However, the causal direction in this case is not perfectly clear. It is also possible that people perceive that their income increased precisely because they reached the highest quintiles. Further analysis on social mobility across quintiles based on income evolution is useful in this respect. Social mobility Self- declared income by interviewees without cross-checking with other information (e.g. consumption) can be doubtful. As previously mentioned, such a cross-checking was not possible in PSIA survey for reasons of time and costs. Having this caveat clear, the analysis of income evolution shows interesting indications on social mobility in the universe under investigation. In table 23 below per capita income data are divided into quintiles and the movement of families among quintiles between 2009 and 2015 is analysed. Contingency Table - Percentile Group of inc_pc2009 * Percentile Group of inc_pc2015 Percentile Group of inc_pc_2015
Percentile Group of inc_pc_2009
total
4
total
1
2
3
5
1 very poor
68.4%
15.8%
15.8%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
2 moderately poor
23.8%
23.8%
28.6%
14.3%
9.5%
100.0%
3 middle-income
9.5%
28.6%
4.8%
33.3%
23.8%
100.0%
4 relatively affluent
0.0%
31.6%
26.3%
15.8%
26.3%
100.0%
5 most affluent
0.0%
0.0%
30.0%
25.0%
45.0%
100.0%
20.0%
20.0%
21.0%
18.0%
21.0%
100.0%
Table 23 – Social mobility among income quintiles, 2009-2015 Perceptions data as from tables 20-22 are partially confirmed by table 23. An overall upward social mobility can be observed for a significant number of families. Among those who in 2009 were very poor, in 2015 approximately two-thirds (68.4 percent) remained in the same quintile, but almost one-third improved their economic situation, moving respectively to the moderately poor group (15.8% to quintile 2) and to the middle-income group (15.8 percent to quintile 3). This upward trend is more accentuated among the moderately poor, where although one-fourth (23.8 percent) kept in the same quintile and another quarter (23.8 percent) moved downward to quintile 1, half of the families improved their economic status, the majority moving to the middle-income group (28.6 percent) with a significant proportion shifting to the relatively affluent (14.3 percent) and most affluent (9.5 percent) groups. In the middle-income group a relative minority (approximately 38 percent) moved downward, but over 57 percent attained a higher degree of prosperity, including one quarter reaching quintile 5. The relatively affluent group seems to be the most vulnerable as 58 percent decreased their economic status (although nobody fell down to the very poor group) and only one-quarter (26.3 percent) moved to quintile 5. Finally, almost half of the most affluent families kept their prosperity level whilst 55 percent lost part of it although never falling into moderate or extreme poverty. Data on income evolution show a very dynamic picture in terms of social mobility – a typical trait of capitalistic systems – affecting most social groups with a general upward trend, whereby two aspects outstand: (i) the high turnover (more than 50 percent) in the two affluent groups, and at the same time (ii) the lowest social mobility in the two extreme groups, where 68.4 percent and 45 percent of families kept being respectively very poor and very rich. This indicates that opportunities as well as vulnerabilities exist for all groups – the purpose of policy should be to