Opinion Archive

What to Make of Social Mobility

October 22, 2008

Both the United States and Mexico were born out of an effort to break the social mold. Americans declared that "all men are created equal". Thirty-four years later, Mexicans started their independence movement to grant the same opportunities to those born in Mexico that the Spanish-born ruling class enjoyed. While it is true that both countries have struggled to realize their ideals among all people, it is safe to say that equality of opportunity is one of our key founding principles. That is why we abolished hereditary titles, leaving behind Europe's enforced social stratification.

Movin' on up?

Social mobility is where the rubber of equality of opportunity hits the road of inequality. It is defined as "the degree to which, in a given society, an individual's, family's, or group's social status can change throughout the course of their life". If one who is born into poverty has no chance of achieving wealth then what good are the Utopian words of a Constitution? Social mobility presupposes some inequality (otherwise, where would people be "moving" to?), but effective social mobility lessens the sense of injustice that comes with inequality. If the poor can, by their merit, end up rich and the rich, by their foolishness, can end up poor, then there is no use raging against an "oppressive" system. "Success" becomes a matter of personal responsibility. In this system the state's role is to make sure that its people have access to a basic mix of education, health, and infrastructure, providing a "level playing field".

So, how are we doing? The good people at the Espinosa Rugarcía Foundation, in conjuntion with the Centro de Estudios Espinosa Yglesias, recently unveiled the most comprehensive study on the topic in Mexico. The director of the Institute, Julio Serrano, sounds a negative note: "the reults of the Social Mobility in 2006 poll are disheartening." As proof, he cites the fact that the poorest 20% of the population (income=$0-$1,500 pesos per month, or "quintile 1") and the richest 20% (income=$30,000+ pesos per month, or "quintile 5") are ossified. That is, nearly 75% of those who are born in the poorest 40% of the population die in the same social stratum. At the same time, nearly 60% of those born into the richest "quintile" (20% of the population) die among the richest 20%. Further, there is little interaction between the most and the least educated: a statistically insignificant percentage of the uneducated marry those with post-graduate degrees. Education, according to the study, is an important indicator of wealth.

Among the 8 countries that were compared in the study, Mexico was the one with the least social mobility but, surprisingly, the US was the 6th least socially mobile. 48% of Mexican children of the poorest quintile stayed there, while 42% of America's poorest stayed the same. This contrasts with the most socially mobile country in the study, Denmark, where only 1/4 of those born into the poorest families are doomed to suffer the fate of their parents.

Getting a piece of the pie

Fortunately, there are several factors that mitigate the gloom. The first is the fact that the study shows that every quintile has seen an "absolute" increase in their standard of living. Second, both Mexico (population: 107 million) and the US (population: 305 million) were compared with places like Denmark (population: 5.5 million), because the Scandinavians are among the few who have reliable statistics related to social mobility.

Interestingly, nearly 90% of Mexico's population sees social mobility as either staying the same, or getting better. Only 1 in 10 sees things getting worse. Further, the study shows that social mobility is significant amongst the three middle quintiles.

Then there's race and geography. Simply put, white Mexicans, who are well represented amongst the rich, are segretated from indigenous Mexicans, who are over-represented amongst the poor. Literally, and figuratively, they live in different worlds. Social mobility is significant among the 3 middle quintiles, in part, because they represent the mestizo majority and their geographies often overlap.

There is no doubt that Mexico has a lot of work to do in terms of social mobility. But there are indigenous communities in places like Oaxaca and Chiapas that have rejected modernity and "whiter" communities where racism is common. For social mobility to really flourish, we must first overcome our psychological barriers.

Happy first!

This is the 53rd edition of our weekly "What to Make of..." column here in Wednesday's editorial section of The News. Thanks to our readers and to The News for its quality and insight. We look forward to continuing to play our part in the public dialogue during these fascinating times of tumultuous change in North America.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top