Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic
Mobility in Malaysia*
Muhammed Abdul Khalid
Centre for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS)
University Sains Malaysia
11800 USM
Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Muhammed.abdulkhalid@gmail.com
Abstrakt
This study investigates the existence and extent of intergenerational mobility in Malaysia in terms of
educational attainment, occupational skills level, and income level. It compares the status of working
adults born between the years 1945 Und 1960 and their adult children born between 1975 Und 1985,
using non-linear transition matrix techniques. On average, the majority of adult children have better
educational attainment and occupational skills level compared with their parents. Income mobility, In
absolute and relative terms, is highest among children born to parents in the lowest income quintile. Der
results of a logistic regression model show that education, assets ownership, Geschlecht, and location matter
for upward mobility. Moving forward, there will be difficulties for the children from poor families to move
up the socioeconomic ladder because of changes in policies. An inclusive development approach is vital
in enhancing socioeconomic mobility to promote social cohesion, economic growth, and greater equity
for the next generation.
1. Einführung
Malaysia has progressed impressively since independence; in the span of nearly 60 Jahre,
the country has transformed from a primarily commodity-producing economy to an in-
dustrializing nation. Its GDP had increased from RM 5.1 billion in 1957 to about RM 1.2
trillion in 2015 (CEIC n.d.). Poverty had been reduced to less than 1 Prozent in 2014 aus 51
Prozent in 1957 (DOS 2015; Ikemoto 1985); inequality, life expectancy, and other social as
well as other economic indicators have also shown tremendous improvements during the
same period.
* This study benefited tremendously from the insights and expertise of Kamal Salih, Jomo Kwame
Sundaram, Wing Thye Woo, Suresh Narayanan, Shaufique Sidique, Ikmal Said, and Yusof Saari;
useful comments and suggestions from the participants of the roundtable discussion on Socioe-
conomic Mobility in Malaysia hosted by Khazanah Research Institute 25 August 2016 in Kuala
Lumpur; and participants from the Asian Economic Panel Meeting held at Sunway University 29
Marsch 2017.
Asian Economic Papers 17:3
© 2018 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technologie
doi:10.1162/ASEP_a_00624
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Trotzdem, we know little of how children from different economic classes have per-
formed over time. Comparing income distribution or poverty across time cannot answer
questions such as whether economic growth benefits those who were initially poor, if chil-
dren from poorer parents will stay poor when they become adults, and if children from
wealthy families will remain wealthy when they become adults. Mobility measures pro-
vide better insights as they reflect the equalization of opportunities over time and broaden
the impact of economic benefits. daher, the discussions on poverty and inequality must
also be juxtaposed with mobility. Societies characterized by low intergenerational mobil-
ity across generations imply unequal access of opportunity, and the existence of a glass
ceiling or glass floor for children from either high- or low-income families. Zum Beispiel, In
Die Vereinigten Staaten, almost half of children born to low-income parents become low-income
Erwachsene. In the United Kingdom, the figure is four in ten, and in Canada, it is about one in
three (Corak 2006). The converse holds, where children from wealthy families tend to grow
up and become wealthy adults.
As such there is a need to look at the state of socioeconomic mobility in Malaysia, espe-
cially since the country has experienced phenomenal economic growth and structural
transformation, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Because there are few studies in
Malaysia on social and economic mobility, this study fills a major gap by undertaking
primary research nationwide to investigate the existence and extent of intergenerational
socioeconomic mobility.
There are a few reasons why the issue of social and intergenerational mobility should be
examined further, particularly in Malaysia. Erste, mobility has an impact on inequality.
Studies have shown that countries with a higher level of inequality tend to have lower lev-
els of social mobility (Causa and Johansson 2010). Zweite, mobility is important for eco-
nomic growth, and the lack of mobility could curb economic growth. Dritte, if inequality is
found to arise from the lack of social mobility, this may have serious social policy implica-
tionen, especially in Malaysia given its diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious population. Es ist
argued that social mobility is one of the key drivers in maintaining moderation, peace, Und
unity in Malaysia (Shamsul 2014).
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Abschnitt 2 presents the research objectives
and literature review on mobility in Malaysia. The methodology and empirical strategy is
explained in Section 3. Abschnitt 4 analyses key findings, and Section 5 discusses the determi-
nants of mobility. Abschnitt 6 provides some policy implication before it concludes.
2. Research objectives and literature review
This paper attempts to identify the dynamics of mobility across generations in Malaysia. In
other words, do Malaysian families experience upward absolute intragenerational mobility
2
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
and resilience from downward mobility? Konkret, it seeks to answer the following
four questions:
1. Are children better off than their parents, be it in terms of income, educational attain-
ment, or occupational status? To what extent does the current socioeconomic status
depend on the initial socioeconomic conditions of a person?
2. Is the economic status of parents transmitted to their children, and how much of that
status is transmitted?
3. What are the key factors that determine upward or downward socioeconomic mobility?
This paper is guided by Becker and Tomes (1979), based on theories on socioeconomic mo-
bility, which explains mobility as a function of parental decisions to invest in their children,
and public investments in human capital. This theory can explain intergenerational income
mobility in Malaysia.
Studies on intergenerational mobility are relatively scarce, at least when compared with
studies on income inequality or poverty. Most studies use an intergenerational elastic-
ität (IGE) Modell (z.B., Atkinson 1981; Becker and Tomes 1986; Solon 1992), or a transition
matrix approach (z.B., Corak 2006; Jäntti et al. 2006) in analyzing or measuring intergenera-
tional mobility.
