General trend
We have earlier noted that the main focus and contribution of this paper is on decomposing observed mobility in education into that due to Structural Mobility and Exchange Mobility and comparing the relative contribution of them. Using methodology discussed earlier, Tables 5a and 5b provide us the results of decomposing Upward Mobility into its components.
TABLE 5A
Decomposing Upward Mobility into Structural and Exchange Mobility - 1993
Social Group All Age Group 20-40 Age Group 40+ Age Group
SUM EUM TUM SUM EUM TUM SUM EUM TUM
Scheduled Caste 41.9 5.6 47.5 42.2 5.7 47.9 30.0 4.3 34.3
Scheduled Tribe 49.1 5.5 54.6 49.3 5.5 54.8 37.3 2.9 40.2
Other Backward Classes - - - - -
General/Advanced Class 52.9 9.1 62.0 51.9 10.1 62.0 58.5 8.2 66.7
Aggregate 51.5 8.3 59.8 50.5 9.3 59.8 54.7 7.6 62.3
Source: Author’s calculations
Note: SUM – Structural Upward Mobility, EUM – Exchange Upward Mobility, TUM – Total Upward Mobility
TABLE 5B
Decomposing Upward Mobility into Structural and Exchange Mobility - 2009 Social Group All Age Group 20-40 Age Group 40+ Age Group
SUM EUM TUM SUM EUM TUM SUM EUM TUM
Scheduled Caste 64.3 6.3 70.6 64.1 6.5 70.6 68.3 3.2 71.5
Scheduled Tribe 61.5 7.1 68.6 63.0 6.5 69.5 41.6 9.5 51.1
Other Backward Classes 62.4 8.4 70.8 62.3 8.4 70.7 63.9 8.6 72.5 General/Advanced Class 56.5 9.8 66.3 55.5 10.1 65.6 68.6 5.8 74.4
Aggregate 60.3 8.5 68.8 60.1 8.3 68.4 61.4 9.0 70.4
Source: Author’s calculations
Jhilam Ray and Rajarshi Majumder
261
In 1993, upward exchange mobility in education in India was 8.3 per cent, which implies that 8.3 per cent of sons attained higher educational status compared to their fathers whereas same 8.3 per cent of sons downgraded to lower educational status relative to their fathers. This 8.3 per cent of sons had, therefore, actually switched places. On the other hand, 51.5 per cent of sons were able to achieve higher educational status relative to their fathers because of structural mobility. This structural mobility is mainly due to growth of educational infrastructure, better access to educational institutions, and expansion of education sector as a whole, creating new educational opportunities across the board. Exchange mobility has marginally increased over the study period to 8.5 per cent in 2009 while, during the same period, Structural Mobility has increased to over 60 per cent. It is, thus, clear that most of the upward educational mobility observed in India came from structural mobility and, over the period, its contribution is increasing whereas the contribution of exchange mobility is lower and has a stagnant trend. This structural change in education sector can be attributed to higher investment in both public and private education. Our results are corroborated by the fact that we observed a strong positive correlation between educational mobility and per-capita expenditure on education across the states. Higher aspiration and continuous demand for higher qualification/educational status at the time of (jobless) growth in post- reform era and the search for higher qualification/degree to enhance human capital and improve probability of employment may also have played a role in this regard.
Social Stratification
Differences between the social classes in terms of educational mobility are quite stark. The OBCs have benefitted the most over the years and have shown substantially higher mobility rates than the average. Among the social groups, both structural and exchange mobility was higher for the advanced castes compared to excluded classes in 1993. In 2009, however, SUM is lower for the advanced castes while EUM is highest. This is expected since they, as a group, are already at higher rungs of the educational ladder and whatever mobility is observed for the advanced castes is mainly due to exchange of places within the group. At the same time, it is observed that in both the periods the contribution of structural mobility to total upward mobility is much higher than contribution of exchange mobility among all social classes. It is also noted that the contribution of structural mobility is slightly higher for backward groups compared to the advanced group while contribution of exchange mobility is lower for the backward classes. This is especially true for the Scheduled Castes where EUM is just 6.5 per cent in 2009 compared to almost 10 per cent for the advanced castes while SUM is the highest among all social groups. For the STs, on the other hand, EUM is higher but the SUM is considerably lower, leading to lower overall mobility. Thus social fluidity within the Scheduled Castes is much lower, and for them the structural improvement is the main reason behind rise in educational level over generations. On the contrary, STs show greater fluidity within themselves and seem to have benefitted less from the structural shifts in the society. This also underlines the importance of state-sponsored educational expansion policies for the marginalised sections of the society and the Right to Education Act has to be hailed for constitutionally ensuring this.
Structural Change or Social Fluidity?
262
Age Cohorts
The situation of educational mobility in different age groups/cohorts is also studied by looking at the 20-40 years and 40+ years age groups. It is observed that in 1993, structural upward mobility in education was 50 per cent for the younger age group and 54 per cent for the older age cohort. On the other hand, exchange mobility was about nine per cent for younger one and 7.6 per cent for the older group. In 2009, structural mobility increased substantially for both age groups, though its contribution is much higher for the younger age cohort. The magnitude and contribution of exchange mobility has declined for the younger age cohort while increasing for the older one. This supports our earlier inference that mobility in recent times has been driven by upward structural shifts.