority higher-income, with smaller proportions of those from lower-income families. Those higher on the income bracket are given an inherent advantage; the upper class may then pass these same advantages on to their children, as they may possess the necessary resources to pay for the costs of an elite school. The cycle then repeats, allowing for the upper class to maintain their existing social standing and/or advance further, something the lower/middle class are prevented from doing. Furthermore, college graduation rates have

recently sharply increased for wealthy students but stagnated for lower-income students, with the highest income quartile seeing an 18 percent increase in the graduation rate in twenty years, the lower-income group saw only 4 percent (Greenstone et. al, 2013). This is no doubt due to the many advantages given to wealthier students before attending an institute of higher education. Thus, lower-income students cannot simply access higher education and improve social standing, as the systems in place deny access. While the denial of access due to income may not be a factor in admissions or applications if there is an alternate method of enrollment, the costs of taking in student loans are often high, and high school graduates often turn to work instead of education as a way to support oneself economically, leaving no room for true education. Thus, while education does nothing to hinder social mobility, access to it does. As Isabel Sawhill (2010) writes, “poor children tend to go to poor schools and more advantaged children to good schools”. Policies on higher education policies have only worked to establish and reinforce stratification by denying, not through direct means but indirectly, many the means to a higher education, and thus the opportunity for a higher income bracket (and in turn higher social standing). While a system of stratification should permit mobility (Neelsen, 1975), and does, the structure of society remains relatively fixed. These gaps in educational investment in students within the lower or upper class from universities accounts for their lower upwards social mobility.

Conclusion

In all, the role that education plays in terms of social order is complex, and no one answer can be given as to what position it occupies. As a factor in itself, education is a positive influence upon one’s income. As seen above, incomes increase more than 30 to 39 percent for even the lowest college degree (Haskins, Holzer & Lerman, 2009); for those who receive it, education is undoubtedly a useful tool in maintaining or improving the household’s income level compared to one’s parents. There are benefits, but as society organizes the access, it becomes detrimental to social mobility because access is so stratified. Education becomes not a tool for social mobility but for class reproduction leading to further stratification; access is denied for most who cannot afford the sheer cost of it, as has been the case for many generations. While recent data shows promising signs of increased college enrollment for even lowerincome families, the increase is too small and may be too late. The above findings have broad implications for many different issues. First is purely theory-based. Our current understanding of stratification requires that it be reproduced from generation to generation (Grusky, 2011). The findings prove that this is indeed true; without proven measures to increase college enrollment and graduation rate for those with lower incomes, education, as explained above, becomes an easy tool for class reproduction. Furthermore, the United States is currently defined by Grusky as an open stratification system, one that allows for mobility between, typically by placing value on the achieved status of individuals. However, my findings show that the United States is moving more towards a closed system of social mobility. Not only is achieved status becoming less important in favor of income, based purely on education, it is becoming much harder for an individual to rise in

income brackets. With the method of such a rise being, itself, locked behind what some may call a “paywall”, mobility becomes an impossible task for many. That is not to say that reforms have not, or are not being, undertaken. Recently, United States President Joe Biden proposed the American Families Plan, which would spend nearly 300 billion dollars towards making community college free for all Americans (Tankersley and Goldstein, 2021), and promote free access to college. The plan would restore the top marginal income tax rate to (a pre-2017 level of) 39.6%, and double capital gains tax for individuals earning more than one million dollars (Tankersley, 2021), and thus be funded through taxes gathered from those who do not constitute low- or- middle-income; while it may face severe opposition in Congress, it may be a step to reducing educational inequality and lack of access. This will increase graduation rates, removing potential opportunity costs for attending a 2-or 4-year program at any college. Furthermore, many states have started to offer tuition free community college educations on their own, through programs such as the California Promise or the Work Ready Kentucky Scholarship Program (Farrington, 2020), which may have contributed to the recent increase in college enrollment rates. With these changes and reforms, however, the problem itself has not been changed. According to Beth Akers, some of the factors still influencing access to colleges through higher tuition includes administrative bloat, overbuilding of campus amenities, a model dependent on high-wage labor, and the availability of standardized student loans (which may be beneficial for some, but is indeed contributing to the rise in college tuition); these cost inefficiencies persist (2020), and recent education reforms have not been successful in making the average college more affordable (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). It may be more effective for the federal government to seek the root causes towards the unaffordability of education on a national level instead of focusing on making college free or affordable through taxpayer money. These programs would help relieve or alleviate the social issues present, but these reforms may only be a temporary solution. Despite this paper’s conclusion, there are certain limitations that must be considered. First, this is in no way a complete overview of the paper’s topic. Social mobility is not limited to income, or one’s educational level; there are multiple factors that may be correlated that this paper does not address. It may thus be easier to see this research as an exploration into one aspect of social mobility, rather than a complete explanation of it. Second, the data or sources cited in the paper may have to be accounted for in terms of sample size or range. For example, college enrollment rates increased for lower-income families in the last twenty years: while I have concluded that this may be the result of a combination of state-level reform and shifting perspectives, the data’s inclusion of ‘low income’ may not be as broad, or as clear. The data taken to corroborate the overall argument is only be a small fraction of all data available, and the ones I have chosen may deviate in smaller ways from an overall conclusion: on a similar trend, but with smaller issues. Third, the assumptions made in this paper relating to the organization of American society and overall status as dictated by income may be inaccurate, at least in terms of education. This paper speaks of social status as dependent on one’s income, yet, as mentioned, there are many other factors that influences one’s social status, such as occupation, race, or sex. As I have not touched on such aspects, the argument that I have made

should also be considered in terms of such other lenses, and I believe that is important to keep in mind when examining this research.