Studies using IGE show that mobility is low in France, Italien, the UK, und die Vereinigten Staaten,
whereas it is higher in Denmark, Norwegen, Finland, Australia, und Kanada (Figur 1; sehen
also Corak 2006). Intergenerational mobility in the United States is at 0.5, which means
that about 50 percent of the advantage of American parental earnings is passed on to their
children.1 In comparison, only about 20 percent of Nordic children’s income is influenced
by their parents’ income advantage. Studies with IGE also compare changes in mobility
im Laufe der Zeit, as in Blanden and Machin (2007), where birth cohorts between 1970 Und 2000
in the UK were compared for the relationships between parental income and intermediate
outcomes in education. There are not many studies on intergenerational mobility in the
developing world or non-Western countries, except perhaps for South Africa, welche
appears to have a low level of social mobility, bei 0.61 (Ng, Shen, and Ho 2008), and Brazil,
which has an intergenerational elasticity of 0.58 (Ferreira and Veloso 2006). Ng, Shen, Und
Ho (2008), in analyzing intergenerational mobility in Singapore (comparing children aged
23 Zu 29 years in 2003 with their parents), find that earning elasticity is at 0.45, which puts
Singapore behind countries such as the Nordic countries, and closer to the United States
and the UK.
Whereas the IGE approach does not provide the direction of mobility, or the progress by
income classes, the transition matrices approach provides better insights. Pew (2009), In
1 The higher the value, the greater is the persistence of earnings across generations.
3
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 1. Intergenerational earnings elasticity across OECD countries (estimates from various
Studien)
Quelle: Causa and Asa (2010, 185).
Notiz: The height of each bar measures the extent to which sons’ earnings levels reflect those of their fathers. The estimates are the best point
estimate of the intergenerational earnings elasticity resulting from a meta-analysis carried out by Corak (2006) and supplemented with addi-
tional countries from D’Addio (2007). The higher the value, the greater is the persistence of earnings across generations, and the lower is the
intergenerational earnings mobility.
analyzing the mobility between whites and blacks in the United States using transitional
matrices, finds that blacks have a harder time exceeding their parents’ income. About one
in two blacks raised at the bottom of the family income ladder remain stuck at the bottom
as adults compared with one in three whites. The study also shows that the ability to move
up the ladder among the poor is the hardest; a child born in the poorest fifth of society has
only a 9 percent chance of making it to the top fifth. Nicht überraschend, the study finds that
sons raised by the top and bottom decile fathers are more likely to be at the same decile
as their fathers. Findings from Barone and Mocetti (2016) also suggest that the earnings
advantage between parent and child could last a long time. In their study of mobility in
Florence, using taxpayers’ data from 1427 Zu 2011, they find that those at the top of the
socioeconomic ladder today are in fact descendants of those among the top income earners
six centuries ago.
The literature on socioeconomic mobility in Malaysia at the national level is relatively
limited, compared with poverty or income studies, perhaps because of unavailability of
Daten. To the best of our knowledge, there are no longitudinal data on income in Malaysia.
Several case studies, Jedoch, have been undertaken to analyze the extent of socioeco-
nomic mobility in Malaysia. Syed Husin Ali (1964) pioneered a mobility study in Kampong
Bagan in the Batu Pahat district in 1960. He found that upward socioeconomic mobility
was difficult to attain. The farming village on average experienced low income, lacked
4
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
savings, had limited access to loans, lacked capital ownership, and attained low formal
Ausbildung. The vicinity had only one primary Malay school, and those who could afford
to send their children to the English school, which was far from the village, were mostly
landowners, who were the only group with upward socioeconomic mobility. Ein anderer
case study was undertaken by Wan Hashim Wan Teh (1980), in which he undertook a
cross-sectional study focusing mainly on fishermen in Pulau Pangkor, and his findings
showed mobility for fishermen was rather limited. The most recent study on social mobil-
ity in Malaysia was undertaken by Nor Hayati Sa’at (2010), in which she interviewed 300
households of the coastal community in Kuala Terengganu and found that 32 percent im-
proved their intragenerational socioeconomic standing, 55 percent remained stagnant, Und
13 percent deteriorated.
This study, daher, provides the first largescale and updated representative study of in-
tergenerational social mobility in Malaysia, focusing not only on income mobility between
recent generations, but also on educational and occupation motilities over the period.
The novelty of this research is that it analyzes mobility in three dimensions—namely,
Ausbildung, Beruf, and income—and investigates the overall state of Malaysian
socioeconomic mobility across these three dimensions.
3. Key concepts, Daten, and methodology
3.1 Key concepts
Socioeconomic mobility measures the movement of individuals or groups in social or eco-
nomic positions over time, and it can be measured in absolute or relative terms. Absolute
mobility examines an individual or group’s absolute income growth in real terms, and rel-
ative mobility measures whether adults have moved up, or down, or stayed in the same
position on the income or wealth distribution of their generation or their parents’ position.
Measurements of mobility also distinguish between intergenerational and intragenera-
tional mobility. Intergenerational mobility, which is the focus of this study, is defined as the
relationship between the socioeconomic status of the parents and that of their children as
Erwachsene, or changes between generations. Intragenerational mobility studies how the distribu-
tion of individual status changes among a group of individuals over a given period of their
lifetime, das ist, within the same generation.
3.2 Data
For this study, structured and semistructured interviews are the main techniques used
to collect the primary data. A total of 4,999 heads of family were interviewed via ran-
dom sampling2 to collect the socioeconomic data of the head of the family and their adult
2 Mean age of parents = 62 Jahre alt, mean age of children = 32 Jahre alt; gender of children:
male = 53 Prozent; female = 47 Prozent; ethnic group: Bumiputera parent–child pair = 84 Prozent,
Chinese parent–child pair = 11 Prozent, Indian parent–child pair: 5 Prozent.
5
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Kinder. Given that this study is interested in generational mobility, the focus is on the
respondents who are the heads of family at the age of 35 and who were born between the
years 1945–60, those who are currently between 55 Und 69 Jahre alt). This age group is
chosen based on Böhlmark and Lindquist (2006) and Bjorklund, Roine, and Waldenstrom
(2008), where it is suggested that income measured around this age may act as a good
proxy of permanent income. Several intergenerational studies also use the age of 35 in com-
paring income between two different cohorts, such as Cordone, Jorda, and Sanna (2014),
who compare socioeconomic status of Swedish parent–child pairs at age 35, and Blanden
and Machin (F2007), who investigate mobility between two generations in Britain. In sum-
mary, this study compares those parents who worked between the years 1980 Und 1995,
and their adult children who are currently working. A two-tiered questionnaire structure
was adopted that include the head of family (the respondent), and the eldest son/daughter
(working age) of the family. In this manner, the survey attempts to capture the intergenera-
tion mobility profile of a single family.
