Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 295–318 | Cite as

How much does geography contribute? Measuring inequality of opportunities using a bespoke neighbourhood approach

  • Umut TürkEmail author
  • John Östh
Original Article


To what extent an individual is successful in a variety of outcomes is the result of multiple factors such as (but not limited to) parental background, level of education, discrimination and business cycles. Factors like these also indicate that the success in life can be attributable to factors that both take individual-level merits into account but also to structural factors such as discrimination and contextual effects. Over the last decades, a growing interest in decomposing and categorising factors that affect the life chances of individuals has led to the formation of inequality of opportunity as a research field. This paper builds upon this growing literature, which amounts to quantify the contribution of factors that lie beyond the control of individuals to the total inequality observed in different spheres of life. Using rich Swedish longitudinal register data, we are able to follow individuals over time and their educational attainment during upbringing and later labour market outcomes. In difference from other inequality of opportunity studies, we make use of an egocentric neighbourhood approach to integrate the socio-economic composition of the parental neighbourhood in an inequality model and illustrate its contribution to the total inequality in both outcomes quantitatively. Using multilevel regression analyses, we show that the parental neighbourhood is highly influential in educational attainment and remains so for market outcomes even years after exposure.


Inequality of opportunity Neighbourhood effects Multilevel model k-nearest neighbour 