References

[1] Ashenfelter, O., Harmon, C., & Oosterbeek, H. (2000). A review of estimates of the schooling/earnings relationship, with tests for publication bias. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7457 [2] Bureau, U. S. C. (2021, October 5). Income and poverty in the United States: 2019. The United

States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html. [3] Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (n.d.). Recovery: Job Growth and Education

Requirements Through 2020. Center for Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf. [4] College enrollment & student demographic statistics. EducationData. (2021, August 7).

Retrieved from https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics. [5] de Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Zillow, S. A. (2021). Digest of Education Statistics 2019. National Center for Educational Statistics, 55. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021009.pdf. [6] Deparle, J. (2012, January 5). Harder for Americans to rise from Lower Rungs. The New York

Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-risefrom-lower-rungs.html?sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all. [7] Duncan, G., Kalil, A., Mayer, S. E., Tepper, R., & Payne, M. R. (2009). Chapter One. the Apple does not fall far from the Tree. Unequal Chances, 23–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835492.23 [8] Edelson, D. (2020, February 27). How does a college degree improve graduates' employment and earnings potential?Association of Public & Land-grant Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/college-costs-tuition-and-financialaid/publicuvalues/employment-earnings.html. [9] Education at a glance 2017. (2017). Education at a Glance. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en [10]A family affair. (2010). Economic Policy Reforms, 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1787/growth2010-38-en [11]Farrington, R. (2021, June 30). These states offer tuition-free community college. Forbes.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2020/03/25/these-states-offertuition-free-community-college/?sh=1cbf69c614cf. [12]Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., Yu, and M., & Project, T. H. (2016, November 18). Thirteen economic facts about social mobility and the role of Education. Brookings.

Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/thirteen-economic-facts-about-socialmobility-and-the-role-of-education/. [13]Haskins, R. (n.d.). Education and Economic Mobility. Economic Mobility Project. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch8.pdf. [14]Haskins, R., Holzer, H., & Lerman, R. (2009). Promoting Economic Mobility by Increasing

Secondary Education. Economic Mobility Project . Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org//media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2009/pew_emp_promoting_upward_mobility.pdf.

[15]Haskins, R., Isaacs, J. B., & Sawhill, I. V. (2016, July 28). Getting ahead or losing ground:

Economic mobility in America. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/getting-ahead-or-losing-ground-economic-mobility-inamerica/. [16]Hauser, R. M. (1998). Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the United States Measures,

Differentials and Trends. Social Science Computing Cooperative - UW Madison. Retrieved from https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/publications/files/public/Hauser_Intergenerational.Econom ic.M.U.S_CDE_98-12.pdf. [17]Hungerford, T. L. (2011). Changes in income inequality among U.S. tax filers between 1991 and 2006: The role of wages, capital income, and taxes. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2207372 [18]Immediate College Enrollment Rate. (2018). The Condition of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CPA/coe_cpa_2018_05.pdf. [19]Krugman, P. (2012, January 15). The Great Gatsby curve. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/the-great-gatsbycurve/?mtrref=undefined&assetType. [20]Lueken, M. F., Garnett, N. S., Manning, T. R., & Akers, B. (2020, August 27). Four reasons why college is so expensive. Manhattan Institute. Retrieved from https://www.manhattaninstitute.org/new-approach-curbing-college-tuitioninflation?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3DEimrQmvP9KpfP6cWoidoACUZBXyefvqBA-WuCY1e6JXMUzGvPAgSew#notes. [21]Morris, L. M. (2004). Low-Income Women and the Higher Education Act Reauthorization. On

Campus with Women . [22] The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76. [23]Neelsen, J. P. (1975). Education and Social Mobility. Comparative Education Review, 19(1), 129–143. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1187731. [24]Nicki Lisa Cole, P. D. (2019, September 3). The way people are ranked and ordered in society.

ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-social-stratification-3026643. [25]Panousi, V., Vidangos, I., Ramnath, S., DeBacker, J., & Heim, B. (2013). Inequality Rising and

Permanent Over Past Two Decades. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20130525230108/http:/www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/lates t-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousi. [26]Sawhill, I. (2006). Opportunity in America: The Role of Education. Opportunity in America.

Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20060913foc.pdf. [27]Tankersley, J. (2021, April 22). Biden will seek tax increase on rich to fund child care and

Education. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/business/economy/biden-taxes.html. [28]Tankersley, J., & Goldstein, D. (2021, April 28). Biden details $1.8 trillion plan for workers, students and Families. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. [29]Urahn, S. K., Currier, E., Elliott, D., Wechsler, L., Wilson, D., & Colbert, D. (2012). Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations. Economic Mobility Project.

Retrieved from

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_m obility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf. [30]World Economic Forum. (2020, January). Global Social Mobility Report - World Economic

Forum. The World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf.