Intergenerational mobility in Korea

Table 5 Comparable intergenerational earnings elasticity with two-sample estimation

Country	Authors	\(\hat {\rho }_{1}\)	Std. err	Age ^f	Age ^s	Earnings predictors
Australia	Leigh (2007)	0.41	0.137	25–54	25–54	Occ
Brazil	Dunn (2007)	0.69	0.014	30–50	25–34	Edu
Canada	Fortin and Lefebvre (1998)	0.22	0.051	40–50	17–59	Occ
Chile	Núñez and Miranda (2011)	0.52	N.A.	N.A.	23–65	Edu, occ
China	Gong et al. (2012)	0.63	0.117	48–74	30–42	Edu, occ, ind
France	Lefranc (2011)	0.50	0.028	25–60	28–50	Edu
Italy	Piraino (2007)	0.44	0.053	30–50	27–49	Edu, occ, ind
Italy	Mocetti (2007)	0.49	0.069	30–50	30–50	Edu, occ, ind, region
Japan	Lefranc et al. (2014)	0.34	0.042	30–59	30–50	Edu, occ, ind
Spain	Cervini-Plá M ()	0.40	0.042	37–57	30–50	Edu, occ
Sweden	Björklund and Jäntti (1997)	0.28	0.094	43	30–39	Edu, occ
Taiwan	Ueda and Sun (2012)	0.21	0.060	30–59	30–49	Edu, occ
UK	Nicoletti and Ermisch (2008)	0.29	0.061	31–55	30–45	Edu, occ
USA	Björklund and Jäntti (1997)	0.42	0.121	N.A.	28–36	Edu, occ

Notes: Leigh (2007) used predicted hourly wage for a 40-year-old, and the estimates in the table show results with the 1987 sample. When the 2004 sample is used, the estimate is 0.18 with standard errors of 0.043. Fortin and Lefebvre (1998) assumed a 25–35-year difference between father and son. Björklund and Jäntti (1997) used the mean age of 43
N.A. not applicable