Global Social Mobility Index

Last updated November 26, 2023

The Global Social Mobility Index is an index prepared by the World Economic Forum. The inaugural index from 2020 ranked 82 countries and has not been updated since. The Index measures social mobility holistically through 5 determinants. The findings from the index were then used in the World Economic Forum's Global Social Mobility Report 2020, which provided recommendations for governments and businesses. Researchers have used the index to analyze income inequality and have determined reasons for countries to improve social mobility.

Context

The Global Social Mobility Index was established by the World Economic Forum in 2020 in light of the changes caused by globalization and technological advancement.^[1] The results and findings of the index are summarized in the Global Social Mobility Report 2020.^[1] The index differs from previous measures of social mobility because it uses a more holistic methodology, ultimately measuring the causes of social mobility.^[1] Previous measures focused on comparing intergenerational incomes.^[1] These comparisons drew data from different time periods, and thus it was more difficult to draw clear conclusions about the present.^[1]

Methodology summary

The World Economic Forum measured social mobility through five determinants: health, education, technology, work, and institutions.^[2] These five determinants are measured by the following ten pillars, each with its own set of parameters.^[1]

Pillar 1: Health^[1]

Adolescent birth rate per 1000 women
Prevalence of malnourishment (as a percentage of 5-19 year olds)
Health access and quality index
Inequality-adjusted healthy life expectancy index

Pillar 2: Education Access^[1]

Pre-primary enrollment (as a percentage)
Quality of vocational training
NEET ratio (the percentage of 15-24 year olds not in employment, education, or training)
Percentage of school-age children that lack access to education
Inequality-adjusted education index

Pillar 3: Education Quality and Equity^[1]

Children below minimum proficiency
Pupils per teacher in pre-primary/primary/secondary education
Harmonized learning outcomes (a metric created by the World Bank that compares learning progress between countries)^[3]
Social diversity in schools
Percentage of disadvantaged students in schools which report a lack of education material

Pillar 4: Lifelong Learning^[1]

Extent of staff training
Active labor market policies
Impact of ICTs (information and communications technology) on access to basic services
Percentage of firms offering formal training
Digital skills amongst the adult population

Pillar 5: Technology Access^[1]

Internet users (as a percentage of the adult population)
Fixed-broadband internet subscriptions (per 100 pop.)
Mobile-broadband subscriptions (per 100 pop.)
Percentage of population covered by at least a 3G mobile network
Percentage of rural population with electricity access
Internet access in schools

Pillar 6: Work Opportunities^[1]

Unemployment among labor force with basic/intermediate/advanced education (as a percentage)
Unemployment in rural areas (as a percentage)
Ratio of female to male labor force participation rate
Workers in vulnerable employment (as a percentage)

Pillar 7: Fair Wage Distribution^[1]

Low pay incidence (as a percentage of workers)
Ratio of bottom 40% to top 10% labor income share
Ratio of bottom 50% to top 50% labor income share
Mean income of bottom 40% (as a percentage of national mean income)
Adjusted labor income share (as a percentage)

Pillar 8: Working Conditions^[1]

Worker’s rights index
Cooperation in labor-employer relations
Pay and productivity
Employees working more than 48 hours a week
Collective bargaining coverage ratio (as a percentage)

Pillar 9: Social Protection^[1]

Guaranteed minimum income benefits (as a percentage of median income)
Social protection coverage (as a percentage of population)
Social protection spending (as a percentage of GDP)
Social safety net protection

Pillar 10: Inclusive Institutions^[1]

Corruption perceptions index
Government and public services efficiency
Inclusiveness of institutions
Political stability

Global Social Mobility Index (2020) results

Below is the list of 82 countries ranked by their score in the inaugural Global Social Mobility Index 2020.^[1] The value 100 was the highest possible score a country could receive.^[1]

