Desktop version

Home arrow Education arrow The Dynamics of Opportunity in America

< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

Conclusion

The development of key indicators, collection of data, and establishment of technical bodies lack the glamour and immediacy of new policies or programs. But it is partly for that reason that they are more likely to gain crucial bipartisan political support. Even if both sides agree there is a problem, there is very little agreement in terms of specific solutions. Efforts to gain bipartisan support for specific policy programs are likely to be unsuccessful. But there is space for bipartisanship in the creation of an institutional framework designed to track the nation's progress toward greater opportunity, keep the attention of policy-makers on this long-term task, drive the collection and dissemination of higher quality data, and dispassionately assess initiatives intended to improve rates of intergenerational mobility.

Right now, political discussions of opportunity are replete with anecdote and soaring speeches about American exceptionalism. But in the end, the restoration of opportunity is not a matter of opinion or rhetoric. It is a matter of fact. If we are serious about a project to restore opportunity, we need to know when we've arrived.

References

Cabinet Office, HM Government. 2012. Opening doors, breaking barriers: A strategy for social mobility. London: Author.

Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez, and Nicholas Turner. 2014. Is the United States still a land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. American Economic Review 104: 141–147.

Cobb, Clifford, and Craig Rixford. 1998. Lessons learned from the history of social indicators. San Francisco: Redefining Progress.

Economic Mobility Project. 2012. Pursuing the American dream: Economic mobility across generations. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Economic Policies for the 21st Century. 2014. Income inequality in America: Fact and fiction.

New York: Manhattan Institute.

Gregg, Paul, Lindsey Macmillan, and Claudia Vittori. 2014. Moving towards estimation lifetime intergenerational economic mobility in the UK. In Working paper 14/332. Bristol: University of Bristol.

Grusky, David B., Timothy M. Smeeding, and C. Matthew Snipp. 2015. A new infrastructure for monitoring social mobility in the United States. Annals 657: 63–82.

Haskins, Ron. 2015. Show me the evidence: Obama's fight for rigor and results in social policy.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Hayes, Chris. 2013. Twilight of the elites: American after meritocracy. New York: Broadway Books.

Mazumder, Bhashkar. 2011. Black-White differences in intergenerational economic mobility in the United States. Chicago: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Mazumder, Bhashkar. 2014. Upward intergenerational mobility in the United States. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Prewitt, Kenneth. 2015. Who is listening? When scholars think they are talking to Congress. Annals 657: 265–272.

Prewitt, Kenneth, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf. 2012. Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington: National Academies Press.

Reeves, Richard V. 2014. Planning the American dream: The case for an office of opportunity.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Reeves, Richard V. 2015. Ulysses goes to Washington: Policy commitment devices and political myopia. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Reeves, Richard V., and Kimberly Howard. 2014. The marriage effect: Money or parenting?

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Sawhill, Isabel. 1969. The role of social indicators and social reporting in public expenditure decisions. In The analysis and evaluation of public expenditures: The PPB system, by the U.S. Joint Economic Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sen, Amartya. 1979. “Equality of what?” The Tanner lecture on human values. Stanford: Stanford University.

Sheldon, Eleanor Bernert, and Wilbert E. Moore (eds.). 1968. Indicators of social change.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Swift, Adam. 2004. Would perfect mobility be perfect? European Sociological Review 20: 1–11.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1977. Social indicators, 1976: Selected data on social conditions and trends in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1981. Social indicators III: Selected data on social conditions and trends in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1969. Towards a social report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1975. Social indicators, 1974. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Winship, Scott, and Stephanie Owen. 2013. Guide to the Brookings Social Genome Model.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Winship, Scott. 2015. Up: Expanding opportunity in America. In Policy options for improving economic opportunity, 31–57. New York: Peter G. Peterson Foundation. pgpf.org/sites/ default/files/grant_cbpp_manhattaninst_economic_mobility.pdf.

 
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >