Potential Data Sources for a New Study of Social Mobility in the United States

• Date: 01 January 2015
• Author: John Robert Warren
• DOI: 10.1177/0002716214552773
• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Subject Matter: Section III: Issues of Implementation

208 ANNALS, AAPSS, 657, January 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0002716214552773

Potential Data

Sources for a

New Study of

Social Mobility

in the United

States

By

JOHN ROBERT WARREN

552773ANN The Annals of the American AcademyData Sources for a New Study of Social Mobility in the U.S.

research-article2014

In this article I define the main criteria that ought to be

considered in evaluating the costs and benefits of vari-

ous data resources that might be used for a new study

of social and economic mobility in the United States.

These criteria include population definition and cover-

age, sample size, topical coverage, temporal issues,

spatial issues, sustainability, financial expense, and pri-

vacy and data access. I use these criteria to evaluate the

strengths and weakness of several possible data

resources for a new study of mobility, including existing

smaller-scale surveys, the Current Population Survey,

the American Community Survey, linked administra-

tive data, and a new stand-alone survey. No option is

perfect, and all involve trade-offs. I conclude by recom-

mending five possible designs that are particularly

strong on the criteria listed above.

Keywords: social mobility; data resources; record

linkage

In this article I evaluate potential sources of

data that might be used for a new study of

social and economic mobility in the United

States. After reviewing the major costs and

benefits to be considered in such an evaluation,

I discuss the strengths and limitations of four

sets of options: (1) ongoing smaller surveys that

John Robert Warren is a professor of sociology at the

University of Minnesota and Training Director of the

Minnesota Population Center. He does work in educa-

tion policy, health disparities, and historical demogra-

phy; is coleading the 2013–2015 follow up of the High

School & Beyond cohorts; and is editor of Sociology of

Education.

NOTE: This report was prepared for the National

Research Council’s Committee on Population’s June

10, 2013, meeting on “Developing a New National

Survey on Social Mobility.” Elements of this report

were informed by conversations with J. Trent Alexander

and Todd Gardner at the U.S. Census Bureau; Steve

Ruggles, Gina Allen, and Carolyn Liebler at the

Minnesota Population Center; Andrew Halpern-

Manners at Indiana University; and Eric Grodsky at the

University of Wisconsin–Madison. However, errors and

omissions are my responsibility.

DATA SOURCES FOR A NEW STUDY OF SOCIAL MOBILITY IN THE U.S. 209

might be supplemented to include a social mobility component; (2) ongoing

larger surveys—the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American

Community Survey (ACS)—that might serve as a basis for a new mobility study;

(3) linked administrative records; and (4) a new stand-alone survey. I conclude by

summarizing the most viable and advantageous options.

Parameters: Defining Costs and Benefits

In this section I define the criteria I use to evaluate the costs and benefits of the

several sources of data that might be used in a new study of social mobility in the

United States. For each criterion, I describe the ideal-typical situation—the qual-

ity of a data resource that would be observed in a perfect world. I then compare

real data resources to these standards.

Population definition and coverage

The ideal data resource would allow analysts to generalize their conclusions

about social and economic mobility to a well-defined population. On a basic level,

observations would (at least after weighting) reflect the characteristics of that

entire population and of subgroups that have traditionally been difficult to inter-

view or enumerate (Groves and Couper 1998; Olson and Witt 2011). This may

include people in institutions (e.g., prisons, dormitories, homeless shelters), peo-

ple who are exceedingly busy or mobile (e.g., single mothers, over-the-road truck

drivers), people who may have fears about the consequences of cooperation (e.g.,

unauthorized immigrants, elderly people), and people for whom responding is

simply more difficult than it is for others (e.g., non-native English speakers, peo-

ple with severe disabilities).

Beyond these basic coverage issues, however, the specification of a “well-

defined population” depends on the way in which social and economic mobility

will be studied. If the fundamental question is “How do social origins affect peo-

ple’s adult outcomes?” then it is sufficient to begin with a cross-section of

American adults at one point in time (which I will call Generation 0, or G0), to

observe the attributes of their parents (who are in Generation-1, or G-1), and to

model their outcomes as a function of their parents’ attributes. Under this speci-

fication, people included in G-1 are not a representative cross-section of the

population of Americans. Some members of G-1 are overrepresented under this

specification because they had more than one child who survived to join G0; oth-

ers are underrepresented because they produced no such children (e.g., because

they left the United States before having children, because they produced no

offspring, or because their children did not survive). That is, the “well-defined

population” is a population of offspring (G0), not of parents (G-1).

Conversely, if the basic question amounts to “How do people transmit their

social and economic advantages and disadvantages to their offspring?” then it is

sufficient to begin with a cross-section of American adults at one point in time

(G0), to observe the attributes of their adult children (who are in Generation +1,

210 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

or G+1), and to model their children’s outcomes as a function of their own char-

acteristics. Here, people included in G+1 are not a representative cross-section

of all Americans. In particular, people who entered G+1 via immigration are not

represented under this design. The “well-defined population” here is thus a

population of parents (G0), not of offspring (G+1).

If the core question about social and economic mobility is posed a different

way—“How does the distribution across social and economic positions in one

generation evolve into the distribution of those positions in the next genera-

tion?”—then the “well-defined population” might pertain to both parents and

offspring. Starting with data that represent a cross-section of Americans at one

point in time and data that represent a cross-section of Americans at a subse-

quent point in time (where the two times are separated by a few decades), it

would be possible to study both intergenerational mobility and the several demo-

graphic processes that reshape distributions of advantage and disadvantage over

time and that allocate people to places in those distributions (Mare 2011; Mare

and Song 2011). This specification would permit both of the analyses described

above. However, it would also facilitate analyses of both (1) intergenerational

social and economic mobility and (2) the roles of differential fertility, mortality,

and migration in transforming distributions of outcomes across generations.

Each of the specifications above could be modified to pertain to populations

of families as opposed to populations of individuals. For example, one could

begin with a representative cross-section of pairs of siblings in G0 and then

observe either those siblings’ parents (in G-1) or their children (in G+1).

Likewise, one could begin with a representative cross-section of people in G0

and then observe the attributes of people’s parents (G-1) and grandparents (G-2)

or else of their children (G+1) and grandchildren (G+2); these could be expanded

to include more complete ancestry or descendent trees. For the reasons

described above, however, each of these designs would produce only representa-

tive samples of people or sibling pairs in G0.

Sample size

The ideal data resource for a new study of social and economic mobility would

facilitate separate analyses of important social and demographic subgroups. At

minimum this would require a sufficiently large sample (in G0) to consider

groups defined by the cross-classification of gender, race/ethnicity, and nativity

(e.g., U.S.-born white men, foreign-born Hispanic women). Ideally this would

allow for separate analyses by geography (e.g., by state, by urban/rural/suburban

status). Sufficiently large samples of smaller population subgroups could be

obtained by strategic oversampling.

Topical coverage

A new study of social and economic mobility would at least require measures

of education, occupation, and income for parents and children. These measures

form the cornerstone of research on intergenerational mobility. Most prior