Research in Social Stratification and Mobility xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Social Stratification and Mobility

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rssm

Rob Mare’s legacy: The demography of inequality and social mobility

Vida Maralani
Cornell University, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This review summarizes Rob Mare’s contributions to the study of the demographic pathways of inequality and
Demography social mobility. Mare proposed a groundbreaking research agenda in this area. His vision was to advance
Social Stratification research on social inequality and intergenerational social mobility by incorporating the many demographic
Social Mobility
mechanisms that shape population characteristics. Together with his students, Mare pushed these ideas forward
Inequality
throughout his career, and he inspired the work of many other stratification scholars.

Rob Mare loved precision and he never passed up the opportunity to
point out that inequality and social stratification are distinct concepts.
Inequality describes aggregate social hierarchies and the rewards and
penalties that accompany different positions. Social stratification de­
scribes the processes by which people, families, or groups are distributed
in these hierarchies. Social mobility describes change or stability in the
processes of social stratification across the life course or between gen­
erations. Inequality is the aggregate outcome and social stratification
and social mobility are, as Mare used to say, “the rules of the game”
(Mare, 2013). These distinctions were important for Mare because
although inequality and stratification are closely interrelated, they are
different concepts, and Rob Mare was a stickler for clarity in concept.
Mare worked primarily on the study of social stratification and mobility,
but the part of his work that my essay describes was in fact about both
inequality and social stratification and mobility.
Mare’s work on the demography of inequality and social mobility
was groundbreaking, creative, and agenda-setting both substantively
and methodologically. He used population projection models that
incorporate demographic mechanisms of population renewal and
change, such as fertility, mortality, marriage, and migration, to show
how these mechanisms are an important part of understanding educa­
tional inequality and mobility. Mare moved these ideas forward in
important and sustained ways across his many studies, and seeded the
work of many others, inspiring related advances by his students and
other social stratification scholars. His first paper in this area proposes
an ambitious research agenda that describes how demographic mecha­
nisms inform substantive questions relating to both inequality and social
stratification (Mare, 1996). In his words, the strength of the approach is
that “it enables one to answer aggregate dynamic questions about the
reproduction and evolution of social hierarchies.” (Mare, 1996:31). This
paper also lays the foundation for his later work on multigenerational
inequality, which Xi Song reviews in her article. Mare (1996) discusses
“three-generation effects” as part of the larger research agenda he
envisioned.
Mare’s work in this area has two substantive veins. One examines
how components of population renewal such as fertility, marriage, and
mortality inform distributions of social status at the population level.
For example, how do differential fertility and mortality shape the long-
term distribution of education in a population? This work shows how
social inequality depends on population sorting and the components of
the population renewal process (Mare, 1996, 1997, 2000). The second
vein focuses specifically on the transmission of status from parents to
children and argues that standard approaches to studying intergenera­
tional mobility give an incomplete assessment of how parental social
status affects children’s social status. This work has its roots in the
classic sociological model of status attainment and social mobility. Mare
frequently pointed out that the demographic mechanisms of social
mobility were central in the classical canon. He writes, “In fact Blau and
Duncan (1967) recognized the role of the demographic processes by
including detailed analyses of most of these processes in their mono­
graph. Although these analyses were not as influential as the chapters on
social mobility and the process of social stratification, they too have
inspired much subsequent work. Unfortunately, each of these topics has
spawned its own, largely independent literature. There has been rela­
tively little effort to synthesize these topics into a common analytic
framework.” (Mare, 1996:3).
Mare aimed to create this common analytic framework. His research
in this area shows how the transmission of social status from parents to
children includes not only the direct correlation in status between par­
ents and children but also the relationship between the given social

E-mail address: vida.maralani@cornell.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2023.100808
Received 4 December 2022; Accepted 21 April 2023
Available online 9 May 2023
0276-5624/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Vida Maralani, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2023.100808
V. Maralani
status and determinants of family characteristics that shape children’s
outcomes (Mare & Maralani, 2006). A central contribution of this work
is to show how the effect of parental status on child’s status is dynamic,
multidimensional, and more complex than captured by conventional
approaches to studying social mobility. This work underscores the
importance of incorporating fertility, marriage, and assortative mating
in measuring intergenerational social mobility (Mare & Maralani, 2006;
Mare, 2011; Kye & Mare, 2012; Song and Mare, 2017).
