Chart of the Week

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries

Published

2 months ago

February 7, 2020

Katie Jones

Social Mobility Infographic

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries

It’s an unfortunate truth that a person’s opportunities can be partially tethered to their socioeconomic status at birth.

Although winning or losing the “birth lottery” will continue to shape the lives of generations to come, climbing the socioeconomic ladder is possible. However, it boils down to what opportunities people are afforded in the country they live in.

Today’s chart pulls data from the inaugural Global Social Mobility report produced by the World Economic Forum. The report ranks 82 countries according to their performance across five key pillars: healthcare, education, technology access, working conditions, and social protection.

While most countries aim to create a level playing field, which places best live up to this lofty and challenging mission?

The Spectrum of Social Mobility

Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals either up or down the socioeconomic ladder relative to their current standing, such as a low-income family moving up to become a part of the middle class.

Countries with high levels of social mobility exhibit lower levels of income inequality and provide more equally shared opportunities for its citizens across each of the five pillars.

Here is how all 82 countries rank, according to the report:

Ranking	Countries	Index Score
#1	Denmark	85.2
#2	Norway	83.6
#3	Finland	83.6
#4	Sweden	83.5
#5	Iceland	82.7
#6	Netherlands	82.4
#7	Switzerland	82.1
#8	Belgium	80.1
#9	Austria	80.1
#10	Luxembourg	79.8
#11	Germany	78.8
#12	France	76.7
#13	Slovenia	76.4
#14	Canada	76.1
#15	Japan	76.1
#16	Australia	75.1
#17	Malta	75.0
#18	Ireland	75.0
#19	Czech Republic	74.7
#20	Singapore	74.6
#21	United Kingdom	74.4
#22	New Zealand	74.3
#23	Estonia	73.5
#24	Portugal	72.0
#25	Korean Republic	71.4
#26	Lithuania	70.5
#27	United States	70.4
#28	Spain	70.0
#29	Cyprus	69.4
#30	Poland	69.1
#31	Latvia	69.0
#32	Slovak Republic	68.5
#33	Israel	68.1
#34	Italy	67.4
#35	Uruguay	67.1
#36	Croatia	66.7
#37	Hungary	65.8
#38	Kazakhstan	64.8
#39	Russian Federation	64.7
#40	Bulgaria	63.8
#41	Serbia	63.8
#42	Romania	63.1
#43	Malaysia	62.0
#44	Costa Rica	61.6
#45	China	61.5
#46	Ukraine	61.2
#47	Chile	60.3
#48	Greece	59.8
#49	Moldova	59.6
#50	Vietnam	57.8
#51	Argentina	57.3
#52	Saudi Arabia	57.1
#53	Georgia	55.6
#54	Albania	55.6
#55	Thailand	55.4
#56	Armenia	53.9
#57	Ecuador	53.9
#58	Mexico	52.6
#59	Sri Lanka	52.3
#60	Brazil	52.1
#61	Philippines	51.7
#62	Tunisia	51.7
#63	Panama	51.4
#64	Turkey	51.3
#65	Colombia	50.3
#66	Peru	49.9
#67	Indonesia	49.3
#68	El Salvador	47.4
#69	Paraguay	46.8
#70	Ghana	45.5
#71	Egypt	44.8
#72	Laos	43.8
#73	Morocco	43.7
#74	Honduras	43.5
#75	Guatemala	43.5
#76	India	42.7
#77	South Africa	41.4
#78	Bangladesh	40.2
#79	Pakistan	36.7
#80	Cameroon	36
#81	Senegal	36.0
#82	Côte d’Ivoire	34.5

There are a number of countries that set an example for social mobility that others can follow.

The Mobility Medal Winners

All of the countries in the top 10 are European, but it is the Nordic countries that sit comfortably at the top of the ranks.

Denmark holds the title for the most socially mobile country in the world, boasting an index score of 85.2. If a person is born into a low-income family in Denmark, the WEF estimates it would take two generations to reach a median income. In contrast, someone in Brazil or South Africa would take nine generations at the current pace of growth.

As one of the few non-European countries in the top 20, Canada also performs well across the majority of pillars, but similarly to Denmark, it could improve in the area of lifelong learning which includes providing support for the unemployed and teaching digital skills.

The Least Socially Mobile Countries

Developing country Côte d’Ivoire sits at the bottom of the ranks, with an index score of just 34.5. As a nation once ravaged by internal conflict and turbulent economic shifts, the resulting poverty rate remains high at 46.3%.

While the government has made improvements to its basic social services, the country falls behind on categories like access to education and fair wages, and retains the highest gender inequality rate in the world.

Despite a significant decrease in the percentage of people living in absolute poverty, India ranks low on the index in 76th place. Structural reform is required across all pillars if India is to increase its score, especially in relation to fair wages and education.

Why Invest in Social Mobility?

According to the report, most economies are far from providing fair conditions for their citizens to thrive, with the greatest challenges ranging from lack of social protection and low wages to poor lifelong learning systems.

Countries that fail to invest in the key pillars of social mobility could experience damaging consequences for governments and citizens alike:

Precarity (the unpredictability of living without secure and well-paid employment)
Perceived loss of identity and dignity
Weakening social fabric
Eroding trust in institutions
Disenchantment with political processes

Aside from the social returns, the economic impact of investing in the right blend of social mobility pillars could be substantial.

Calculating the True Cost

The report dives into the opportunity cost of low social mobility and finds that if each country increased its score by just 10 index points, it could result in an extra 4.41% of cumulative GDP growth for the global economy by 2030—equal to $5.1 trillion.

China alone could add $1 trillion of GDP growth by 2030 if a 10 point increase is achieved:

social mobility true cost

Although social mobility can act as an economic lever, many countries are struggling to provide the optimal conditions for their citizens to thrive. For those countries, globalization and technology may continue to exacerbate income inequality.

If countries are unable to create new social mobility pathways towards more inclusive economies, they risk being stuck in a cycle where inequality remains entrenched—and history continues to repeats itself.

Up Next

Mapped: The Ins and Outs of Remittance Flows

Don't Miss

Meet China’s 113 Cities With More Than One Million People

Comments

Chart of the Week

At Risk: The Geography of America’s Senior Population

The U.S. senior population is much more vulnerable to COVID-19. Which states and cities have the most people in this at-risk age group?

Published

5 days ago

April 3, 2020

Jenna Ross

At Risk: The U.S. Senior Population

The U.S. now has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases globally, and modelling predicts that the country could see about 100,000 to 200,000 total deaths. Unfortunately, adults aged 65 or older—about 16% of the U.S. population—are at much higher risk of both severe illness and death.

Today’s chart uses U.S. Census Bureau data to map the percentage of the population that is 65 years or older by state. It also outlines the urban areas that are most heavily skewed towards this older age group.

Proportion of Seniors by State

Below is the full breakdown of the U.S. senior population by state, using the latest available data from 2018.

Maine tops the list with 20.6% of its population comprising adults age 65 or older. At the other end of the scale, Utah’s seniors make up only 11.1% of its population.

Rank	State	65+, % of Population	65+, Total Population
1	Maine	20.6%	276,069
2	Florida	20.5%	4,358,784
3	West Virginia	20.0%	361,216
4	Vermont	19.8%	123,875
5	Montana	18.8%	200,239
6	Delaware	18.7%	180,756
7	Hawaii	18.4%	261,467
8	Pensylvannia	18.2%	2,332,369
9	New Hampshire	18.1%	245,156
10	South Carolina	17.7%	899,754
11	Oregon	17.6%	739,611
12	Arizona	17.6%	1,259,103
13	New Mexico	17.6%	368,480
14	Rhode Island	17.3%	182,645
15	Conneticut	17.2%	613,147
16	Michigan	17.2%	1,720,453
17	Ohio	17.1%	1,996,163
18	Iowa	17.0%	537,818
19	Wisconsin	17.0%	986,483
20	Alabama	17.0%	829,663
21	Missouri	16.9%	1,035,074
22	Arkansas	16.8%	507,676
23	Wyoming	16.7%	96,557
24	South Dakota	16.6%	146,358
25	Massachusetts	16.5%	1,137,541
26	Kentucky	16.4%	731,392
27	New York	16.4%	3,212,065
28	Tennesse	16.3%	1,104,797
29	North Carolina	16.3%	1,688,574
30	New Jersey	16.1%	1,438,289
31	Idaho	15.9%	279,441
32	Kansas	15.9%	462,191
34	Mississipi	15.9%	474,423
33	Minnesota	15.8%	888,634
36	Nebraska	15.8%	303,998
35	Indiana	15.7%	1,051,146
37	Nevada	15.7%	475,120
38	Oklahoma	15.7%	619,601
39	Illinois	15.6%	1,990,548
40	Louisiana	15.5%	720,610
42	Virginia	15.5%	1,318,225
41	Maryland	15.4%	931,041
43	Washington	15.4%	1,163,987
44	North Dakota	15.3%	116,433
45	California	14.3%	5,667,337
46	Colorado	14.2%	807,855
47	Georgia	13.8%	1,456,428
48	Texas	12.5%	3,599,599
49	Alaska	11.9%	88,000
50	Utah	11.1%	351,297