There are two main limitations in undertaking this approach. Erste, the study uses retro-
spective data, where the head of family must recall their income about 30 years ago. Sec-
ond, the children’s data are gathered from information provided by the head of family or
members of the family who were present during the interview, and not necessarily from
the adult children. dennoch, the retrospective approach is not new as other studies
on social mobility have also adopted the same method. Tatsächlich, the approach “has been
the basis of a large and successful literature on intergenerational social mobility” (Song
and Mare 2014, 2). Solon (1992), zum Beispiel, uses the popular U.S. Panel Study of Income
Dynamics in measuring intergenerational mobility in the United States, and Gershuny
(2002) uses portions of retrospective employment status and occupational history col-
lected in the early waves of British Household Panel Study (BHPS). Khor and Pencavel
(2008), in measuring income mobility, inequality, and social welfare for households in
China, also use retrospective data collected from rural households. Large panels for longi-
tudinal studies are uncommon in developing countries, thus giving credence to the use of
retrospective data.
Data collection was carried out during the period November 2014 to August 2015, verwenden
the personal interview approach.3 The enumerators visit selected households to collect so-
cioeconomic information from the head of family using a set of questionnaires, and quality
checks are made by the enumerator team and cross-checked by the author and research
team. The survey covered all states in Malaysia and included urban and rural areas. Der
selection of the sample was determined by the Department of Statistics to ensure random-
ness and representativeness. Two-stage stratified sampling design was adopted; primary
(covering all states), and secondary (urban and rural). Post-stratification was performed to
3 The response rate was 80 Prozent.
6
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
obtain nationally representative ethnicity figures. The survey weights (adjusted and final
weights) were computed with the assistance from the Department of Statistics to statisti-
cally adjust for the likelihood of sample mis-selection and non-random attrition from the
Studie, to reduce the possible bias in the sample. The descriptive statistics from the sample
is shown in Appendix A.
3.3 Methodologies
This paper investigates the intergenerational mobility question by adopting transition ma-
trices because the IGE approach does not differentiate between upward and downward
mobility, and mobility by income class. To answer our research questions, the transition
matrix approach is a better method because we can make comparisons between children’s
and parents’ income in relative terms. One is considered upwardly mobile if they are in a
higher income quantile than their parents. This approach is replicated in measuring occu-
pational and educational mobility. This study then uses a logistic regression (logit) Analyse
model to calculate the determinants of upward income mobility, drawing from the same
approach used by Pew (2009). A logistic regression analysis calculates mobility in a specific
part of the income distribution, and investigates the influence of one or more independent
variables such as the level of education, ethnische Zugehörigkeit, strata, family structures, educational op-
portunities (government scholarships), and savings on a dichotomous dependent variable,
j, which represents upward relative income mobility.
4. Key findings
4.1 Education mobility
We find that the current adult children’s educational attainment is better than their par-
ents, across all ethnic groups. About 62 percent of children had higher educational levels
compared with their parents, 36 percent had the same educational level, und nur 2 Prozent
had a lower educational attainment than their parents.
Tatsächlich, educational mobility4 occurred, regardless of the parents’ educational level. Als
shown in Figure 2, um 35 percent of children raised by parents with either primary ed-
ucation or less had attained tertiary education, and nearly 60 percent had secondary edu-
cation. At the opposite end, 92 percent of children with tertiary-educated parents also had
tertiary education, Und 8 percent only had secondary education. None of the children with
tertiary-educated parents had a lower educational attainment than secondary education.
4 Occupational mobility is defined by at least one level change in education level of children com-
pared with their parents. Occupations are classified according to the Malaysia Standard Classifi-
cation of Occupation 2008 (MASCO-08) and the Department of Statistics Malaysia. Entsprechend,
managers and professionals, zum Beispiel, are considered high-skill; clerical workers are considered
mid-skill; and elementary occupations are considered low-skill.
7
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 2. Overall educational mobility, by parents’ educational level
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The rate of upward educational mobility is less among Indians, Jedoch, compared with
the other ethnic groups (Figur 3). Zum Beispiel, wohingegen 37 percent of Bumiputera chil-
dren and 39 percent of Chinese children raised by parents with either primary education
or less had tertiary education, nur 10 percent of Indian children had tertiary education.
The ethnic effect is significant—our logistic regression in measuring upward educational
mobility shows that all things equal, an Indian child, regardless of gender, born to par-
ents in the bottom 40 percent of income distribution is 0.3 times less likely to attain tertiary
education compared with Bumiputera children. This is possibly because of a lack of fi-
nancial assistance, as those who received financial assistance from the government (d.h.,
scholarships) are four times more likely to attain tertiary education compared to those who
did not.
4.2 Occupation mobility
As shown in Figure 4, um 37 percent of children work in higher-skilled jobs than their
Eltern, Und 48 percent of children work in jobs with similar skills as their parents. Not ev-
ery child has better occupations skill than their parents, Jedoch, als 15 percent of the chil-
dren have lower skills than their parents. Analysis by ethnicity shows that the incidence of
children having better skills than their parents is highest among the Indians, bei 43 Prozent,
compared with the Chinese (41 Prozent), and the Bumiputera (37 Prozent) ethnic groups.
The number of Indian children who have lower skills than their parents is also lower when
compared with other ethnic groups.
8
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 3. Educational mobility, by ethnicity and parents’ educational level
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
Figur 4. Overall occupational skill mobility, by parents’ occupational skill level and by ethnic
Gruppe
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Figur 5 shows that there is occupational mobility in Malaysia, particularly for children
born to low-skilled parents, regardless of ethnicity, although the occupational mobility
among Indian children born to low-skilled parents was lower compared with the other eth-
nic groups. About 19 percent of Indian children with low-skilled parents had high-skilled
jobs, compared with the Bumiputera (25 Prozent), and Chinese (39 Prozent) groups. Das ist
consistent with the lower educational mobility among Indian children born to parents with
9
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 5. Overall occupational skill mobility, by ethnicity and by parents’ occupational skill level
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
no formal education. Our logistic regression finds that children who attained tertiary edu-
cation had the most odds, at about 11 mal, to have high-skilled jobs compared with those
without tertiary education. As shown earlier, the upward education mobility among chil-
dren born to parents without formal education was the lowest among Indians, verglichen
with the other ethnic groups, and this translated to lower occupational mobility for Indian
children born to low-skilled parents.
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
Gleichzeitig, Jedoch, the share of children born to high-skilled parents who also had
high-skilled jobs was the highest among Indians. While the national average of high-skilled
parents that also obtained similar skilled jobs was 63 Prozent, the figure among the Indian
ethnic group was 72 Prozent. This is higher than among Chinese (68 Prozent), and Bumi-
putera (60 Prozent). The share of mid-skilled children that had mid-skilled parents was
also the highest among the Indian group, bei 60 Prozent, followed by the Bumiputera (56
Prozent), and the Chinese (50 Prozent). It is highly plausible that if the Indian ethnic group
is decomposed into sub-ethnic groups (rather than treating Indians as one homogenous
groups in this study), it may well be that certain sub-ethnic groups experienced better mo-
bility compared with other sub-ethnic groups.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
4.3 Income mobility
Does obtaining better educational and occupational mobility of the child translate to higher
incomes compared with their parents? Figur 6 shows that children in each income class
10
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 6. Absolute income mobility, by parents’ income quintile
Figur 7. Parents’ and children’s median income, by income quintile (RM)
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
had higher real income than their parents, with the exception for children born to parents
in the top quintile. The trend is almost consistent across ethnicity. In absolute terms, one in
two children had higher incomes than their parents, but for children born to the parents in
the bottom quintile (d.h., parents in the lowest income group), the figure was much higher,
at eight in ten. For children born to parents in the top quintile, Jedoch, only one in ten had
higher income than their parents.
Adjusted for inflation, children’s median income was 12 percent higher compared with
their parents. Children from the lowest quintiles had 40 percent more income than their
Eltern, compared with about 13 percent for the second and third quintiles (Figur 7).
Among those in the fourth quintile, although they had higher income than their parents,
11
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 8. Relative quintile movements, transition matrices
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
the increase was small, slightly less than 3 Prozent. Only children born to parents in the top
quintile fared worse than their parents; their income was 18 percent lower.
Although most children have higher income than their parents in absolute terms, Wir
do not know if they also perform better than their parents in relative terms, Jedoch.
Das ist, despite having higher income than their parents, did they manage to climb the
income ladder?
Figur 8 answers this question; it shows that 74 percent of adult children who were born
to parents in the lowest quintiles moved up the ladder, at least by one quintile. Obwohl
the upward relative income mobility was the highest among the lower income groups,
the chances of children making it to the top diminishes steadily as parents’ position in
the income distribution gets higher. Whereas 74 percent of the children born to parents
in the bottom quintile moved up by at least one quintile, the figures were 41 percent for
the children born of parents in the third quintile, und nur 32 percent for children born to
parents in the highest quintile. Mit anderen Worten, 68 percent of children born to parents in
the top quintile moved down by at least one quintile, only about one in three stayed in the
same quintile as their parents, and about 1 In 10 moved to the lowest income quintiles. Das
shows that children born to rich parents could become “poor” within one generation. Bei
die selbe Zeit, children born in the top quintile had the most prospects of staying at the
top (32 percent stayed put), and those born in the lowest quintile encountered the highest
likelihood of being in the bottom themselves, als 26 percent stayed poor.
12
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Figur 9. Relative quintile movements, by ethnicity
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
For children born to parents in the middle of the income distribution, their chances to move
up are much less. This indicates three things: (1) Children from the lower income quintiles
face a higher probability of leaving their initial economic conditions; (2) A wealthy child
also faces a higher probability of staying in their initial economic condition; Und (3) Chil-
dren from middle-class parents had higher chances to fall down, rather than to climb up,
the income ladder. Among the ethnic groups, Chinese children had higher relative mobil-
ität, Wo 89 percent born to parents in the lowest quintile moved up, compared with the
Bumiputera (73 Prozent) and Indian (62 Prozent) groups (Figur 9).
Wenn, Jedoch, we measure income mobility by having higher income than parents and a
higher quintile (d.h., higher in both absolute and relative terms), nur 35 Prozent der
children experienced upward mobility (Tisch 1). Income mobility was highest among
those born in the lowest income quintile. Mit anderen Worten, the answer to the question—do
poor children grow up to become poor adults?—the answer is no, as three in four children
moved up by at least one quintile. The opposite also holds: Children born to wealthy par-
ents did not remain wealthy as adults. Nur 13 percent stayed in the same quintile despite
having higher income, and another 12 percent stayed in the same quintile, despite having
a lower income—but 68 percent of them moved down by at least one quintile. Da ist ein
“middle-class squeeze” for children born to middle-income parents, Jedoch. Most them
13
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Tisch 1. Overall income mobility, absolute and relative
Percentage of
Kinder
N = 4,999
Upwardly mobile
Higher income & hoch 4 quintiles
Higher income & hoch 3 quintiles
Higher income & hoch 2 quintiles
Higher income & hoch 1 quintile
Riding the rising tide
Higher income but same quintile
Falling despite the rising tide
Higher income but lower quintile (vulnerable)
Status quo
Same income & same quintile
Vulnerable
Lower income but same quintile
Downwardly mobile
Lower income & down 1 quintile
Lower income & down 2 quintiles
Lower income & down 3 quintiles
Lower income & down 4 quintiles
Parents’ income quintile
Q1
74%
11%
20%
21%
22%
8%
8%
0%
0%
5%
5%
13%
13%
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
Q2
56%
0%
12%
19%
25%
18%
18%
1%
1%
0%
0%
4%
4%
21
20%
0%
0%
0%
Q3
42%
0%
0%
17%
24%
17%
17%
2%
2%
0%
0%
6%
6%
33
19%
13%
0%
0%
Q4
20%
0%
0%
0%
20%
15%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
55
23%
14%
18%
0%
Q5
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23%
23%
68
30%
19%
10%
10%
Alle
Familien
35%
2%
5%
11%
18%
13%
14%
1%
1%
1%
1%
12%
12%
38
20%
10%
6%
2%
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
not only have moved down the income ladder but they also have a lower income level
compared with their parents.
