Skip to main content

Life Conditions and Opportunities of Young Adults: Evidence from Italy in European Comparative Perspective

Abstract

This paper originates from the current political debate on the vulnerability and lack of opportunities of the young people in Italy that may stand in the way of enjoying a “good quality of life”. In particular, we refer to three basic life outcomes, namely “having enough money”, “enjoying an adequate life standard” and “enjoying good health” that summarize the aspirations of many young people. The paper is intended not only to stress the particular features for the Italian case but also to present a comparative analysis across the European Countries. Moreover, the discussion on the above issues is referred to the group of individuals between 26 and 40 years-old since this group includes different generations of young people facing different opportunities to achieve independent adult life in the presence of a wide range of educational, employment, housing or social-welfare policies that might support or hinder the autonomisation process. In detail, we use a life-course causal model in order to study how, for every individual, the current outcomes may be even strongly related to past outcomes and we highlight that the understanding of the causes of “succeeding in life” in a comparative perspective across Europe can be an useful tool for Italian policy makers in order to pursue the goal of planning a future for Italian younger generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In literature, several studies highlight that monetary indicators versus multidimensional indicators do not identify the same groups of individuals as poor (among the others, Whelan et al. 2001; Dewilde 2004). As such, the complementary use of both monetary indicators and indicators in other areas of deprivation is widely considered to be of value-added and beneficial for the understanding of poverty across countries (Nolan and Whelan 2009).

  2. 2.

    Stiglitz et al. (2009) too consider health as a dimension of people’s well-being in their Report on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. They add that “health is one of the basic feature shaping both the length and the quality of people’s lives”. Their claim seems to apply especially to the young who generally are in good shape and whose perceived health status may then be taken as a measure of general life satisfaction more than an evaluation of their physical conditions.

  3. 3.

    The outcome related to the work status has not been included in this analysis. First its link with the educational attainment may not be straightforward because of the effect of the personal choices as to whether or not to participate in the labour market. Then the individual work status may as well have no influence on poverty or deprivation which connote lack of resources at the household level.

  4. 4.

    We use the data base release rev.5 that has minor problems of data quality in comparison with the previous releases.

  5. 5.

    For simplicity we remove the subscript i that indicates the generic ith unit.

  6. 6.

    For reasons of space and because it is not relevant to the aims of this paper, the detail of this stage has been excluded.

  7. 7.

    The information on financial problems when young is not available in France, Germany, Austria, Portugal and Greece. This explains the exclusion of these countries from the analysis.

  8. 8.

    The dimensions are identified by factor analysis techniques following the procedure described in Whelan et al. (2001).

  9. 9.

    Operatively we define an household/individual as deprived in a particular dimension if it is deprived in all the items of that dimension.

  10. 10.

    The chosen characteristics describe a “benchmark” person who is very common in Italy.

  11. 11.

    This result may reflect the characteristics of the reference individual who is assumed to have a permanent job (thus contributing to the household income) while still living with her parents (thus sharing possible disadvantageous habits or lack of facilities in the house).

References

  1. Aassve, A., Iacovou, M., & Mencarini, L. (2006). Youth poverty and transition to adulthood in Europe. Demographic Research, 15(2), 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartley, M., & Plewis, I. (2007). Increasing social mobility: An effective policy to reduce health inequalities. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 170(Part 2), 469–481.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Betti, G., D’Agostino A., & Neri L. (2002). Panel regression models for measuring multidimensional poverty dynamics. Statistical Methods & Applications, 11(3), 359–369.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Betti, G., Ferretti, C., Gagliardi, F., Lemmi, A., & Verma, V. (2009). Proposal for new multidimensional and fuzzy measures of poverty and inequality at national and regional level, Working Paper n. 83, Dipartimento di Metodi Quantitativi, Università di Siena.

  5. Björklund, A., & Jannti, M. (2009). Intergenerational income mobility and the role of family background. In W. Salverda, B. Nolan, & T. M. Smeeding (Eds.), The oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443–448.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bradshaw, J., & Finch, N. (2003). Overlaps in dimensions of poverty. Journal Social Policy, 32(4), 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Breen, R. (Ed.). (2004). Social mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, H. S., Pagán, J. A., & Bastida, E. (2005). The impact of diabetes on employment: Genetic IVs in a bivariate probit. Health Economics, 14, 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Busetta, A., & Milito, A. M. (2009). Socio-demographic vulnerability: The condition of Italian young people. Social Indicators Research, 97(3), 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2003). Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, 3(3), 278–294.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Checchi, D., & Flabbi, L. (2007). Intergenerational mobility and schooling decisions in Germany and Italy: The Impact of Secondary School Tracks, IZA DP no. 2876. Bonn: IZA.

  14. Checchi, D., Ichino, A., & Rustichini, A. (1999). More equal but less mobile? Education financing and intergenerational mobility in Italy and in the US, Journal of Public Economics, 74, 351–393.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chib, S., & Greenberg, E. (2007). Semiparametric modeling and estimation of instrumental variable models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 16, 86–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Datcher, L. (1982). Effects of community and family background on achievement. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. (2004). Econometric theory and methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Devadason, R. (2008). To plan or not to plan? Young adult future orientations in two European cities. Sociology, 42, 1127–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dewilde, C. (2004). The multidimensional measurement of poverty in Belgium and Britain: A categorical approach. Social Indicators Research, 68, 331–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eibner, C., & Evans, W. (2005). Relative deprivation, poor habits and mortality: A call to action. New England Journal of Medicine, 340(9), 722–728.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eurostat. (2002). Income, poverty and social exclusion: Second report (pp. 76–92). Luxembourg: European social statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eurostat. (2005). Description of SILC user database secondary target variables module 2005: Inter-generational transmission of poverty, Luxembourg.

  24. Eurostat. (2010). Combating poverty and social exclusion. A statistical portrait of the European Union 2010, Eurostat Statistical books.

  25. Ferrarini, T. (2003). Parental leave institutions in eighteen post-war welfare States. Swedish Institute for Social Research, 58. University of Stockholm.

  26. Ferriss, A. L. (2004). The quality of life concept in sociology. The American Sociologist, 35(3), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Forssén, K., & Hakovirta, M. (2002). Family policy, work incentives and the employment of mothers. In R. Sigg & C. Behrendt (Eds.), Social security in the global village. London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Franzini, M., & Raitano, M. (2009). Persistence of inequalitiy in Europe: The role of family economic conditions. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(3), 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gallie, D., & Paugam, S. (Eds.). (2000). Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gourieroux, C., & Monfort, A. (1996). Simulation-based econometric methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hagan, R., Jones, A. M., & Rice, N. (2008). Health shocks and the hazard rate of early retirement in the ECHP. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 144, 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hajivassiliou, V., & Ruud, P. (1994). Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation. In R. Engle & D. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Halleröd, B., & Larsson, D. (2008). Poverty, welfare problems and social exclusion. International journal of Social Welfare, 17, 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hernández-Quevo, C., Jones, A. M., & Rice, N. (2005). Reporting bias and heterogeneity in self-assessed health. Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey, HEDG Working Paper No. 05/04. University of York, York.

  36. Jenkins, S. P., & Siedler, T. (2007). Using household panel data to understand the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 694, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

  37. Kuh, D., Ben-shlomo, Y., Lynch, J., Hallqvist, J., & Power, C. (2003). Life course epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 778–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Layte, R., Whelan, C. T., Maitre, B., & Nolan, B. (2001). Explaining levels of deprivation in the European Union. Acta Sociologica, 44, 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Leigh, A., Jencks, C., & Smeeding, T. M. (2009). Health and economic inequality. In W. Salverda, B. Nolan, & T. M. Smeeding (Eds.), The oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Mayer, S. E. (2002). The influence of parental income on children’s outcomes. Knowledge Management Group, Ministry of Social Development, Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora.

  42. Mendola, D., Busetta, A., & Aassave, A. (2009). What keeps young adults in permanent poverty? A comparative analysis using ECHP. Social Science Research, 38, 840–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Millar, J. (1989). Poverty and the lone-parent family: The challenge to social policy. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nolan, B., Esping-Andersen, G., Whelan, C. T., & Wagner, S. (2010). The role of social institutions in inter-generational mobility. In R. Erikson, M. Jantti, & T. Smeeding (Eds.), Intergenerational mobility within and across nations. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2009). Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyse poverty and social exclusion in rich countries: Lessons from Europe? (No. WP09/11). Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute.

  46. NOSOSCO. (2004). Single parents in the Nordic countries. Nordic Social-Statistical Committee.

  47. OECD. (2010). Economic policy reforms: Going for growth. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/growth-2010-en

  48. OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en.

  49. Oshio, T., Sano, S., & Kobayashi, M. (2010). Child poverty as a determinant of life outcomes: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Japan. Social Indicators Research, 99(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pfoertner, T. K., Andress, H. J., & Janssen, C. (2011). Income or living standard and health in Germany: Different ways of measurement of relative poverty with regard to self-rated health. International Journal of Public Health, 56(4), 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Quintano, C., Castellano, R., & D’Agostino, A. (2008). Graduates in economics and educational mismatch: the case study of the University of Naples “Parthenope”. Journal of Education and Work, 21(3), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith, J. P. (1999). Healthy bodies and thick wallets: The dual relation between health and economics status. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Solon, G. (2002). Cross-country differences in intergenerational earnings mobility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.

  56. UNESCO. (2004). Education for all: The quality imperative. EFA (Education for All) Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO.

  57. Whelan, C. T. (2007). Understanding the implications of choice of deprivation index for measuring consistent poverty in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 38(2), 211–234.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., Maitre, B., & Nolan, B. (2001). Income, deprivation and economic strain: An analysis of the European Community household panel. European Sociological Review, 17(4), 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilde, J. (2000). Identification of multiple equation probit models with endogenous dummy regressors. Economics Letters, 69, 309–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilkinson, R. G. (1997). Socioeconomic determinants of health: Health inequalities: Relative or absolute material standards? British Medical Journal, 314, 591–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Willms, J. D. (2006). Learning divides: Ten policy questions about the performance and equity of schools and schooling systems. UIS Working Paper 5. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

  62. World Bank’s. (2001). Report on the world social situation, social and Human rights questions: Social development. Division of social policy and affairs. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonella D’Agostino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Agostino, A., Regoli, A. Life Conditions and Opportunities of Young Adults: Evidence from Italy in European Comparative Perspective. Soc Indic Res 113, 1205–1235 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0136-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Young adults
  • Good quality of life
  • Opportunity and disadvantage
  • Life-course casual model