Rank	Country	Index Score
1	Denmark	85.2
2	Norway	83.6
3	Finland	83.6
4	Sweden	83.5
5	Iceland	82.7
6	Netherlands	82.4
7	Switzerland	82.1
8	Belgium	80.1
9	Austria	80.1
10	Luxembourg	79.8
11	Germany	78.8
12	France	76.7
13	Slovenia	76.4
14	Canada	76.1
15	Japan	76.1
16	Australia	75.1
17	Malta	75.0
18	Ireland	75.0
19	Czech Republic	74.7
20	Singapore	74.6
21	United Kingdom	74.4
22	New Zealand	74.3
23	Estonia	73.5
24	Portugal	72.0
25	South Korea	71.4
26	Lithuania	70.5
27	United States	70.4
28	Spain	70.0
29	Cyprus	69.4
30	Poland	69.1
31	Latvia	69.0
32	Slovakia	68.5
33	Israel	68.1
34	Italy	67.4
35	Uruguay	67.1
36	Croatia	66.7
37	Hungary	65.8
38	Kazakhstan	64.8
39	Russia	64.7
40	Bulgaria	63.8
41	Serbia	63.8
42	Romania	63.1
43	Malaysia	62.0
44	Costa Rica	61.6
45	China	61.5
46	Ukraine	61.2
47	Chile	60.3
48	Greece	59.8
49	Moldova	59.6
50	Vietnam	57.8
51	Argentina	57.3
52	Saudi Arabia	57.1
53	Georgia	55.6
54	Albania	55.6
55	Thailand	55.4
56	Armenia	53.9
57	Ecuador	53.9
58	Mexico	52.6
59	Sri Lanka	52.3
60	Brazil	52.1
61	Philippines	51.7
62	Tunisia	51.7
63	Panama	51.4
64	Turkey	51.3
65	Colombia	50.3
66	Peru	49.9
67	Indonesia	49.3
68	El Salvador	47.4
69	Paraguay	46.8
70	Ghana	45.5
71	Egypt	44.8
72	Laos	43.8
73	Morocco	43.7
74	Honduras	43.5
75	Guatemala	43.5
76	India	42.7
77	South Africa	41.4
78	Bangladesh	40.2
79	Pakistan	36.7
80	Cameroon	36.0
81	Senegal	36.0
82	Ivory Coast	34.5

Global Social Mobility Report 2020 summary

The World Economic Forum compiled its findings from the Global Social Mobility Index in its Global Social Mobility Report 2020 which includes information about the current state of economic inequality and provides recommendations for governments and businesses to alleviate inequalities.^[1] This section provides a summary of the report’s findings.^[1]

The World Economic Forum finds that the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which has involved rapid globalization and technological advancements, has led to increased inequality.^[1] For example, the World Economic Forum notes that the top percent of US earners made 158% more in 2018 than in 1979, whereas the bottom 90 percent of earners made only 24% more.^[1] In a review of the report, Hanna Ziady, a CNN Business contributor, states that in order for an American household with low income to reach the American median household income, it would require five generations.^[4] In light of these findings, Bhowmick, a researcher for the Observer Research Foundation, argues that policies that address social mobility are essential for countries with high income inequality to reduce poverty levels.^[5]

In a review of the report, Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed writing for The Financial Express highlights that a social mobility agenda is needed to reduce inequality, and thus the organization created a set of goals that governments should prioritize.^[6] The World Economic Forum advises that governments use taxation for equality-focused public spending.^[1] To increase social mobility in the labor force, the World Economic Forum urges governments to find ways to support the expansion of education and lifelong learning which includes developing human capital along with workers’ careers.^[1] Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed, in agreement with the World Economic Forum, states that improving education effectively involves spending on programs that target disadvantaged youth, placing quality of education as a priority.^[6]

The Global Social Mobility Report lists a set of goals for businesses: providing fair wages, educating their workers, and having a more merit-based hiring process.^[1] The report states that businesses benefit from socioeconomic equality because their consumer bases increase, consumer-business relations strengthen, and the economic environment stabilizes.^[1] Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed finds that these benefits incentivize businesses to contribute to equality for economic reasons, not just ethical ones.^[6]

As Jones, managing editor for the Visual Capitalist, highlights, the Global Social Mobility Report 2020 also warns countries of the potential risks associated with low social mobility: unstable work and living environments, distrust in institutions, distrust in politics, and societal unraveling.^[2] Jones argues that the economic cost is high as well.^[2] She points out a statistic from the report claiming that if every country were to raise its score on the index by ten, global GDP could grow an additional 4.41% by 2030.^[2]

Global Social Mobility Index (2020) application

Fifekova, a researcher of economic policy at the University of Economics in Bratislava, et al. have found the Global Social Mobility Index to be a key determinant of income inequality.^[7] The relationship between social mobility and income inequality can be explained by cause-effect cycles.^[7] Less equality of opportunity yields lower social mobility which leads to inherited inequalities, and the cycle continues.^[7]

Knowing that social mobility is a measure of income inequality, Suriyanrattakorn and Chang, researchers at Udon Thani Rajabjat University and National Chung Hsing University respectively, have found a relationship between the Global Social Mobility Index and life satisfaction measured by subjective well-being.^[8] Thus, countries with high inequality tend to have lower average national life satisfaction.^[8] The researchers conclude that countries with low social mobility focus on policies that promote income equality in order to increase the well-being of their citizens.^[8]