1. Demographic pathways of inequality
Academic and public discourse alike have long used differences in
how groups reproduce as an important explanatory factor for describing
social inequality. In the mid-20th century, Sibley noted that the rela­
tively high rates of upward social mobility in the U.S. were in part due to
the higher fertility rate of immigrants relative to non-immigrants (Sib­
ley, 1942). First-generation immigrants, who came to the U.S. with
relatively low social status, on average, had children (and more of them)
who experienced upward social mobility. When immigrant fertility
declined, this translated to a smaller share of children from low-status
origins who would experience upward social mobility through educa­
tion. Similarly, Sibley argued that a reduction in immigration flows
would also reduce overall social mobility at the population level because
there would be fewer people in the population whose children experi­
enced such high rates of social mobility. Sibley argued that differential
fertility and immigration were demographic mechanisms that sustained
the United States’ patterns of social mobility and fluidity.
Other accounts have taken a less favorable view of the higher
reproduction rates of groups with low social status. Herrnstein and
Murray (1994) argue that when couples sort on educational attainment
in forming marriages, they simultaneously sort on IQ as well. People
with lower education have more children and their children also have
lower IQs, because this trait is inherited. Herrnstein and Murray (1994)
warn that the average IQ of the U.S. population will decline across
generations as the higher fertility rates of those with lower IQs domi­
nates the population. In order to test their proposed hypothesis, one
would have to use a model that projects social status across generations
and incorporates differences in demographic rates as part of the model.
For example, to test whether the distribution of IQ will become more
disadvantaged across generations, one has to project the distribution of
IQ using a model that incorporates population sorting by IQ in couples,
different rates of fertility by IQ, and the transmission of IQ from parents
to children (Preston & Campbell, 1993; Lam, 1993).
The question is inherently dynamic and multidimensional. How
systematically do couples sort on IQ? How does fertility differ by IQ?
How likely is it that children inherit the same IQ status as their parents?
How do the different pathways reinforce or offset each other across
generations? These questions about the interaction of demography,
inequality, and social mobility were exactly the kind of micro-macro
links that inspired Mare’s work as a sociologist and demographer.
Mare’s first three papers in this area (Mare, 1996, 1997, 2000) show
how the presumed harmful effects of differential fertility and assortative
mating on long-term equilibria of social status in the population were
incorrect.
Mare responded to the ideas of Herrnstein and Murray (1994) by
focusing on the demographic mechanisms of educational inequality
rather than IQ. Mare (1996) shows how a population of women with a
given educational distribution transforms across generations to produce
subsequent educational distributions that have been shaped by differ­
ential fertility and mortality. An important substantive insight of both
Mare (1996) and Preston and Campbell (1993) is to show that there is
enough intergenerational mobility in status across generations that
differential fertility cannot dominate mobility across generations. Only
under the extreme and unrealistic assumption that children inherit their
parents’ status exactly does differential fertility lower the long-term
equilibrium distribution of education.
2
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility xxx (xxxx) xxx
Mare (1996) is also methodologically innovative. The study extends
a small research literature by social scientists that use formal de­
mographic approaches for population projection to describe how social
groups reproduce and sort. Earlier work had introduced a one-sex pro­
jection model differentiated by age and occupation and described the
basic anatomy of using a matrix approach to represent the relationship
between social structure at some point in time and social mobility
(Matras, 1961; Matras, 1967). Others had shown the importance of
differential fertility for understanding income inequality and social
mobility (Preston, 1974; Lam, 1986). Mare (1996) extends these meth­
odological approaches by adapting a discrete-time multiregional pro­
jection model for a one-sex population developed by Feeney (1970) and
Rogers (1975) for the study of educational mobility. The basic compo­
nents of the model are age-education-specific female fertility rates and
survival rates and education-specific rates of producing daughters in
different educational categories (educational mobility rates).
Mare (1997) advances the analyses in Mare (1996) to compare
educational inequality between Black and White women. Whereas his
earlier work had cobbled together data from a variety of different
sources, Mare (1997) uses much higher-quality data. The results show
that observed differences in fertility by race and education are relatively
small, indeed too small to offset the relatively high level of variability in
how much schooling children of different backgrounds complete. As a
result, differences in fertility by race could not produce a deterministic
decline in average education in the population across generations.
Because many of the children of less educated parents experience up­
ward educational mobility and some of the children of highly educated
parents experience downward educational mobility, there is substantial
mixing across generations that precludes a systematic decline in edu­
cation in the population.
In his third paper in this area, Mare (2000) extends this idea from
fertility to assortative mating. Mare notes that research on the conse­
quences of assortative mating was scarce; however, similar to differen­
tial fertility, assortative mating had the potential to exacerbate
educational inequality. In this unpublished working paper, he uses a
two-sex projection model similar to Preston and Campbell (1993), but
he examines a range of potential marriage regimes between the extremes
of perfect matching and no systematic matching. Mare writes that his
approach uses Kremer (1995) as a starting point.1 His results show that
the effects of assortative mating on long-run inequality are also small.