Notably, Florida has the second highest percentage and number of seniors nationwide. Its governor just announced the state’s stay-at-home order on April 1st, after taking criticism for refusing to do so earlier.

New York, the current global hot spot of COVID-19, is close to the national average with 16.4% of its population aged 65 or older. However, with over 3.2 million seniors, the sheer volume of individuals needing hospitalization has already put a strain on the state’s healthcare system. Governor Andrew Cuomo says the state will run out of its current supply of ventilators in less than a week.

The Most Vulnerable Urban Areas

On a local level, which places have the highest proportion of seniors? Based on all urban areas* with a population of 250,000 or more, here’s how the top 50 looks:

Rank	Urban Area	65+, % of Population	65+, Total Population
1	Bonita Springs, FL	38.2%	135,286
2	Sarasota–Bradenton, FL	33.2%	242,613
3	Barnstable Town, MA	29.4%	74,614
4	Palm Coast–Daytona Beach–Port Orange, FL	28.3%	110,355
5	Myrtle Beach–Socastee, SC–NC	27.3%	74,783
6	Cape Coral, FL	27.0%	175,483
7	Indio–Cathedral City, CA	26.0%	95,054
8	Port St. Lucie, FL	25.6%	110,883
9	Palm Bay–Melbourne, FL	22.9%	114,347
10	Youngstown, OH–PA	21.0%	78,739
11	Asheville, NC	20.9%	65,540
12	Pittsburgh, PA	19.6%	335,546
13	Canton, OH	19.6%	54,214
14	Scranton, PA	19.1%	71,876
15	Mission Viejo–Lake Forest–San Clemente, CA	19.0%	115,891
16	Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL	18.9%	516,269
17	Tucson, AZ	18.8%	165,399
18	Lancaster, PA	18.5%	77,538
19	Cleveland, OH	18.4%	324,707
20	Miami, FL	18.3%	1,117,926
21	Buffalo, NY	18.1%	168,121
22	Dayton, OH	18.0%	130,722
23	Harrisburg, PA	18.0%	83,201
24	Wilmington, NC	17.8%	45,457
25	Urban Honolulu, HI	17.7%	148,045
26	Akron, OH	17.6%	99,010
27	New Haven, CT	17.6%	97,888
28	Rochester, NY	17.5%	125,516
29	Peoria, IL	17.5%	44,722
30	Allentown, PA–NJ	17.4%	119,508
31	Concord, CA	17.4%	115,460
32	Chattanooga, TN–GA	17.4%	69,098
33	Flint, MI	17.2%	59,525
34	Santa Rosa, CA	17.1%	55,094
35	Lakeland, FL	17.1%	51,107
36	Davenport, IA–IL	17.1%	48,387
37	Providence, RI–MA	17.0%	204,148
38	Rockford, IL	16.9%	48,370
39	Springfield, MA–CT	16.8%	105,694
40	Knoxville, TN	16.8%	101,332
41	Albany–Schenectady, NY	16.8%	100,756
42	Albuquerque, NM	16.7%	126,081
43	Hartford, CT	16.6%	153,367
44	Toledo, OH–MI	16.6%	82,480
45	Pensacola, FL–AL	16.6%	62,216
46	Bridgeport–Stamford, CT–NY	16.5%	156,035
47	Syracuse, NY	16.4%	66,818
48	Detroit, MI	16.2%	608,427
49	St. Louis, MO–IL	16.2%	347,537
50	Trenton, NJ	16.2%	47,803

*Urban areas consist of a downtown core and adjacent territories

With 6 areas in the top 10, Florida is quite vulnerable at the local level as well. Other states with multiple areas on the list include Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The Senior Population of Current U.S. Hotspots

To determine the vulnerability of current COVID-19 hotspots, we compared U.S. counties with a high number of cases per capita against their percentage of seniors.

