Search

More and more European higher education students decide to take part in international student mobility (ISM). However, not much is known about the actual benefits of studying abroad. This paper assesses UK and Italian students' returns from ISM. Three research questions are addressed. First, does international student mobility increase graduates' employment probability and postgraduate study uptake? Second, do the returns to ISM differ according to the socio-economic background of graduates? Third, do the returns to ISM vary between two countries with contrasting labour market and education systems? Results, based on propensity score matching, indicate that mobility is positively associated with a higher employment probability. Mobility abroad is likewise linked with a higher likelihood of enrolling in postgraduate studies in Italy. The benefits of mobility in terms of employment do not differ significantly across socio-economic groups. However, mobility is particularly effective in boosting the uptake of postgraduate studies among mobile Italian graduates with a low socio-economic background. In Italy, ISM returns are substantially higher than in the UK, which could reflect that the skills accumulated and the signals sent to potential employers through ISM are greater in Italy.

New evidence is provided about the degree of social segregation in England's secondary schools, employing a cross-national perspective. Analysis is based on data for 27 industrialised countries from the 2000 and 2003 rounds of the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA). We allow for sampling variation in the estimates. England is shown to be a middle-ranking country, as is the USA. High segregation countries include Austria, Belgium, Germany and Hungary. Low segregation countries include the four Nordic countries and Scotland. In explaining England's position, we argue that its segregation is mostly accounted for by unevenness in social background in the state school sector. Cross-country differences in segregation are associated with the prevalence of selective choice of pupils by schools. (Contains 13 notes, 4 figures, and 2 tables.)

Erasmus student mobility is the most recognised element of Erasmus+ and clearly popular with an increase in student uptake from 3,000 in 1987 to over 300,000 today. Recent studies show that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to study abroad than better-off students, thereby benefitting less from improved employment opportunities and language competences often associated with mobility. Unequal uptake is generally explained by students' choices: disadvantaged students hold lower social capital which leads them to decide against mobility. However, not much is known about the importance of students' selection into universities and fields of study. Using multilevel logistic regressions, this article examines whether social segregation in universities and field of study matters beyond individual characteristics for explaining unequal Erasmus mobility uptake. The study exploits rich population data of around 200,000 UK first-degree graduates of the year 2014/2015 deriving from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data. Results show that while student characteristics like ability and social status are important predictors of Erasmus mobility, they only explain one part of unequal uptake. In addition, social segregation of universities and fields of study contribute to the unequal mobility pattern found. Student mobility is less common for students enrolled in fields of study and universities attended by disadvantaged students conditional on student characteristics. This implies that student mobility could become more inclusive if grant funding and incentives targeted universities attended by a high proportion of disadvantaged students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Does the association between household characteristics and household CO2 emissions differ for areas such as home energy, transport and indirect emissions? This question is policy relevant because distributional implications of mitigation policies may vary depending on the area of emissions that is targeted if specific types of households are likely to have higher emissions in some areas than in others. So far, this issue has not been examined in depth in the literature on household CO2 emissions. Using a representative UK expenditure survey, this paper compares how household characteristics like income, household size, education, gender, worklessness and rural or urban location differ in their association with all three areas as well as total emissions. We find that these associations vary considerably across emission domains. In particular, whilst all types of emissions rise with income, low income, workless and elderly households are more likely to have high emissions from home energy than from other domains, suggesting that they may be less affected by carbon taxes on transport or total emissions. This demonstrates that fairness implications related to mitigation policies need to be examined for separate emission domains. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary. Charitable giving is an important source of funding for overseas development and emergency relief. Donations in the UK are about a quarter of the size of government development aid. There has been strong growth over time, reflecting the activities of development charities and the public response to humanitarian emergencies. The paper examines how this charitable giving has changed since 1978, using a newly constructed panel data set on donations to individual UK charities. When did the increase take place? Did the public respond to events such as Live Aid or has there been a steady upward trend? What has been the relationship with changes in household income? Which charities have grown fastest? Have new charities displaced old? How do changes in giving for overseas compare with changes in giving for other causes? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Income is an important correlate for numerous phenomena in the social sciences. But many surveys collect data with just a single question covering all forms of income. This raises questions over the reliability of the data that are collected. Issues of reliability are heightened when individuals are asked about the household total rather than own income alone. We argue that the large literature on measuring incomes has not devoted enough attention to ‘single-question’ surveys. We investigate the reliability of single-question data by using the UK Office for National Statistics's Omnibus survey and the British Social Attitudes survey as examples. We compare the distributions of income in these surveys—individual income in the Omnibus and household income in the British Social Attitudes survey—with those in two larger UK surveys that measure income in much greater detail. Distributions compare less well for household income than for individual income. Disaggregation by gender proves fruitful in much of the analysis. We also establish levels of item non-response to the income question in single-question surveys from a wide range of countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The predominant part of the literature states that women are more likely to donate to charitable causes but men are more generous in terms of the amount given. The last result generally derives from the focus on mean amount given. This article examines gender differences in giving focusing on the distribution of amounts donated and the probability of giving using micro-data on individual giving to charitable causes for Great Britain. Results indicate that women are generally more generous than men also in terms of the amounts donated. Quantile regression analysis shows that this pattern is robust if we take into account gender differences in individual characteristics such as household structure, education, and income. The article also investigates differences in gender preferences for varying charitable causes. Results are presented separately for single and married people, highlighting the very different gender patterns of giving behaviour found in the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]