JEL Classification

R23 J62 D31 D63 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Andersson E (2004) From valley of sadness to hill of happiness: the significance of surroundings for socioeconomic career. Urban Stud 41(3):641–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson E, Subramanian S (2006) Explorations of neighbourhood and educational outcomes for young Swedes. Urban Stud 43(11):2013–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson Roger, Musterd Sako (2010) What scale matters? Exploring the relationships between individuals’ social position, neighbourhood context and the scale of neighbourhood. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr 92(1):23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson EK, Malmberg B (2015) Contextual effects on educational attainment in individualised, scalable neighbourhoods: differences across gender and social class. Urban Stud 52(12):2117–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Barros RP (2009) Measuring inequality of opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  6. de Barros RP, Vega JRM, Saavedra J (2008) Measuring inequality of opportunities for children. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Björklund A, Jäntti M, Roemer JE (2012) Equality of opportunity and the distribution of long-run income in Sweden. Soc Choice Welf 39(2–3):675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradshaw J, Mayhew E (2011) The measurement of extreme poverty in the European Union. European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Brazil Noli, Clark William AV (2017) Residential mobility and dynamic neighborhood change during the transition to adulthood. Adv Life Course Res 33:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourguignon F, Ferreira FH, Menendez M (2007) Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Rev Income Wealth 53(4):585–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunori P, Ferreira FH, Peragine V (2013) Inequality of opportunity, income inequality, and economic mobility: some international comparisons. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Checchi D, Peragine V (2010) Inequality of opportunity in Italy. J Econ Inequal 8(4):429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Checchi D, Peragine V, Serlenga L (2010) Fair and unfair income inequalities in Europe. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5025. Available at SSRN:
  14. Chetty R, Hendren N, Katz LF (2015) The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: new evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark WA, Ledwith V (2006) Mobility, housing stress, and neighborhood contexts: evidence from Los Angeles. Environ Plan A 38(6):1077–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cogneau D, Mesplé-Somps S (2008) Inequality of opportunity for income in five countries of Africa. Res Econ Inequal 16:99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crane J (1991) The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing. Am J Sociol 96(5):1226–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellen IG, Turner MA (1997) Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Hous Policy Debate 8(4):833–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira FH, Gignoux J (2011) The measurement of inequality of opportunity: theory and an application to Latin America. Rev Income Wealth 57(4):622–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferreira FH, Gignoux J, Aran M (2010) Inequality of economic opportunity in Turkey: an assessment using asset indicators and women’s background variables. State Planning Organization of the Republic of Turkey and World Bank Welfare and Social Policy Analytical Work Program Working Paper (3)Google Scholar
  21. Ferreira FH, Gignoux J, Aran M (2011) Measuring inequality of opportunity with imperfect data: the case of Turkey. J Econ Inequal 9(4):651–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galster G (2001) On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Stud 38(12):2111–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galster G, Andersson R, Musterd S, Kauppinen TM (2008) Does neighborhood income mix affect earnings of adults? New evidence from Sweden. J Urban Econ 63(3):858–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garner CL, Raudenbush SW (1991) Neighborhood effects on educational attainment: a multilevel analysis. Sociol Educ 64(4):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glass TA, Bilal U (2016) Are neighborhoods causal? Complications arising from the ’stickiness’ of zna. Soc Sci Med 166:244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hedman L, Manley D, Van Ham M, Östh J (2015) Cumulative exposure to disadvantage and the intergenerational transmission of neighbourhood effects. J Econ Geogr 15(1):195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houston D (2005) Employability, skills mismatch and spatial mismatch in metropolitan labour markets. Urban Stud 42(2):221–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston Ron, Jones Kelvyn, Burgess Simon, Propper Carol, Sarker Rebecca, Bolster Anne (2004) Scale, factor analyses, and neighborhood effects. Geogr Anal 36(4):350–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jusot F, Tubeuf S, Trannoy A (2013) Circumstances and efforts: How important is their correlation for the measurement of inequality of opportunity in health? Health Econ 22(12):1470–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kain JF (1968) Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Q J Econ 82(2):175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kain JF (1992) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: three decades later. Hous Policy Debate 3(2):371–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunz J, Page ME, Solon G (2003) Are point-in-time measures of neighborhood characteristics useful proxies for children’s long-run neighborhood environment? Econ Lett 79(2):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J (2000) The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol Bull 126(2):309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ludwig J (1999) Information and inner city educational attainment. Econ Educ Rev 18(1):17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ludwig J, Duncan GJ, Gennetian LA, Katz LF, Kessler RC, Kling JR, Sanbonmatsu L (2013) Long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families: evidence from moving to opportunity. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  36. Moran PA (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37(1/2):17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Musterd Sako, Ostendorf Wim, De Vos Sjoerd (2003) Neighbourhood effects and social mobility: a longitudinal analysis. Hous Stud 18(6):877–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Musterd S, Andersson R (2006) Employment, social mobility and neighbourhood effects: the case of Sweden. Int J Urban Reg Res 30(1):120–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. Geo Abstracts University of East Anglia, East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Östh J (2014) Introducing the equipop software-an application for the calculation of k-nearest neighbour contexts/neighbourhoodsGoogle Scholar
  41. Östh J, Clark WA, Malmberg B (2015) Measuring the scale of segregation using k-nearest neighbor aggregates. Geogr Anal 47(1):34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Östh J, Türk U (2019) Integrating infrastructure and accessibility in measures of bespoke neighbourhoods. In: Musterd S (ed) Handbook on Urban segregation Edward Elgar. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  43. Östh J, Shuttleworth I, Niedomysl T (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of economic segregation in Sweden’s metropolitan areas: a mobility approach. Environ Plan A Econ Space 50(4):809–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Page ME, Solon G (2003) Correlations between brothers and neighboring boys in their adult earnings: the importance of being urban. J Labor Econ 21(4):831–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peragine V, Serlenga L (2008) Higher education and equality of opportunity in Italy. Res Econ Inequal 16:67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quillian L (2003) How long are exposures to poor neighborhoods? The long-term dynamics of entry and exit from poor neighborhoods. Popul Res Policy Rev 22(3):221–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raaum O, Salvanes KG, Sørensen EØ (2006) The neighbourhood is not what it used to be*. Econ J 116(508):200–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramos X, Van de Gaer D (2012) Empirical approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidenceGoogle Scholar
  49. Roemer JE (1998) Theories of distributive justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Roemer JE, Trannoy A (2016) Equality of opportunity: theory and measurement. J Econ Lit 5(4):1288–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ross JL, Iannotta JG et al (2002) Equality of opportunity and the importance of place: summary of a workshop. National Academies Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharkey P, Faber JW (2014) Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annu Rev Sociol 40:559–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh A (2012) Inequality of opportunity in earnings and consumption expenditure: the case of Indian men. Rev Income Wealth 58(1):79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and applied multilevel analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  55. Türk U (2019) Socio-economic determinants of student mobility and inequality of access to higher education in Italy. Netw Spat Econ 43(1):1–24Google Scholar
  56. Urban S (2009) Is the neighbourhood effect an economic or an immigrant issue? A study of the importance of the childhood neighbourhood for future integration into the labour market. Urban Stud 46(3):583–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, Simpson L, Maclennan D (2012) Neighbourhood effects research: new perspectives. In: Neighbourhood effects research: new perspectives, Springer, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  58. Van Ham M, Hedman L, Manley D, Coulter R, Östh J (2014) Intergenerational transmission of neighbourhood poverty: an analysis of neighbourhood histories of individuals. Trans Inst Br Geogr 39(3):402–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Klaauw B, Van Ours JC (2003) From welfare to work: Does the neighborhood matter? J Public Econ 87(5):957–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vartanian TP (1999) Adolescent neighborhood effects on labor market and economic outcomes. Soc Serv Rev 73(2):142–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAbdullah Gül UniversityKayseriTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Social and Economic GeographyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations