“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Research on economic mobility and assortative mating: how family background, education, neighborhoods, marriage, peers, and institutions shape opportunity across generations. Coverage examines both movement and persistence in status.
AI Summary.A study of China's imperial civil service examination estimates that both exam performance and ties to powerful examiners had larger effects on career outcomes for high-performing candidates, indicating merit and networks were complements rather than substitutes. The authors argue this complementarity makes the influence of networks harder to distinguish from merit.
Ying Bai and Ruixue JiaNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
From 1644–1905, Qing China staffed its bureaucracy through exams and patronage. Only 12.6% of exam graduates reached top office, but patronage favored stronger performers, illustrating how merit and connections can be complements rather than substitutes.
Do merit and connections reinforce each other in civil service careers?
Core argument: In China's imperial examination system, exam performance mattered more for candidates in the high-performing category, consistent with an institutional design that steered that elite group toward more prestigious careers.
Figure 5 studies the interplay between merit and networks by estimating the effects of exam performance and ties to powerful examiners separately for the high- and low-performing categories. The left panel shows the effects of exam performance for the two categories, while the right panel presents those of examiner power. Two patterns stand out. First, exam performance matters more for the high category, consistent with the institutional design that steered this elite group toward more prestigious careers. Second, ties to powerful examiners are also more valuable for the high category, pointing to a complementarity between merit and networks. To understand the implications of our finding on complementarity, it is useful to contrast it with the counterfactual of substitution. When merit and networks are complements (rather than substitutes), those who attained top office tend to exhibit both stronger exam performance and stronger connections. By contrast, under substitution, strong networks would compensate for weaker exam performance, and vice versa. Complementarity implies [a higher degree of meritocracy than substitution, as] successful candidates appear to have had better performance. Second, complementarity makes it harder to identify the influence of networks: their effects can operate under the guise of merit rather than as a visible substitute for it.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
In China's imperial examination system, exam performance mattered more for candidates in the high-performing category, consistent with an institutional design that steered that elite group toward more prestigious careers.
Ties to powerful examiners were also more valuable for the high-performing category, pointing to complementarity between merit and networks rather than substitution.
Complementarity implies a higher degree of meritocracy than substitution, since those attaining top office tended to show both stronger exam performance and stronger connections, and it makes the influence of networks harder to identify because it can operate under the guise of merit.
Related Articles:
Elite Strategies for Big Shocks: The Case of the Fall of the Ming— A study of China's Ming-to-Qing dynastic transition finds elite families in Central China lost influence in the short run but their descendants regained and tightened their hold on power under the new dynasty, even as the hardest-hit regions stayed worse off. The authors attribute the recovery to emphasis on portable civil-service exam skills.
The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022— Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes— A study of 402,000 English individuals across 1750–2020 estimates an intergenerational occupational status correlation of 0.88 and a genetic correlation between spouses of 0.76, which the authors interpret as a strong genetic basis for the persistence of social status. The authors argue that highly assortative mating around status genetics limits what policy can do to raise social mobility.
AI Summary.Historical records indicate immigrants arriving in the United States around the turn of the twentieth century came with almost no wealth, and by 1920 nearly half of white adults were foreign-born or had foreign-born parents. Households of Southern or Eastern European ancestry, who arrived later with fewer resources, are on average wealthier than those of Northwestern European ancestry.
Brian MareinWake Forest University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Except possibly at the very top of the distribution which SIPP cannot measure, the wealth of “new” Southern and Eastern European immigrants to the US has fully caught up with “old” immigrants. Wealth converges quickly once earnings inequality vanishes.
Do initial wealth disadvantages among immigrant groups persist across generations?
Core argument: Households of Southern or Eastern European ancestry, whose families arrived later and with substantially fewer resources, are on average wealthier than those of Northwestern European ancestry, contrary to what persistent initial wealth disadvantages would predict.
