Decomposing Intergenerational Income Elasticity The gender-differentiated contribution of capital transmission in rural Philippines Leah Bevis & Christopher B. Barrett, Cornell University Calvin College Summer Seminar on the Economics of Global Poverty August 2013

Background Equality of socio-economic opportunity o Often proxied by intergenerational income elasticity (IGE) estimates: Multiple possible pathways behind IGE and the pathways matter to policy design: o Intergenerational transmission of education o Intergenerational transmission of health o Intergenerational land transfers o Assortative marriage o Migration o Productivity due to correlated unobservables Yet there has been very limited exploration of multiple possible pathways, esp. in developing countries 2/17

How high is IGE/socio-economic mobility in rural Philippines? Which pathways account for estimated IGE? Do these pathways vary by child or parent gender? Does migration affect capital transmission or income transmission? Core questions 3/17

Conceptual Model Per Becker-Tomes model, child adult income results from parental investment in child capital stocks and productivity. Parental capital stocks may affect child capital stocks in 3 ways: 1)PC directly transmits to child capital (e.g., health, land) 2)PC affects parental income, which constrains investment in child capital (e.g., education) given borrowing constraints 3)PC affects parental preferences and expectations, which affect investment in child capital (e.g., marriage, education) Also may be intergenerational productivity correlation due to genetics, natural/social environment, unobserved skills, etc.

Parent Land Parent Education Parent Productivity Parent Health Parent Income Child Land Child /Spouse Education Child Productivity Child Health Child Income Conceptual Model Naïve regression vs. pathway decomposition Capital transmission pathways Income transmission pathways

1)Estimate naïve IGE, w/ and w/o correction for measurement error in and transitory shocks to parent income (instrument w/initial period parent expenditure). Strategy resolves downward bias due to using short-term income. 2)Estimate intergenerational capital transmission where E=education, H=health, L=land, S=spouse education, X=other covariates, ij is child, j is parent. Use OLS-IV. 5/17 Estimation Strategy

3) Estimate IGE via OLS-IV using different specifications to isolate pathways of transmission: i) Here π captures productivity transmission independent of child capital accumulation. λ i estimates are returns to child capital. ii) where μ captures both direct productivity and indirect liquidity effects of parental income. λ are returns to parent capital. iii) allows testing of the exclusionary restriction ( λ p2 = 0) that parental capital has no direct effect beyond that on child capital accumulation and productivity transmission. 5/17 Estimation Strategy

Bukidnon: a rural, landlocked province of southern Philippines Gathered over two decades: o 1984: 448 families relying primarily on agricultural income, largely sugar, corn or rice o 2003/2004: revisited original families, tracked children to new homes in local, peri-urban & urban locations “Split” vs “migrant” children o As children, not significantly different except by gender and birth order. o By adulthood migrants better educated, wealthier Data 7/17

Data 8/17 Mean Values Daughters Mean Values Sons Mean Values Migrants Mean Values Non-Migrants Child Age (years) ‘ Father Age (years) ‘8440 Mother’s Education (years) ‘ Father’s Height (years) ’84161 Parent Landholdings (hectares) ‘ Parent Weekly Income (Philippine Peso) ‘ Child Age (years) ‘ Child Household Size (persons) ‘03` Child Education (years) ‘ Spouse Education (years) ‘ Child Height (cm) ‘ Child Landholdings (hectares) ‘ Child Weekly Income (Philippine Peso) ‘

Naïve IGE Estimates 9/17 Once control for permanent income and life cycle effects, IGE much higher than w/o controls and higher than OECD countries. No stat. sig. difference b/n daughters/sons, migrants/non-migrants

Capital Transmission Pathways 9/17 Key results: - Liquidity effects limited. Parental income exerts a significant positive effect only on daughters’ (and sons-in-law) education. - Direct intergenerational human capital transmission is key. Esp. mothers’ human capital on both sons and daughters: children’s education and height, and their spouse’s education. - Parent land affects no child capital stocks, perhaps due to 1988 land reform and mass exits from agriculture Mother’s education negatively related to daughters’ height, seemingly through effect on maternal labor supply and thus on child feeding practices.

9/17 Capital Transmission Pathways

10/17 Income Transmission Pathways - Naïve IGE estimates statistically insignificantly different between daughters and sons, migrants and splits ( ). - But once we control for capital transmission, very different pathways appear by child gender. - In both cases, landholdings and spouse education strongly affect children’s adult income – and is each strongly associated with parent land and maternal education, respectively. But the estimated marginal effects of landholdings (spouse education) are far higher for daughters (sons). - For daughters, IGE runs primarily through intergenerational productivity correlation, while for sons no such effect exists.

10/17 Daughters’ Income Transmission Pathways Very strong intergenerational productivity/unobserved capital transmission effect. Daughters’ landholdings and (own and spouse) education also play a role. Some residual effect of maternal human capital and parental landholdings.

10/17 Sons’ Income Transmission Pathways By contrast, no intergenerational productivity transmission effect. Sons’ landholdings and (own and spouse) education key income determinants. Some residual (negative?) effect of parental human capital.

10/17 Which Pathways Explain Most IGE? Use change in r 2 from adding variable to naïve specification as upper bound estimate and from dropping variable from full specification as lower bound in establishing relative importance of different paternal capital/income pathways in explaining adult child income. Punch line: maternal education biggest factor, but much variation.

1.IGE is high (~0.5) in rural Philippines 2.But there are sharp gender differences in the pathways behind these IGE estimates. 3.For sons, IGE operates through land and spouse education capital transmission, with some residual (negative!?) association with parental human capital. 4.For daughters, IGE also operates through human capital transmission, but with some residual association with maternal human capital and very strong intergenerational productivity transmission. 5.Parent income does not affect most child capital levels, which are driven primarily by direct transmission of parent human capital stocks. But education is a normal good. Conclusions 11/17

6.Parental landholdings play a surprisingly negligible role in intergenerational income transmission, perhaps due to major land reform episode. 7.Marriage markets are crucial institutions limiting equality of opportunity. 8.Patterns also differ for migrants and non-migrants (not shown due to time). 9.Mothers’ human capital is important and transmits relatively equally to sons and daughters. Fathers’ human capital much less important and rarely equal to both sons and daughters. Conclusions 11/17

Thank you for your time, attention and comments