Among children born to the parents in the bottom quintile, Chinese children moved
upward the most (89 Prozent) compared with Bumiputera (73 Prozent) and Indian
(62 Prozent) Kinder (Tisch 2). At the other end, 58 percent of Chinese born to the highest
quintiles experienced the lowest downward mobility, compared with Indian children (69
Prozent) and Bumiputera children (73 Prozent). Put differently, nine in ten Chinese children
born to the poorest parents did not remain poor as adults, and about six in ten Chinese
born to wealthy parents did not remain wealthy as adults. Among the Indian group, um
six in ten children born to poorest parents experienced upward mobility, and seven in ten
born to the wealthiest parents moved down. The downward mobility among children born
to the wealthiest parents was highest among the Bumiputera, where slightly more than
seven in ten moved downwards, and an equal number moved up among those born to the
poorest parents.
5. Determinants of mobility
This section will explore the determinants of socioeconomic mobility in Malaysia, using a
logistic regression model to estimate upward mobility. Relative income mobility is selected
as the dependent variable, and the independent variables are the education level, strata,
gender and ethnicity of the adult child, government assistance in terms of scholarships,
family structure (d.h., if raised by both parents), and if the parents have any type of savings.
The regression is run twice. The first regression focuses on the factors that promote upward
14
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
l
l
A
l
l
A
l
l
A
S
e
ich
l
ich
M
A
F
5
Q
4
Q
3
Q
2
Q
1
Q
S
e
ich
l
ich
M
A
F
5
Q
4
Q
3
Q
2
Q
1
Q
S
e
ich
l
ich
M
A
F
5
Q
4
Q
3
Q
2
Q
1
Q
%
9
3
%
0
%
8
%
4
4
%
2
5
%
2
6
%
4
3
%
0
%
6
1
%
7
3
%
2
5
%
3
7
%
8
3
%
0
%
2
3
%
2
5
%
3
7
%
9
8
N
A
ich
D
N
ICH
A
R
e
T
u
P
ich
M
u
B
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
'
S
T
N
e
R
A
P
e
S
e
N
ich
H
C
%
4
1
%
7
%
1
1
%
8
1
%
3
1
%
5
1
%
3
1
%
8
%
5
1
%
6
1
%
9
1
%
8
%
5
1
%
3
1
%
7
1
%
8
1
%
9
1
%
2
%
2
%
0
%
0
%
5
%
1
%
0
%
1
%
0
%
0
%
3
%
1
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
1
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
1
%
1
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
5
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
6
%
6
1
%
4
2
%
3
1
%
2
1
%
2
1
%
2
2
%
0
1
%
9
1
%
7
%
7
%
3
%
3
1
%
4
1
%
9
2
%
7
1
%
2
%
3
%
3
%
0
3
%
9
6
%
8
6
%
0
2
%
2
2
%
0
%
2
4
%
3
7
%
2
6
%
7
3
%
5
2
%
0
%
2
3
%
8
5
%
4
3
%
7
2
%
6
%
0
j
B
P
u
D
N
A
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
R
e
H
G
ich
H
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
N
Ö
T
S
A
e
l
T
A
e
D
ich
T
G
N
ich
S
ich
R
e
H
T
G
N
ich
D
ich
R
e
M
A
S
T
u
B
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
R
e
H
G
ich
H
e
l
ich
B
Ö
M
j
l
D
R
A
w
P
U
R
e
w
Ö
l
T
u
B
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
R
e
H
G
ich
H
e
H
T
e
T
ich
P
S
e
D
G
N
ich
l
l
A
F
e
D
ich
T
G
N
ich
S
ich
R
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
Ö
u
Q
S
u
T
A
T
S
j
B
N
w
Ö
D
&
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
R
e
w
Ö
L
j
T
ich
l
ich
B
Ö
M
D
R
A
w
N
w
Ö
D
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
N
Ö
T
S
A
e
l
T
A
e
M
A
S
T
u
B
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
R
e
w
Ö
L
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
M
A
S
&
e
M
Ö
C
N
ich
e
M
A
S
e
l
ich
T
N
ich
u
Q
e
l
B
A
R
e
N
l
u
V
j
T
ich
C
ich
N
H
T
e
j
B
e
v
ich
T
A
l
e
R
D
N
A
e
T
u
l
Ö
S
B
A
,
j
T
ich
l
ich
B
Ö
M
e
M
Ö
C
N
ICH
.
2
e
l
B
A
T
15
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
relative income mobility among adult children born to parents in the bottom 40 Prozent,
and the second regression examines factors that lead to downward mobility for children
who were born to parents in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.
Erste, the analysis looks at the factors that promotes upward mobility for those raised in
the bottom 40 Prozent. It finds that the key upward relative income mobility factors are
the education level of the adult children, and parents with financial assets. If all other
characteristics are the same, a person with tertiary education had 4.6 times more odds
to move up, than those without tertiary education. Asset ownership is also important;
parents with savings increased the odds of the child moving up by 1.6 mal, verglichen
with those with parents who had no savings. The gender of the child is also a significant
factor that promotes upward mobility. A male child had 3.6 times better odds of mov-
ing up the ladder compared with a female child. Location also matters, as a child raised
in an urban area had 1.5 times better odds of moving up compared with a child born in a
rural area.
The logistic regression is also used to test for factors that contribute to downward mobility
for the top 20 Prozent. Mit anderen Worten, it will tell us why those born in the highest quintile
did not remain there as adults. It finds that parental status mattered for the child to remain
at the same quintile as their parents. Tertiary-educated parents increased the odds for the
child to remain in the highest quintile by 1.5 mal. The child’s education level played a
bigger role in ensuring that they remained at the top than to the parents’ education level.
