Social (Im)mobility in Britain

Not before you settle down in England, do you realise the significance of social mobility: the struggle of many and the privilege of few. Two BBC documentaries investigate the issue of social mobility from two slightly different angles: 

First, Richard Bilton examines the paths individuals from more disadvantaged socio-economic background take in the realisation of their professional careers in “Who Gets the Best Jobs?”. A certain path dependence pattern emerges, as students from private schools are more likely to get in the top universities and employers are recently shortening the list of universities whose graduates they are willing to take onboard. Many young people struggle in unpaid internships, yet doing unpaid work in itself is a privilege in itself, as few are able to afford the living expenses for months. The ambition of parents and the vigour with which they support their children in school choice and career development options determines eventually where they are heading and how far they are going to get. Professor Saunders, who was briefly shown in the documentary claimed that children from higher social classes are more intelligent and more able and there is “a social mobility myth”.

Second, Andrew Neil in “Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain”  (Watch tomorrow on BBC One) investigates the background of the governing political elite and establishes a declining trend in social mobility. Eton, Oxford and Cambridge graduates are the ruling elite. In fact, it seems that the most popular course for British politicians has been Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Oxford. While Margaret Thatcher and John Major represent the “grammar schools generation” of bright individuals from lower socio-economic background who were enabled to rise to the top political careers of the country, it has become less likely that people from “humble origins” would climb up the ladder up to ruling Britain. Labour hardly represents the working class anymore. For individuals without Oxbridge background, engagement in trade unions has been the only route upwards, yet this “pipeline” to success is not there today as trade unions are not what they used to be. University education or trade union membership gives the necessary confidence to run for political office.

Well then: if the ruling elite comes from a narrowly determined margins, how can they understand the real issues of the wider population they are governing who didn’t go to private schools or Oxbridge? Top politicians are not representative of ordinary people. The recent fiscal reforms in Britain may signal the disconnection of the coalition government from the pleads of the ordinary population. But more importantly, the most powerful tool of social mobility - education is increasingly a privilege of higher class Britain and government policies are set on widening the gap of opportunities’ availability. New migration rules with the abolishment of UK university graduates visas restricts the skilled labour supply from abroad. Will Britain come to regret its human capital policies?






Addendum (by Guo): The plots below are from the OECD Report "Going for Growth 2010" and underline Velichka's point with data. While the UK (or GBR) does perform relatively bad in terms of low intergenerational earnings mobility, the picture is less clear on other measures: I was rather surprised to see that persistence in tertiary education (i.e. if your parents went to university, you are more likely to get a degree yourself) is as bad in Sweden as in UK. I'll leave it to the labour economists, not sure how they got to these estimates.