Inferring the determinants of long-run inequality from group-level data is complicated by the arrival of 30 million Europeans during the Age of Mass Migration (roughly 1850 to 1924), who are by construction included in average white wealth despite having no direct claim to the wealth accumulated by earlier Americans. By1920, nearly half of white adults were either foreign-born or had foreign-born parents. Using the United States Immigration Commission Reports (commonly known as the Dillingham Commission Reports), I document that immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century arrived with almost no wealth. [Thus] a large share of the white population started from a substantial wealth disadvantage. Northwestern Europeans comprised the overwhelming majority of earlier immigrants, dating back to the initial European settlement of North America, while Southern and Eastern Europeans predominated at the turn of the twentieth century. If initial wealth disadvantages persisted across generations, one would expect households of Southern or Eastern European ancestry to possess less wealth than those of Northwestern European ancestry, since their families arrived later and started with substantially fewer resources. In fact, they do not. On average, they are wealthier.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Households of Southern or Eastern European ancestry, whose families arrived later and with substantially fewer resources, are on average wealthier than those of Northwestern European ancestry, contrary to what persistent initial wealth disadvantages would predict.
Roughly 30 million Europeans arrived during the Age of Mass Migration, spanning about 1850 to 1924, and by 1920 nearly half of white adults were foreign-born or had foreign-born parents, yet all are included in average white wealth.
The United States Immigration Commission Reports, known as the Dillingham Commission Reports, indicate that immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century arrived with almost no wealth, so a large share of the white population started from a substantial wealth disadvantage.
Related Articles:
The Myth of Nordic Mobility: Social Mobility Rla— Correcting for measurement error by using relative rather than absolute correlations among relatives, the authors estimate that educational intergenerational mobility in Denmark and Sweden is much lower than conventionally measured, with parent-child and sibling correlations much higher. They argue Nordic education spending and income compression have at best modestly reduced families' role in children's educational outcomes.
00 to 2022— Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
AI Summary.The authors estimate that the HOPE VI program, which revitalized high-poverty US public housing projects, raised adult household income by 2.77% per childhood year spent in a revitalized project, implying a 50% gain from birth, exceeding the program's up-front taxpayer costs. They attribute the gains largely to increased interaction with higher-income peers in surrounding neighborhoods.
Raj Chetty, Rebecca Diamond, Thomas Foster, Lawrence Katz, et al.Harvard University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Btw 1993 and 2010, children who moved into revitalized public housing that mixed market-rate and subsidized units, stayed a mean 5 years, and earned ~17% higher income as of their late 20s/early 30s. One key channel was exposure to higher-income peers.
Does revitalizing high-poverty public housing raise children's adult incomes?
Core argument: Each year a child spent growing up in a HOPE VI revitalized public housing project raised adult household income by 2.77%, implying a 50% income gain for a child living there from birth.
This paper has shown that the largest effort to revitalize high-poverty public housing projects in the United States—the HOPE VI program—succeeded in increasing economic mobility. Each year a child spent growing up in a revitalized public housing project increased their household income in adulthood by 2.77%, implying that growing up from birth in a revitalized public housing project would increase income by 50%. These income gains are substantially larger than the program’s up-front costs to taxpayers, demonstrating that it is possible to create higher-opportunity neighborhoods in a cost-effective manner even without changing broader determinants of outcomes such as labor market conditions or schools. The potential for change in short time frames is particularly notable given the historical roots of differences in opportunity across neighborhoods. The gains from HOPE VI are largely explained by changes in social interaction: children in revitalized projects interact more with peers in surrounding neighborhoods and gain more when they have higher-income peers.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Each year a child spent growing up in a HOPE VI revitalized public housing project raised adult household income by 2.77%, implying a 50% income gain for a child living there from birth.
The income gains from HOPE VI are substantially larger than the program's up-front costs to taxpayers, indicating that higher-opportunity neighborhoods can be created cost-effectively without changing labor market conditions or schools.
The gains from HOPE VI are largely explained by changes in social interaction, as children in revitalized projects interact more with peers in surrounding neighborhoods and gain more when those peers have higher incomes.
ZIP Code Is Destiny? Turns Out That’s Bunk— The authors argue that research crediting neighborhoods with causing better child outcomes confuses causation with parental self-sorting, since more affluent, better-educated, and more stable families tend to move to good neighborhoods before their children are born. Their analysis of Danish population data found the same sorting pattern as in the United States.
The Economics of Income Mobility— In interviews with 1,000 adults in Memphis, Tulsa, and New Orleans who self-identified as having grown up poor, the authors found human capital was the strongest predictor of escaping poverty, followed by noncognitive skills such as resilience, self-esteem, and conscientiousness. Trusted adults in childhood, early police encounters, mental health, and adverse experiences also mattered.
AI Summary.Using ancestral origins for millions of U.S.-born working-age individuals, the authors estimate that inequality within 186 ancestral groups accounts for 96% of U.S. income inequality, and inequality within six broad ethnic categories accounts for 97%, leaving only 3–4% attributable to differences between groups.
Oded Galor and Daniel WainstockNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Inequality within 186 distinct US ethnic groups accounts for 96% of total income variation, while between-group inequality contributes only 4%, largely constant across time and regions. For 6 broad ethnic categories, within variation is 97% of the total.
How much of US income inequality occurs within ethnic groups?
Core argument: Inequality within 186 distinct ancestral groups accounts for 96% of the variation in overall U.S. income inequality, while between-group inequality accounts for 4%, based on a representative sample of millions of U.S.-born, working-age individuals.
This paper examines inequality within the U.S. population, exploring variations between and within ethnic groups. Leveraging the ancestral origins of a representative sample of the U.S. population, consisting of millions of U.S.-born, working-age individuals, the study decomposes income inequality into within-group and between-group components, distinguishing disparities among those sharing a common ancestry from inequality between groups. As indicated in Figure 1, inequality within the 186 distinct ancestral groups accounts for 96% of the variation in overall income inequality in the U.S., while between-group inequality accounts for only 4%. Similarly, inequality within six broad ethnic categories (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, and White) accounts for 97% of the variation, while between-group inequality accounts for just 3%. When restricting the sample to individuals with the same educational attainment and demographic characteristics, within-ethnic-group inequality still accounts for the principal share of income dispersion. Spatial decomposition reveals that the predominance of within-group inequality holds across local micro-areas throughout the U.S. The South exhibits a modestly smaller share of within-group inequality—a pattern consistent with the region’s greater ethnic fragmentation and enduring legacy of discrimination.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Inequality within 186 distinct ancestral groups accounts for 96% of the variation in overall U.S. income inequality, while between-group inequality accounts for 4%, based on a representative sample of millions of U.S.-born, working-age individuals.
Within six broad ethnic categories — Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, and White — within-group inequality accounts for 97% of the variation in income inequality, versus 3% between groups.
Among individuals with the same educational attainment and demographic characteristics, within-ethnic-group inequality still accounts for the principal share of income dispersion, and its predominance holds across local micro-areas, with the South showing a modestly smaller within-group share.
How Immigration is Changing the Black-White Earnings Gap— A study of earnings among non-Hispanic White and three generations of Black workers finds that while the overall Black-White earnings gap widened, first- and second-generation Black immigrants made earnings advances, with second-generation Black women earning at or above White women. The authors attribute second-generation gains largely to educational attainment, with residential patterns playing a protective role.
Income Mobility of the Top One Percent— Using tax-return income, the authors estimate that a third of people in the top 1% drop out within a year and two-thirds within a decade, with three-quarters of the top 0.1% exiting over a decade. Measuring income over two decades rather than one year lowers top 1% income shares by an average of 15%, and top 0.001% shares by 40%.
AI Summary.Using a new descriptive statistical method, the authors find that education is the strongest correlate of intergenerational income mobility, with resilience a statistically indistinguishable close second. Half of the significant correlates are psychological skills, including self-esteem, self-control, locus of control, and grit, alongside mental health problems, youth trouble with police, adverse childhood experiences, and trusted adult relationships.
Oren Danieli, Tanaya Devi and Roland FryerTel Aviv University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
A data-driven method to select cost-effective policy interventions, applied to survey responses of ~1,000 people reared in poverty in 3 US cities, confirms the primacy of education, but finds an ~= role for childhood determinants of noncognitive skills.
What factors correlate most strongly with intergenerational income mobility?
Core argument: Using non-parametric estimation, the authors find education is the most important correlate of intergenerational income mobility, with resilience — the ability to bounce back from stressful situations — a close and statistically indistinguishable second.
We develop a new descriptive statistical method to assist the design of future experiments, whose goal is to improve some outcome variable. Most descriptive methods ignore the potential difficulty of changing the covariates in an intervention. Our method uses information from the joint distribution of the covariates, and instead of recommending experiments that would extrapolate into cases rarely seen in the data, it focuses on the way in which the outcome variable (in our case, escaping poverty) is higher in real life. Panel A in Figure 3 shows, using non-parametric estimation methods, that the most important correlate of income mobility is education. A close second– and statistically indistinguishable– is resilience: the ability to bounce back from stressful situations,measured by responses to questions such as “It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event.” Half of the significant correlates of intergenerational income mobility are psychological skills: resilience, Big 5 [personality traits from psychological test], self-esteem, self control, locus of control and grit. Mental health problems are also significant in this specification, [as are] whether the respondent was ever in trouble with the police in their youth, had adverse childhood experiences, and the existence of adult relationships they trusted.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Using non-parametric estimation, the authors find education is the most important correlate of intergenerational income mobility, with resilience — the ability to bounce back from stressful situations — a close and statistically indistinguishable second.
Half of the significant correlates of intergenerational income mobility are psychological skills: resilience, the Big 5 personality traits, self-esteem, self-control, locus of control, and grit.
Mental health problems, youth trouble with the police, adverse childhood experiences, and the existence of trusted adult relationships are also significant in the authors' specification.
Related Articles:
The American Dream Is Not a Coin Flip, and Wages Have Not Stagnated— Using an alternative cost-of-living adjustment, the typical 40-year-old's pre-tax family income rose 52% between 1979 and 2019, or 73% adjusting for family size, versus 15% under the methods behind widely cited mobility estimates. Absolute mobility is down 20 percentage points since 1979 but stood at 72% in 2023.
The Misguided War On The SAT— The National Assessment of Educational Progress, a nationwide test of elementary and middle school students with no test-prep industry around it, shows racial and economic gaps closely resembling those on the SAT and ACT. Researchers argue this indicates college admissions tests measure underlying learning, making score disparities a symptom rather than a cause of inequality.
AI Summary.In interviews with 1,000 adults in Memphis, Tulsa, and New Orleans who self-identified as having grown up poor, the authors found human capital was the strongest predictor of escaping poverty, followed by noncognitive skills such as resilience, self-esteem, and conscientiousness. Trusted adults in childhood, early police encounters, mental health, and adverse experiences also mattered.
Roland FryerWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Roland Fryer reports on his research that found educational attainment, followed by traits like resilience, self-esteem and conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of intergenerational mobility in the US.
What best predicts escaping childhood poverty?
Core argument: Researchers recruited 1,000 adults in Memphis, Tulsa and New Orleans—cities with higher-than-average poverty rates—who self-identified as having grown up poor; by their 40s some had exited poverty but most had not.
Our work complemented Mr. Chetty’s. His was wide: data on an astonishing number of Americans, but with limited information about each person. Ours was deep: data on a much smaller group of Americans, but with detailed information about each person. From Memphis, Tulsa and New Orleans—cities with higher-than-average poverty rates—we recruited 1,000 adults who self-identified as having grown up poor. By the time we met them in their 40s, some had exited poverty, but most hadn’t. Each took part in a three-hour interview about childhood health, parental income, home environment, lifetime traumas, neighborhood safety, psychological skills, beliefs and current income. The goal was to understand which childhood experiences were most correlated with mobility. We found that human capital was the strongest predictor of mobility. The second most important predictor was noncognitive skills—traits like resilience, self-esteem and conscientiousness. Other factors also mattered: the number of trusted adults in one’s childhood, early encounters with police, mental health and adverse experiences.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Researchers recruited 1,000 adults in Memphis, Tulsa and New Orleans—cities with higher-than-average poverty rates—who self-identified as having grown up poor; by their 40s some had exited poverty but most had not.
Human capital was the strongest predictor of income mobility in the study, followed by noncognitive skills such as resilience, self-esteem and conscientiousness.
Three-hour interviews covering childhood health, parental income, home environment, trauma and neighborhood safety also identified the number of trusted adults in childhood, early encounters with police, mental health and adverse experiences as factors in mobility.
Related Articles:
Getting Beneath the Veil of Intergenerational Mobility: Evidence from Three Cities— Using a new descriptive statistical method, the authors find that education is the strongest correlate of intergenerational income mobility, with resilience a statistically indistinguishable close second. Half of the significant correlates are psychological skills, including self-esteem, self-control, locus of control, and grit, alongside mental health problems, youth trouble with police, adverse childhood experiences, and trusted adult relationships.
ZIP Code Is Destiny? Turns Out That’s Bunk— The authors argue that research crediting neighborhoods with causing better child outcomes confuses causation with parental self-sorting, since more affluent, better-educated, and more stable families tend to move to good neighborhoods before their children are born. Their analysis of Danish population data found the same sorting pattern as in the United States.
AI Summary.An analysis of 87 identical-twin pairs raised apart with individual IQ and biographical data finds that pairs with similar schooling had an average IQ gap of 5.8 points and a correlation of 0.87, while educationally dissimilar pairs averaged a 12.8-point gap and a 0.75 correlation.
Jared Horvath and Katie FabricantActa Psychologica
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
“Educationally similar” monozygotic (MZ) twins raised apart [TRA] have a mean IQ delta of 5.8 points, ~ the same as those raised together. “Educationally dissimilar” MZ TRA have a delta of 12.8 points, closer to non-twin siblings than twins reared together.
How much do schooling differences affect IQ gaps between separated twins?
Core argument: Among 87 twins-reared-apart pairs with individualized IQ and biographical data, the 52 with similar schooling show an intraclass correlation of 0.87 ± 0.02 and an absolute IQ gap of 5.8 points (SD = 6.7), nearly indistinguishable from identical twins reared together.
We gathered data from every available TRA [Twins Raised Apart] case published in the academic literature over the last century that included both individualized IQ and biographical data. This data set (which we believe represents the entirety of the non-amalgamated TRA field; the vast majority embodied in existing studies are amalgamated) consists of 87 pairs. We split these pairs into three groups: similar, somewhat dissimilar, and very dissimilar schooling. Of the 87 pairs, 52 experienced a similar type and duration of schooling within a similar location. In fact, 25 of these pairs attended the same school for some period of time. One would be correct in questioning whether these twins truly meet the criteria of ‘reared apart;’ eyebrows should certainly be raised over how varied researchers have defined the term. Analysis revealed that ‘Educationally Similar’ TRA pairs have an ICC of 0.87 ± 0.02 (n = 52) and an absolute IQ differential of 5.8 points (SD = 6.7). This makes this group nearly indistinguishable from MZ twins reared together. Further analysis of the 35 ‘educationally dissimilar’ TRA pairs shows an ICC of 0.75 ± 0.04 (n = 32) and an absolute IQ differential of 12.8 points (SD = 7.3). The correlation is 0.12 lower than the ‘educationally similar’ TRAs and the IQ differential places this group closer in stature to non-twin siblings than MZ or even dizygotic twins reared together.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Among 87 twins-reared-apart pairs with individualized IQ and biographical data, the 52 with similar schooling show an intraclass correlation of 0.87 ± 0.02 and an absolute IQ gap of 5.8 points (SD = 6.7), nearly indistinguishable from identical twins reared together.
The 35 educationally dissimilar twins-reared-apart pairs show an intraclass correlation of 0.75 ± 0.04 (n = 32) and an absolute IQ differential of 12.8 points (SD = 7.3), placing them closer to non-twin siblings than to identical or fraternal twins reared together.
Of the 52 educationally similar twins-reared-apart pairs, 25 attended the same school for some period, raising the question of whether those twins meet the criteria of "reared apart" and how varied researchers' definitions of the term have been.
Related Articles:
The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022— Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
A Chip Off the Old Block? Genetics and the Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Status— Linking Dutch genetic data to tax records, the authors estimate that moving a person 10 percentiles higher in a genetic index raises their own income by 0.9 percentiles and their child's by 0.7 percentiles. They attribute about 50% of this to transmitted genes and the rest to environmental pathways.
For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes— A study of 402,000 English individuals across 1750–2020 estimates an intergenerational occupational status correlation of 0.88 and a genetic correlation between spouses of 0.76, which the authors interpret as a strong genetic basis for the persistence of social status. The authors argue that highly assortative mating around status genetics limits what policy can do to raise social mobility.
AI Summary.Linking Dutch genetic data to tax records, the authors estimate that moving a person 10 percentiles higher in a genetic index raises their own income by 0.9 percentiles and their child's by 0.7 percentiles. They attribute about 50% of this to transmitted genes and the rest to environmental pathways.
Sjoerd van Alten, Silvia Barcellos, Leandro Carvalho, Titus Galama, et al.National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
A 10-percentile increase in a person’s polygenic index (PGI) raises that person’s income by 0.9 percentiles and that of their child by 0.7 percentiles; ~1/2 is direct genetic transmission, and ~ 1/2 the effect of parent’s genes on nurturing capacity.
How much of genetic influence on children's income comes through environment?
Core argument: Linking Dutch Lifelines Cohort genetic data to 2006–2022 tax records, the authors find that moving a reference 10 percentiles higher in the polygenic index distribution raises that person's own income by 0.9 percentiles and their offspring's by 0.7 percentiles.
We examine how the genetics of one generation influences the SES [Socioeconomic Status] of the next by linking genetic data from the Dutch Lifelines Cohort to tax records for 2006-2022. Figure 5 plots the next-generation genetic effect against the same-generation genetic effect for each SES measure. The 22.5-degree line represents a benchmark where the next-generation genetic effects are half as large as the same-generation genetic effects. The figure indicates a high degree of persistence in the effects of the reference’s genetics across generations: e.g. moving a reference 10 percentiles higher in the PGI distribution increases that reference’s own income by 0.9 percentiles, and their offspring’s income by 0.7 percentiles. For most outcomes, the markers lie closer to the 45-degree line than to the 22.5-degree line, suggesting that genetic transmission is not the sole mechanism through which one generation’s genetics affects the next. Genetic transmission explains about 50% of the total effect, while genotypic assortative mating contributes little. This implies that the remaining 50% must be attributed to genetic nurture—the influence of the reference’s genetics operating through environmental pathways, even when these genetic markers are not transmitted to the offspring.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Linking Dutch Lifelines Cohort genetic data to 2006–2022 tax records, the authors find that moving a reference 10 percentiles higher in the polygenic index distribution raises that person's own income by 0.9 percentiles and their offspring's by 0.7 percentiles.
Genetic transmission explains about 50% of the total effect of one generation's genetics on the next generation's socioeconomic status, with genotypic assortative mating contributing little.
The authors attribute the remaining 50% to genetic nurture, the influence of the reference's genetics operating through environmental pathways even when those genetic markers are not transmitted to the offspring.
Related Articles:
The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022— Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes— A study of 402,000 English individuals across 1750–2020 estimates an intergenerational occupational status correlation of 0.88 and a genetic correlation between spouses of 0.76, which the authors interpret as a strong genetic basis for the persistence of social status. The authors argue that highly assortative mating around status genetics limits what policy can do to raise social mobility.
Like Great-Grandparent, Like Great-Grandchild? Multigenerational Mobility in American History— Using data on multiple ancestors, the authors estimate a small grandparent effect on children's status among white American families and conclude it largely reflects measurement error in the father's status rather than causal transmission. Including Black families raises estimated multigenerational status transmission, as racial economic gaps have converged more slowly than within-race family gaps.