A child without a tertiary education had 6 times more odds of moving down the ladder,
compared with those with tertiary education. Family stability is important; a child raised
by a single parent had 2.5 times more odds of dropping down the ladder, compared with a
child raised by both parents. Interessant, gender and ethnicity played a role in downward
mobility for children born to parents in the highest quintiles. Holding other characteristics
constant, a daughter had three times more odds of moving down, compared with a son,
and a Bumiputera child had almost twice the odds of moving down compared with a Chi-
nese child. This is consistent with a study in the United States, where Hertz (2005) zeigt an
that knowing the race of someone enhanced the ability to predict their income, selbst nach
we control for the income of the parents. The effect of ethnicity only matters for downward
relative income mobility, Jedoch, and not for upward relative income mobility, although
there is significant statistical evidence of the ethnicity factor in educational and occupa-
tional upward mobility. The analysis also finds that a Chinese child had twice the odds of
being high-skilled compared with a Bumiputera child, and an Indian child had less chance
to attain tertiary education compared with a Bumiputera child, all things constant. Addi-
tional interactions were tested—whether male and tertiary education can predict upward
mobility separately, as well as male with tertiary education versus female with tertiary ed-
ucation, and urban male versus urban female or urban graduate versus rural graduate. Der
findings were all statistically insignificant.
16
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
6. Way forward and policy implications
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: It aims to identify the status of intergenerational
mobility between two recent generations, and subsequently to analyze its determinants.
The paper finds that Malaysia is a mobile society. One’s initial economic condition is not
important, and a rags-to-riches story is possible.
Education mobility is high—62 percent of the children are better educated than their par-
ents. Upward educational mobility is remarkable among children born to non–tertiary
educated parents. Among those born to parents without formal education, 33 percent of
them had a tertiary education, although this is much less among Indian children. In terms
of occupational skills, upward mobility is slightly less than educational mobility, although
many still have better skills than their parents. Upward occupational skill mobility is more
pronounced among children with low-skilled parents: 76 percent of them are better skilled.
This study has shown that obtaining a higher education does not necessarily translate to
upward occupational or income mobility.
Children’s income is independent of parents’ income. Almost three in four of the children
born to parents in the bottom quintile have moved up, and two in three born in the top
quintile have moved down. Mit anderen Worten, children born to parents in the bottom in-
come quintile do not generally stay poor as adults whereas those born to parents in the
top income quintile do not necessarily remain wealthy as adults. There are still some dif-
ferences in the extent of upward relative mobility by gender, Erdkunde, and occupational
skills, but not ethnicity, save in the Indian ethnic group. About three in four Malaysian chil-
dren raised at the bottom of income ladder moved up. There is, Jedoch, a “middle-class
squeeze” for children born to middle-income parents. The majority of these children not
only have moved down the income ladder but they also had a lower income level com-
pared with their parents.
What is the difference between those who managed to climb the ladder and those who did
nicht? A host of factors play a role in upward relative income mobility. For children from
low-income parents, a child’s education matters the most. Gender and geography also
matter. Children raised in rural areas have a lower chance to experience upward mobility
compared with those raised in urban areas, and female children have less opportunities
to move up compared with male children. Savings are also important. Children born to
parents with some form of savings have a better chance to climb the income ladder.
Among children born to wealthier parents, Jedoch, parental influence is the strongest.
For these children, having tertiary education is a key factor to remaining in the top quin-
tile. Family stability among parents in the highest quintile also matters in ensuring that
their children maintain the same social class. Whereas the effect of geography is absent in
17
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
determining downward income mobility, gender and ethnicity are significant factors for
downward mobility among children with parents in the top quintile. Female and Bumi-
putera children had higher odds of moving down the ladder, compared with male and
Chinese children, jeweils.
These findings confirm that the extent to which the economic circumstances of children
are tied or influenced by their parents becomes smaller for more socially mobile societies,
such as Malaysia. The evidence provides insights on social inclusion from the perspective
of the generation of the child. The study finds that children born to the poorest parents do
not generally remain poor as adult, and those born to wealthy parents do not necessarily
remain wealthy as adults. Mit anderen Worten, their situation is more based on their
own capabilities.
As a multiracial country, Malaysia provides a unique case study in social mobility. Mit
increasing prosperity thanks to sustained economic growth, it is expected that with the
spread of income and job opportunities through education and employment, social mobil-
ity would unfold upwards (as with boats in a rising tide). Tatsächlich, there is evidence of some
leapfrogging significantly above random patterns that have a positive impact on poverty
reduction and improving income distribution.
Would the relatively upward mobility of current adults be replicated? It is highly unlikely,
especially for those born to parents in the lowest rung. Structural changes since mid and
late 1990s and early 2000s makes it harder for children from a low-income family to climb
the income ladder. Whereas the previous generations had the advantages of an education
policy that aided low-income students (via enrollment in elite schools and funding for ter-
tiary education), the current policy focuses on meritocracy almost entirely, which benefits
children from high-income families. Data obtained on the enrollment in elite boarding
schools and federal scholarships for tertiary educations show that the share of low-income
students in these two important sources of mobility is gradually declining, and the shares
of children from middle-income and upper-income families are increasing. The current
meritocratic system penalizes students from low-income households, and favors wealthy
Kinder. Fiscal policy also plays a role as the tax system becomes more regressive, thus im-
peding a low-income family from accumulating assets, which is important for upward mo-
bility. The taxation policy in Malaysia is regressive, as it favors capital owners over wage
earners. Whereas wages and consumption (introduced in 2015) are taxed, capital gains are
nicht, and the tax on inheritance has been rescinded since 1993. Given that capital usually
appreciates faster than wages, the tax policy in Malaysia plays a major role in impeding the
mobility of those at the bottom of the ladder.
What can we do, in terms of policies, to promote upward mobility? Erste, the general
evidence, shown here as well as elsewhere, points to the important role of education.
18
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Daher, facilitating wider access to educational opportunities can enhance upward mo-
bility. The study notes that only 5 percent of Indians born to parents without formal
education have attained tertiary education. Daher, policies in promoting early child-
hood education, tertiary education, as well as ensuring that children stay in schools
are important. This will also require a rethinking of the current reward system (meri-
tocracy) and financing model for higher education, as the higher cost of tertiary edu-
cation acts as a barrier for upward income mobility among children from low-income
Eltern. It also calls for special programs targeting low-income Indian children as this
group encounters the most obstacles in upward educational mobility. Zweite, policies
focusing on removing gender barriers and encouraging higher female participation in
the labor market should be continued as the analysis shows that women are less up-
wardly mobile than men. This is not surprising, as many studies have shown that there
is a gender barrier for women in the labor market, especially in terms of compensation
and hiring.
Dritte, policies that focus on assisting children from rural areas and in urban poor areas
are vital. Zum Beispiel, access to boarding schools, higher education, and scholarships must
consider the urban–rural divide, and the socioeconomic background of the parents, Par-
ticularly those from the rural areas. Vierte, we observe that having some form of assets is
important for upward mobility. Policies that encourage asset ownership and purchasing
power for parents, especially in the low-income group, are also equally important.
Gesamt, social mobility is about spreading opportunities and incentives, where every child
in Malaysia—regardless of race, religion, descent, place of birth, and gender—must be
given equal opportunities in life. Policies that promote upward mobility, especially among
lower-income groups and the middle class, require all manner of socioeconomic barriers
(ethnic and gender) to be reduced, if not removed. Upward mobility is necessary not only
because it promotes economic growth and reduces inequality, but more importantly, es ist
crucial in ensuring stability and social cohesion for our next generation.
Verweise
Atkinson, Anthony Barnes. 1981. On Intergenerational Income Mobility in Britain. Journal of Post
Keynesian Economics 3(2):194–217.
Barone, Guglielmo, and Sauro Mocetti. 2016. Intergenerational Mobility In The Very Long Run:
Florence 1427–2011. Banca d’Italia Working Papers No. 1060. Available at www.bancaditalia.it
/pubblicazioni/temi-discussione/2016/2016-1060/en_tema_1060.pdf?language_id=1.
Becker, Gary S., and Nigel Tomes. 1979. An Equilibrium Theory of the Distribution of Income and
Intergenerational Mobility. Journal of Political Economy 87(6):1153–1189.
Becker, Gary S., and Nigel Tomes. 1986. Human Capital and the Rise of Families. Teil 2: The Family
and the Distribution of Economic Rewards. Journal of Labor Economics 4(3):1–39.
19
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Bjorklund, Anders, Jesper Roine, and Daniel Waldenstrom. 2008. Intergenerational Top Income Mo-
bility in Sweden: A Combination of Equal Opportunity and Capitalistic Dynasties. Institute for the
Study of Labor Discussion Series Paper No. 3801. Bonn, Deutschland: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Blanden, Jo, and Stephen Machin. 2007. Recent Changes in Intergenerational Mobility in Britain. Re-
port for Sutton Trust. Dezember 2007. Available at www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007
/12/intergenerationalmobilityinukfull.pdf.
Böhlmark, Andres, and Matthew J. Lindquist. 2006. Life-Cycle Variations in the Association be-
tween Current and Lifetime Income: Replication and Extension for Sweden. Journal of Labor Economics
24(4):879–896.
Causa, Orsetta, and ˚Asa Johansson. 2010. Intergenerational Social Mobility in OECD Countries.
OECD Journal: Economic Studies. Available from www.oecd.org/eco/growth/49849281.pdf.
Corak, Miles. 2006. Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross Country Compari-
son of Generational Earnings Mobility. Research on Economic Inequality 13(1):143–188.
Cordone, Paolo, Joan Pau Jorda, and Chiarra Sanna. 2014. Social Mobility and Mortality in Southern
Schweden (1813–1910). Working Paper. Lund University.
D’Addio, A. C. 2007. Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility or Immobility
Across Generations. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 52. Paris: OECD
Veröffentlichung.
Department of Statistics (DOS). 2015. Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report. Putrajaya,
Malaysia: Department of Statistics.
Ferreira, Sergio G., and Fernando A. Veloso. 2006. Intergenerational Mobility of Wages in Brazil.
Brazilian Review of Econometrics 26(2):181–211.
Gershuny, Jonathan. 2002. A New Measure of Social Position: Social Mobility and Human Capital
in Britain. Working Papers of the Institute for Social and Economic Research No. 2002-2. Colchester:
University of Essex.
Hertz, Thomas 2005. Rags, Riches, and Races: The Intergenerational Mobility of Black and White
Families in the United States. In: Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success, edited
by Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne, S. 165–191. New York: Russell Sage and
Princeton University Press.
Ikemoto, Yukio. 1985. Income Distribution in Malaysia: 1957–80. Developing Economics 23(4): 347–367.
Jäntti, Markus, Brent Bratsberg, Knut Roed, et al. 2006. American Exceptionalism in a New Light: A
Comparison of Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the Nordic Countries, the United Kingdom and
Die Vereinigten Staaten. Available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf.
Khor, Niny, and John Pencavel. 2008. Measuring Income Mobility, Income Inequality, and Social
Welfare for Households of the People’s Republic of China. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No.
145. Manila: Asiatische Entwicklungsbank. Available at www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication
/28238/economics-wp145.pdf.
Ng, Irene, Xiaoyi Shen, and Kang Weng Ho. 2008. Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in Singapore
und die Vereinigten Staaten. Economic Growth Center Working Paper Series. NEIN. 2008/03. Singapur:
Nanyang Technological University. Available at www3.ntu.edu.sg/hss2/egc/wp/2008/2008-03.pdf.
Nor Hayati Sa’at. 2010. Keluar dari Lingkaran Kemiskinan: Mobiliti Sosial di Kalangan Komuniti
Pesisir Pantai, Kuala Terengganu. Ph.D. These, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
20
Asian Economic Papers
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Pew. 2009. Economic Mobility Project. Findings from a National Survey and Focus Groups on Economic
Mobility. Washington, Gleichstrom: The Pew Charitable Trust.
Shamsul, A. Baharuddin. 2014. The Experience of Moderation in Malaysia: What Is It Exactly? A
presentation for the XXVII Conference of The Academy of the Latiny, jointly organized by the
Academy of The Latiny, Brazil and The Global Movement of the Moderate Foundation. Malaysia,
8–10 January 2014, Kuala Lumpur. Available at http://www.academia.edu/5539614/The_experience
_of_moderation_in_Malaysia_What_is_it_exactly.
Solon, Gary. 1992. Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States. American Economic Review
82(3):393–408.
Song, Xi, and Robert D. Mare. 2014. Prospective versus Retrospective Approaches to the Study of
Intergenerational Social Mobility. Verfügbar unter https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554460.
Syed Husin Ali. 1964. Social Stratification in Kampong Bagan: A Study of Class, Status, Conflict and Mobil-
ity in a Rural Malay Community. Singapur: Malaysia Printers Limited.
Wan Hashim Wan Teh. 1980. Komuniti nelayan di pulau Pangkor: beberapa aspek ekonomi dan social. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Appendix A
Table A.1 Descriptive statistics
Obs. Mean
Std. dev. Min Max
Parents
Alter
Gender (Male = 0)
Education levela
Occupational skill level
Graduate (Yes = 1)
First child
Alter
Gender (Male = 0)
Education levela
Occupational skill level
Graduate (Yes = 1)
Raised by both parents (Yes = 1)
Family size
4,999
4,999
4,922
4,999
4,999
4,999
4,999
4,975
4,999
4,999
4,996
4,995
61.25
0.200
2.631
3.037
0.159
33.11
0.499
3.485
2.084
0.518
0.932
5.771
4.642
0.401
0.793
1.101
0.365
4.272
0.499
0.574
0.983
0.499
0.253
2.226
55
0
1
1
0
25
0
1
1
0
0
2
70
1
4
4
1
40
1
4
4
1
1
17
aNonresponders on education were coded as 99, biasing the summary statistics. Diese
observations were removed.
Education: No formal education = 1, Primary education = 2, Secondary education = 3,
Tertiary education = 4.
Occupational skills: Unemployed = 4, Low skilled = 3, Mid skilled = 2, High skilled = 1.
Appendix B. Key variables for regression
The following logistic (odd-ratio) regression models were used:
For the B40: logit inc_higher non_grad_hoh graduate_fc male_fc i.ethnic_bumi
no_fin_assist no_kinder_fc savings parent1 urban35
21
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
For the T20: logit inc_lower graduate_hoh non_grad_fc female_fc i.ethnic_chinese
fin_assist kinder_fc no_savings parent1 urban35
Wo;
: Child’s quintile is higher than parents’ quintile
: Child’s quintile is lower than parents’ quintile
: Parent has tertiary education
: Child has tertiary education
inc_higher
inc_lower
graduate_hoh
graduate_fc
non_grad_hoh : Parent has no tertiary education
: Child has no tertiary education
non_grad_fc
: Son
male_fc
: Daughter
female_fc
: Ethnic group (0 = Bumiputera, 1 = Chinese, 2 = Indian)
ethnic_bumi
: Ethnic group (0 = Chinese, 1 = Bumiputera, 2 = Indian)
ethnic_chinese
: Child received financial assistance for education
fin_assist
: Child did not receive financial assistance for education
no_fin_assist
: Child attended kindergarten
kinder_fc
: Child did not attend kindergarten
no_kinder_fc
: Parent has savings
Savings
: Parent has no savings
no_savings
: Child not raised by both parents
parent1
: Child raised by both parents
parent2
: Child raised in urban area
urban35
Appendix C. Regression results
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
Table C.1 Factors that promotes upward mobility for those raised in the bottom
40 Prozent
Logistic regression
Log pseudolikelihood = −1262102.2
inc_higher
Odds ratio
Robust std. err.
Z
Number of obs = 1976
Wald chi2 (10) = 146.06
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Pseudo R2 = 0.1466
P > |z|
[95% conf. interval]
non_grad_hoh
graduate_fc
male_fc
_Iethnic_bu_1
_Iethnic_bu_2
_Iethnic_bu_3
no_fin_assist
no_kinder_fc
savings
parent1
urban35
_cons
1.24234
4.468969
3.627763
1.439783
1.060322
1
1.279688
1.085031
1.683884
1.407625
1.523637
.1780157
.4790982
.8717841
.5327087
.3750351
.2553684
(omitted)
.2221521
.1558048
.3593349
.3715686
.2329059
.0904787
0.56
8.19
8.78
1.40
0.24
1.42
0.57
2.44
1.30
2.75
−3.40
0.574
0.000
0.000
0.162
0.808
0.155
0.570
0.015
0.195
0.006
0.001
.5834206
3.219123
2.720486
.8641239
.6613537
.9106187
.8188682
10108329
.8390673
1.129185
.0657392
2.645449
6.713912
4.837614
2.398934
1.699971
1.798339
1.437706
2.558324
2.361443
2.05588
.4820499
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
22
Asian Economic Papers
Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia
Table C.2 Factors that promotes downward mobility for the top 20 Prozent
Logistic regression
Log pseudolikelihood = −837016.14
inc_lower
Odds ratio
Robust std. err.
Z
Number of obs = 978
Wald chi2 (10) = 59.17
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Pseudo R2 = 0.1201
P > |z|
[95% conf. interval]
graduate_hoh
non_grad_fc
female_fc
_Iethnic_ch_1
_Iethnic_ch_2
_Iethnic_ch_3
fin_assist
kinder_fc
no_savings
parent1
urban35
_cons
1.482134
6.067893
3.020065
1.867525
1.682445
1
1.079562
1.502475
1.626271
2.507743
1.096773
.3360248
.3382271
1.983385
.651796
.4592589
.7957459
(omitted)
.2398407
.4697366
.8235683
1.252381
.2993418
.1381218
1.72
5.52
5.12
2.54
1.10
0.34
1.30
0.96
1.84
0.37
−2.65
0.085
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.271
0.730
0.193
0.337
0.066
0.715
0.008
.9476347
3.197493
1.978374
1.153295
.6658067
.6984582
.8141147
.602742
.9422979
.6681483
.1501371
2.31811
11.51506
4.610247
3.024075
4.251416
1.668609
2.772863
4.387875
6.673872
1.800366
.7520638
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
A
S
e
P
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
7
3
1
1
6
8
6
6
1
7
A
S
e
P
_
A
_
0
0
6
2
4
P
D
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
23
Asian Economic Papers