Mwamba, an economics professor at the University of Johannesburg, et al. have found that the income level of a country was not necessarily correlated with its social mobility level.^[9] In agreement with the World Economic Forum, Mwamba et al. argue that it is difficult to ascend the social ladder regardless of a country’s income level.^[9] Thus, the research suggests that all countries can benefit from improvements in social mobility.^[9]

In light of the World Economic Report’s findings, McKinsey and Company conducted research on the UK to find that the Global Social Mobility Index has implications for the UK’s national economy as well as corporations.^[10] They conclude that low social mobility leads to inefficient talent allocation, and when paired with inequalities in gender or race, decreases the potential of the national labor force.^[10]

Related Research Articles

In economics, the Gini coefficient, also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income inequality, the wealth inequality, or the consumption inequality within a nation or a social group. It was developed by Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.

Economic inequality is an umbrella term for a) income inequality or distribution of income, b) wealth inequality or distribution of wealth, and c) consumption inequality. Each of these can be measured between two or more nations, within a single nation, or between and within sub-populations.

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to one's current social location within a given society. This movement occurs between layers or tiers in an open system of social stratification. Open stratification systems are those in which at least some value is given to achieved status characteristics in a society. The movement can be in a downward or upward direction. Markers for social mobility such as education and class, are used to predict, discuss and learn more about an individual or a group's mobility in society.

In economics, income distribution covers how a country's total GDP is distributed amongst its population. Economic theory and economic policy have long seen income and its distribution as a central concern. Unequal distribution of income causes economic inequality which is a concern in almost all countries around the world.

Income inequality metrics or income distribution metrics are used by social scientists to measure the distribution of income and economic inequality among the participants in a particular economy, such as that of a specific country or of the world in general. While different theories may try to explain how income inequality comes about, income inequality metrics simply provide a system of measurement used to determine the dispersion of incomes. The concept of inequality is distinct from poverty and fairness.

International inequality refers to inequality between countries, as compared to global inequality, which is inequality between people across countries. International inequality research has primarily been concentrated on the rise of international income inequality, but other aspects include educational and health inequality, as well as differences in medical access. Reducing inequality within and among countries is the 10th goal of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring that no one is left behind is central to achieving them. Inequality can be measured by metrics such as the Gini coefficient.

Income inequality has fluctuated considerably in the United States since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950 and 1980.

Social inequality occurs when resources in a given society are distributed unevenly, typically through norms of allocation, that engender specific patterns along lines of socially defined categories of persons. It poses and creates a gender gap between individuals that limits the accessibility that women have within society. The differentiation preference of access to social goods in the society is brought about by power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. Social inequality usually implies the lack of equality of outcome, but may alternatively be conceptualized in terms of the lack of equality in access to opportunity. This accompanies the way that inequality is presented throughout social economies and the rights that are skilled within this basis. The social rights include labor market, the source of income, health care, and freedom of speech, education, political representation, and participation.

Gender inequality is the social phenomenon in which people are not treated equally on the basis of gender. This inequality can be caused by gender discrimination or sexism. The treatment may arise from distinctions regarding biology, psychology, or cultural norms prevalent in the society. Some of these distinctions are empirically grounded, while others appear to be social constructs. While current policies around the world cause inequality among individuals, it is women who are most affected. Gender inequality weakens women in many areas such as health, education, and business life. Studies show the different experiences of genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family life, careers, and political affiliation. Gender inequality is experienced differently across different cultures and also affects non-binary people.

The Global Gender Gap Report is an index designed to measure gender equality. It was first published in 2006 by the World Economic Forum.

Global workforce refers to the international labor pool of workers, including those employed by multinational companies and connected through a global system of networking and production, foreign workers, transient migrant workers, remote workers, those in export-oriented employment, contingent workforce or other precarious work. As of 2012, the global labor pool consisted of approximately 3 billion workers, around 200 million unemployed.

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States refers to the upward or downward movement of Americans from one social class or economic level to another, through job changes, inheritance, marriage, connections, tax changes, innovation, illegal activities, hard work, lobbying, luck, health changes or other factors.

The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is an index for the measurement of gender disparity that was introduced in the 2010 Human Development Report 20th anniversary edition by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to the UNDP, this index is a composite measure to quantify the loss of achievement within a country due to gender inequality. It uses three dimensions to measure opportunity cost: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. The new index was introduced as an experimental measure to remedy the shortcomings of the previous indicators, the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), both of which were introduced in the 1995 Human Development Report.

Female participation and advancement in majority Muslim countries, or nations in which more than 50% of the population identifies as an adherent of the Islamic faith, have traditionally been areas of controversy. Several Western nations, such as the United States and Western Europe, have criticised majority Muslim nations for the lack of involvement and opportunity for women in the private sector.

Gender inequality in Mexico refers to disparate freedoms in health, education, and economic and political abilities between men and women in Mexico. It has been diminishing throughout history, but continues to persist in many forms including the disparity in women's political representation and participation, the gender pay gap, and high rates of domestic violence and femicide. As of 2022, the World Economic Forum ranks Mexico 31st in terms of gender equality out of 146 countries. Structural gender inequality is relatively homogeneous between the Mexican states as there are very few regional differences in the inequalities present.

Measures of gender equality or inequality are statistical tools employed to quantify the concept of gender equality.

Effects of income inequality, researchers have found, include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods, a lower population-wide satisfaction and happiness and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption. For the top 21 industrialised countries, counting each person equally, life expectancy is lower in more unequal countries. A similar relationship exists among US states.

The gender gap in Pakistan refers to the differences between men and women in Pakistan in terms of social, political, and economic participation and rights. The gender gap uses the gender ratio of Pakistan to compare the disparities between men and women in different fields, which mainly disadvantage women. According to the Global Gender Gap Index 2022, Pakistan ranks second to last in terms of the Gender Gap, with only 56.4% of its gender gap closed, a 0.8 percentage point increase from 2021. By percentage, men form about 51.46% and women form about 48.54% of the total population of Pakistan. The sex ratio of Pakistan is 106.010, that means there are about 106 men for every 100 women in Pakistan. The gender gap in Pakistan includes comparisons of gender differences in health, educational, legal, economical, and political aspects.

Gender parity is a statistical measure used to describe ratios between men and women, or boys and girls, in a given population. Gender parity may refer to the proportionate representation of men and women in a given group, also referred to as sex ratio, or it may mean the ratio between any quantifiable indicator among men against the same indicator among women.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "Global Social Mobility Index 2020". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
1 2 3 4 Jones, Katie. "Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries". markets.businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
↑ "Harmonized Learning Outcomes (HLO) Database | Data Catalog". datacatalog.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
↑ Ziady, Hanna (2020-01-20). "The American Dream is much easier to achieve in Canada | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
↑ Bhowmick, Soumya. Importance of Social Mobility for Sustainable Development, 2022, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/importance-of-social-mobility-for-sustainable-development/.
1 2 3 "Improving social mobility". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
1 2 3 Fifeková, Elena, Eduard Nežinský, and Andrea Valachová. "Social Mobility as an Income Inequality Determinant." DANUBE, vol. 13, no. 3, 2022, pp. 226-239, https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2022-0014
1 2 3 Suriyanrattakorn and Chia-Lin Chang. "Does life satisfaction vary with income inequality and social mobility?" Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100326
1 2 3 Muteba Mwamba, John Weirstrass; Shiwamya, Paul Mumba; Mudiangombe, Benjamin Mudiangombe (2022-11-08). "Does Economic Inequality Account for Cross-Country Discrepancies in Relative Social Mobility: An Empirical Investigation". Economies. 10 (11): 279. doi: 10.3390/economies10110279 . ISSN 2227-7099.
1 2 "How UK businesses can benefit from social mobility | McKinsey". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:02-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "Global Social Mobility Index 2020". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[:1-2] 1 2 3 4 Jones, Katie. "Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries". markets.businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[3] "Harmonized Learning Outcomes (HLO) Database | Data Catalog". datacatalog.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2023-04-24.

[4] Ziady, Hanna (2020-01-20). "The American Dream is much easier to achieve in Canada | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2023-04-24.

[5] Bhowmick, Soumya. Importance of Social Mobility for Sustainable Development, 2022, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/importance-of-social-mobility-for-sustainable-development/.

[:2-6] 1 2 3 "Improving social mobility". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[:3-7] 1 2 3 Fifeková, Elena, Eduard Nežinský, and Andrea Valachová. "Social Mobility as an Income Inequality Determinant." DANUBE, vol. 13, no. 3, 2022, pp. 226-239, https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2022-0014

[:4-8] 1 2 3 Suriyanrattakorn and Chia-Lin Chang. "Does life satisfaction vary with income inequality and social mobility?" Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100326

[:5-9] 1 2 3 Muteba Mwamba, John Weirstrass; Shiwamya, Paul Mumba; Mudiangombe, Benjamin Mudiangombe (2022-11-08). "Does Economic Inequality Account for Cross-Country Discrepancies in Relative Social Mobility: An Empirical Investigation". Economies. 10 (11): 279. doi: 10.3390/economies10110279 . ISSN 2227-7099.

[:6-10] 1 2 "How UK businesses can benefit from social mobility | McKinsey". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]