Counties at the bottom left have low readings on both metrics. Conversely, counties in the top right have a dangerous combination: a high concentration of cases and vulnerable seniors.

senior population vs covid-19 outbreak

Multiple counties in New York occupy the top right quadrant, with Yonkers being the worst off. Los Angeles county, which has a similar population to all counties in New York City, has fewer cases and a smaller proportion of seniors.

To date, outbreaks have been mostly focused in urban areas where populations tend to be younger. However, as COVID-19 begins infiltrating rural areas, healthcare systems will need to contend with both older age groups and fewer resources.

Chart of the Week

Global Shutdown: Visualizing Commuter Activity in the World’s Cities

Amid the COVID-19 crisis, cities are dramatically slowing down. Today’s chart demonstrates the impact of lockdowns on commuter activity worldwide.

Published

2 weeks ago

March 27, 2020

Iman Ghosh

Staying Put: The COVID-19 Commuter Decline

Every day, millions of people worldwide rely on public transport networks to get around. But in times of crisis, bustling cities with high volumes of commuter traffic can come to a dramatic halt.

Today’s chart breaks down daily data from Citymapper’s Mobility Index, according to trips planned on the transport app across 41 select cities.

The results paint a unique picture of how social distancing and lockdown measures are impacting commuter and economic activity in major urban hubs.

Cities With the Biggest Drops in Activity

As the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic intensifies and people are urged to stay home, transit activity is dropping everywhere.

However, some areas are seeing more of a reduction in activity than others. Where has activity declined the most over the month?

Rank	City	Country	04-Mar	11-Mar	18-Mar	25-Mar	Total Change (%)
#1	Vienna	🇦🇹 Austria	128%	92%	9%	6%	-122%
#2	Lisbon	🇵🇹 Portugal	128%	108%	24%	12%	-116%
#3	Istanbul	🇹🇷 Turkey	117%	103%	20%	10%	-107%
#4	Barcelona	🇪🇸 Spain	105%	86%	6%	4%	-101%
#5	Brussels	🇧🇪 Belgium	107%	96%	15%	7%	-100%
#6	São Paolo	🇧🇷 Brazil	112%	113%	33%	12%	-100%
#7	New York City	🇺🇸 USA	104%	85%	17%	7%	-97%
#8	Madrid	🇪🇸 Spain	100%	65%	5%	4%	-96%
#9	Los Angeles	🇺🇸 USA	108%	81%	23%	13%	-95%
#10	Melbourne	🇦🇺 Australia	113%	110%	53%	20%	-93%

*Note: Data measures the % of city moving compared to 100% baseline.

Overall, Vienna and Lisbon are the cities with the biggest average drop in commuter activity over the past few weeks. This decline in mobility is correlated with a spike in the proportion of COVID-19 cases in the population:

Austria
March 4: 2.6 per million
March 25: 586 per million
Portugal
March 4: 0.4 per million
March 25: 232 per million

That said, not every city is seeing a precipitous decline in activity — let’s look at those next.

Standing Still, or On Guard

Cities that saw lower decreases in commuter activity over recent weeks can generally be slotted into three categories:

Cities that were already on or near shutdown (Seoul, Milan)
Cities that have so far avoided major impacts from the virus (St. Petersburg)
Cities that successfully mitigated spread (Singapore)

Here are the 10 cities on the list that saw the lowest changes in activity:

Rank	City	Country	04-Mar	11-Mar	18-Mar	25-Mar	Total Change (%)
#1	Seoul	🇰🇷 South Korea	48%	43%	41%	37%	-11%
#2	Hong Kong	🇭🇰 China (SAR)	50%	52%	48%	37%	-13%
#3	Singapore	🇸🇬 Singapore	90%	88%	79%	62%	-28%
#4	Milan	🇮🇹 Italy	43%	10%	5%	3%	-40%
#5	Tokyo	🇯🇵 Japan	63%	54%	42%	21%	-42%
#6	St Petersburg	🇷🇺 Russia	114%	114%	85%	69%	-45%
#7	Moscow	🇷🇺 Russia	112%	113%	75%	54%	-58%
#8	Rhine-Ruhr	🇩🇪 Germany	75%	72%	28%	15%	-60%
#9	Stockholm	🇸🇪 Sweden	97%	83%	34%	32%	-65%
#10	Lyon	🇫🇷 France	75%	97%	6%	4%	-71%

*Note: Data measures the % of city moving compared to 100% baseline.

St. Petersburg is still seeing commuter activity at 69% of normal levels as of March 25th, as the proportion of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Russia remains low, at roughly 3.4 per million.

Milan has the lowest activity of any city at 3%, and has been in shutdown for most of the month.

Although Singapore’s total COVID-19 cases grew from 18.8 to 95.4 per million, it still has 62% commuter activity. Interestingly, Singapore is one of the few countries that has been able to properly control and manage its COVID-19 outbreak.

Biggest Weekly Declines

As the month progressed, various cities showed stark one-week declines in commuter activity based on official healthcare recommendations and growing case numbers.

After a government lockdown announced on March 9, Rome experienced the sharpest decline of -75% commuter activity in the week from March 4 to March 11. Currently, there is only 5% activity compared to usual, similar to Milan.

In the second week of March, COVID-19 cases in France jumped fourfold, from 27.3 per million to 118.4 per million people. As a result, Lyon saw a whopping -91% drop in commuter activity—going from 97% on March 11 to 6% on March 18.

Over the past week, as cases in Australia reached 95 per million, Sydney and Melbourne exhibited the highest average declines at -36% and -33% in commuter activity respectively.

Full List of 41 Cities

Here’s the full list of cities, courtesy of Citymapper.

City, Country	March 4	March 11	March 18	March 25	Total Change (%)
Vienna, Austria	128%	92%	9%	6%	-122%
Lisbon, Portugal	128%	108%	24%	12%	-116%
Istanbul, Turkey	117%	103%	20%	10%	-107%
Barcelona, Spain	105%	86%	6%	4%	-101%
Brussels, Belgium	107%	96%	15%	7%	-100%
São Paulo, Brazil	112%	113%	33%	12%	-100%
New York City, U.S.	104%	85%	17%	7%	-97%
Madrid, Spain	100%	65%	5%	4%	-96%
Los Angeles, U.S.	108%	81%	23%	13%	-95%
Melbourne, Australia	113%	110%	53%	20%	-93%
Amsterdam, Netherlands	98%	86%	13%	6%	-92%
Washington DC, U.S.	97%	82%	15%	6%	-91%
San Francisco, U.S.	96%	65%	9%	6%	-90%
Boston, U.S.	97%	77%	16%	7%	-90%
Chicago, U.S.	97%	92%	16%	7%	-90%
Montréal, Canada	103%	104%	31%	14%	-89%
Paris, France	95%	89%	8%	6%	-89%
London, UK	100%	91%	36%	12%	-88%
Manchester, UK	100%	91%	42%	13%	-87%
Sydney, Australia	106%	99%	56%	20%	-86%
Mexico City, Mexico	109%	110%	53%	23%	-86%
Rome, Italy	91%	16%	6%	5%	-86%
Copenhagen, Denmark	97%	80%	11%	11%	-86%
Berlin, Germany	93%	86%	26%	12%	-81%
Birmingham, UK	99%	91%	45%	18%	-81%
Toronto, Canada	97%	91%	32%	19%	-78%
Vancouver, Canada	94%	89%	38%	16%	-78%
Philadelphia, U.S.	89%	85%	22%	13%	-76%
Monaco, Monaco	81%	50%	12%	7%	-74%
Hamburg, Germany	85%	72%	20%	12%	-73%
Seattle, U.S.	80%	51%	19%	8%	-72%
Lyon, France	75%	97%	6%	4%	-71%
Stockholm, Sweden	97%	83%	34%	32%	-65%
Rhine-Ruhr, Germany	75%	72%	28%	15%	-60%
Moscow, Russia	112%	113%	75%	54%	-58%
St Petersburg, Russia	114%	114%	85%	69%	-45%
Tokyo, Japan	63%	54%	42%	21%	-42%
Milan, Italy	43%	10%	5%	3%	-40%
Singapore, Singapore	90%	88%	79%	62%	-28%
Hong Kong, Hong Kong	50%	52%	48%	37%	-13%
Seoul, South Korea	48%	43%	41%	37%	-11%

*Note: Data measures the % of city moving compared to 100% baseline.

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting everything from the stock market to the environment. With cities actively working to keep populations in isolation and healthy during this time, it may take a while before commuter activity returns to normal.