Together, Mare’s three papers on how demographic mechanisms shape
inequality at the population level show that the presumed negative ef­
fects of fertility and marital sorting are quite modest across generations.
In the case of long-run patterns of social inequality, this is because the
transmission process across generations includes enough mobility in
status between parents and children that it dominates the potential ef­
fects of differential fertility, mortality, and marriage, at least at the
levels observed in the real world. This is an excellent example of how a
null result can be substantively interesting.
2. From inequality to social stratification and mobility
The work I have described so far was about inequality rather than
social stratification because it focused on the demographic determinants
of social hierarchy at the population level. It did not fundamentally seek
to understand how parents pass on their resources to their children. But
as a scholar of social stratification and mobility, Mare was keenly
interested in methodological and conceptual questions about the process
of social stratification across generations. Mare writes, “social mobility
occurs within a demographic milieu and that the evolution and trans­
formation of social hierarchy is the joint outcome of demographic
metabolism, intergenerational transmission, and opportunity structure”
1
Kremer (1995) is an unpublished working paper but a related published
paper is Kremer (1997).
V. Maralani
(Mare, 1996:3). Methodologically, Duncan (1966) notes the limitations
of using data from a sample of children to study social stratification
because this retrospective view does not represent mobility across actual
generations. Using retrospective data from children on their parents
does not create a clearly defined population in the parent generation.
People who do not have children and those who die before childbearing
are missing altogether, and people with several children are
over-represented in the child generation. For example, one father can
have three children but from the offspring perspective, three children
are presumed to have three fathers. If differences in fertility and mor­
tality in the parent generation were themselves shaped by social status,
then retrospective data on existing parent-child dyads provide an
incomplete picture of actual processes of social stratification and
mobility. What is needed instead is a prospective approach that follows
generations forward, rather than backward.
Conceptually, demographic pathways of social mobility are impor­
tant components in the process of intergenerational inequality and
mobility. If we do a thought experiment where we give a woman more
education, then this would likely come sufficiently early in the life
course so as to change her partnering and reproductive patterns. Women
with different levels of education differ in whether and when they
marry, the education level of their spouses, whether they have children,
how many children they have, and the ages at which they have their
children. They also differ in their mortality by education, their chil­
dren’s mortality by education, and whether they migrate in or out of a
population. Standard analyses of social stratification, however,
routinely ignore these pathways. Mare’s intellectual legacy in this field
was to formulate and estimate prospective models of intergenerational
reproduction of social status that incorporate these pathways—the de­
mographic mechanisms that shape the number and types of families in
which children are born and raised.
Demographic pathways at the individual level also aggregate up to
macro-level constraints, which inform educational inequality. For
example, if increasing a woman’s education decreases the number of
children she bears, then one consequence of increasing women’s
schooling will be to decrease the number of children who are born to
highly educated women at the population level, and who go on to
benefit from having better-educated mothers. If this dampening effect of
education on fertility differs between social groups—as it does for White
and Black women in the US—then changes in women’s schooling can
lead to different intergenerational effects because of micro-macro links
that tie generations together (Maralani, 2013). There are also
mezzo-level mechanisms and constraints. For example, if education in­
creases faster for women than it does for men, or the distribution of
men’s education differs by race-ethnicity (both of which are true in the
U.S.), then women might experience constraints in their dating and
marriage markets and their long-term partners.
Mare and Maralani (2006) propose a prospective model of social
mobility across two generations that includes a more complete account
of how parents transmit their advantages to their children. A coherent
model of social stratification needs to incorporate both the proximate
transmission of status—how parental status shapes children’s out­
comes—with the “population-level process by which distributions of
social status persist or evolve” (Mare, 1996:3). The approach begins with
people rather than parents and asks: How does a change in women’s
education in one generation change the distribution of their children’s
education in the next generation? We distinguish between people and
parents because not all people become parents, and not all parents
contribute the same number of children to the next generation. The
model is a demographic projection model that has the transmission of
social status from parents to children embedded in it. The projection
model begins with women’s education in one generation as the starting
point. Women’s education determines the probability of marriage and
the education of the men they marry. Women’s education, their marital
status, and their husband’s education if they marry, determine how
many children couples bear. Children’s education, which represents the
3
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility xxx (xxxx) xxx
transmission of status across generations, is a function of mother’s and
father’s schooling, and their family size.
One important contribution of this approach is to link micro-
processes (the correlation between parental status and child status)
with macro-level processes such as population renewal (fertility and
mortality) and mezzo-level demographic mechanisms such as marriage
and assortative mating. The model incorporates demographic con­
straints and opportunity structures that shape social stratification, such
as how many of which type of person is available for partnering. Sub­
stantively, the study shows how the intergenerational effect of
increasing women’s schooling depends on where in the distribution of
education such an intervention is made, whether men’s education also
increases or not, and prevailing patterns of differential fertility and as­
sortative mating. We applied the model to data from Indonesia, a society
where women experienced rapid increases in schooling across a 30-year
period. Results show that in this context, assortative mating amplifies
the beneficial effects of increasing women’s schooling by creating fam­
ilies that have more educated fathers as well as mothers. Because dif­
ferential fertility by education for the Indonesian cohorts analyzed is u-
shaped, differences in fertility have larger effects in some parts of the
education distribution than others (Mare & Maralani, 2006).
Mare and I worked on several extensions to the 2006 paper, which
we presented at academic conferences, but did not publish. Instead, we
incorporated the lessons of these working papers into our subsequent
research. Given persistent educational gradients in mortality for both
infants and adults, especially in developing settings, we extended our
approach to include differential mortality for women and their infants as
an additional intervening demographic mechanism in the Indonesian
context. We also added age categories to the model and extended the
analyses to disaggregate the pathway of fertility to include differences in
fertility levels and fertility timing (Maralani & Mare, 2005). We found
that, even in the Indonesian context, mortality differences did not play a
substantive role in the intergenerational pathways we estimated. In
terms of fertility, we found that educational differences in levels of
fertility, rather than timing, had the largest intergenerational effects.
The demographic projection models we developed were simulta­
neously quite complex and quite stylized. The model included many
components (fertility, marriage, assortative mating, the transmission of
status from parents to children) but each component was simple and
often assumed to operate independently from the other parts. Mare and I
also worked on ways to relax some of the simplifying assumptions of our
approach (Maralani & Mare, 2008). This was important because,
although demographic projections are inherently descriptive models, we
wanted to use parameters with the least amount of bias in the simula­
tions. We estimated some of the parameters that entered our simulations
using fixed effects models to address the potential threat of unobserved
factors. We also estimated the population-level effects of increased
childlessness, a different type of selection. Women who did not bear
children did not pass any of their traits across generations. We also
considered an extreme scenario in which we assumed that mother’s
schooling had no direct effect on children’s schooling. Through this
extreme assumption, we showed that even if endowments and marriage
sorting processes explain all of the direct effects of mother’s schooling
on children’s schooling, the intergenerational effects of increasing
women’s schooling were rarely zero because of the effects that accrue
through the determinants of family background and population-level
processes.
Kye and Mare (2012) replicate Mare and Maralani (2006) in the
context of South Korea, where education expanded rapidly but at the
post-secondary level. Their study uses bootstrapping to estimate stan­
dard errors for the simulations, something none of the earlier papers
included. They find similar results for the amplifying effects of assor­
tative mating and the dampening of differential fertility, but smaller
intergenerational effects overall because the structural expansion of
education in South Korea resulted in children attaining a high level of
educational attainment regardless of their parents’ education level.
V. Maralani
Their work shows how the demographic and structural context of
changes in the distribution of education matters for educational mobility
across generations.
Mare’s work inspired the work of many other scholars in stratifica­
tion. For example, Maralani (2013) extends the approach to the indi­
vidual level, and to include non-marriage and non-marital fertility, and
single years of age. It also estimates a joint equation of fertility and
children’s education that allows for correlated errors at the individual
level. The approach uses an expanded model with pathways through
marital status, father’s education, fertility timing and levels, maternal
age at birth, number of siblings, and years children spend in a
two-parent family from birth to age 18. Using data from the United
States to examine differences in the process of educational mobility
between Black Americans and White Americans, the study shows that
assortative mating has a stronger effect for White women than Black
women and differential fertility has a larger dampening effect for Black
women (Maralani, 2013).
Lawrence and Breen (2016) advance the approach by using marginal
structural models to obtain parameter estimates that are more robust to
unobserved heterogeneity. Rather than computing the full distribution
of education, the study computes the probability that a person with a
college degree has a child with a college degree, accounting for differ­
ences in marriage and fertility between college graduates and those with
less schooling. Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, they
find that obtaining a college degree increases men’s probability of
having a child who also completes college, but not so for women, who
experience offsetting reductions in marriage and fertility. In subsequent
work, Breen and colleagues replicate their approach with data on Great
Britain and 12 European countries (Breen & Ermisch, 2017; Breen et al.,
2019). Maralani and McKee (2019) advance the approach by using a
two-sex model to study the intergenerational transmission of smoking
and schooling as joint processes, incorporating the joint distribution of
education and smoking in the pathways for marriage, fertility, and the
transmission of status. Rendall et al. (2021) use a two-sex model of
intergenerational transmission with a two-sided matching algorithm for
assortative mating. All of these studies advance the field of social
stratification by incorporating the demographic pathways that shape
families of origin into a more complete model of social mobility.
Rob Mare proposed a groundbreaking research agenda for the study
of social stratification. His vision was to advance research on status
attainment and intergenerational social mobility by incorporating the
many demographic mechanisms that shape population characteristics.
Together with his students, Mare pushed these ideas forward throughout
his career, and he inspired the work of many other stratification
scholars. Rob taught me how to study social stratification with a de­
mographic lens, and the importance of precision in concepts, models,
and interpretations. As a student, I sometimes found Rob’s insistence on
precision daunting, but it was also transformative. One day in graduate
school, when I went to him for advice on how to interpret some results I
had estimated, he told me, “Don’t estimate models you don’t know how
to interpret.” I have carried that pearl with me throughout my career
and teach it to my own students. Rob set a high bar for his students but
he supported us and cheered us along throughout the process. He always
told us to take every opportunity to celebrate. He celebrated with his
students and friends often, regaling us with jokes and good-natured
banter. I cherish my memories of laughing together at these many
gatherings. It is an honor to have worked with him and to celebrate him
and his groundbreaking work in this essay and volume.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility xxx (xxxx) xxx
References
Breen, Richard, & Ermisch, John (2017). Educational reproduction in Great Britain: A
prospective approach. European Sociological Review, 33(4), 590–603. https://doi.org/
10.1093/esr/jcx061
Breen, Richard, Ermisch, John, & Helske, Satu (2019). Educational reproduction in
Europe: A descriptive account. Demographic Research, 41(49), 1373–1400.
Duncan, Otis Dudley (1966). Methodological issues in the analysis of social mobility. In
N. J. Smelser, & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Social Structure and Mobility in Economic
Development (pp. 51–97). Chicago: Aldine.
Feeney, Griffith M. (1970). Stable age by region distributions. Demography, 7, 341–348.
Herrnstein, Richard J., & Murray, Charles (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class
structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.
Kremer, Michael (1995). Assortative mating and the dynamics of inequality. Cambridge,
MA: Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Unpublished
manuscript).
Kremer, Michael (1997). How much does sorting increase inequality? The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 112(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555145
Kye, Bongoh, & Mare, Robert D. (2012). Intergenerational effects of shifts in women’s
educational distribution in South Korea: Transmission, differential fertility, and
assortative mating. Social Science Research, 41(6), 1495–1514. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.011
Lam, David (1986). The dynamics of population growth, differential fertility, and
inequality. American Economic Review, 76(5), 1103–1116.
Lam, David (1993). Comment on Preston and Campbell’s ‘Differential Fertility and the
Distribution of Traits.’. American Journal of Sociology, 98(5), 1033–1039. https://doi.
org/10.1086/230137
Lawrence, Matthew, & Breen, Richard (2016). And their children after them? The effect
of college on educational reproduction. American Journal of Sociology, 122(2),
532–572. https://doi.org/10.1086/687592
Maralani, Vida (2013). The demography of social mobility: Black-White differences in
the process of educational reproduction. American Journal of Sociology, 118(6),
1509–1558. https://doi.org/10.1086/670719
Maralani, Vida and Robert D. Mare (2005). Demographic pathways of intergenerational
effects: Fertility, mortality, marriage and women’s schooling in Indonesia. CCPR-
019–05 working paper. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0mn0j4w6.
Maralani, Vida and Robert D. Mare (2008). Unobserved heterogeneity, demographic
mechanisms, and the intergenerational effects of increasing women’s schooling.
Presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting. Available at:
https://paa2008.populationassociation.org/abstracts/81382.
Maralani, Vida and Douglas McKee (2019). The intergenerational transmission of
smoking and schooling. Unpublished manuscript.
Mare, Robert D. (1996). Demography and the evolution of educational inequality (Essays
in Honor of John C. Pock). In J. Baron, D. Grusky, & D. Treiman (Eds.), Social
Differentiation and Social Inequality: Theoretical and Empirical Inquiries (pp. 117–151).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mare, Robert D. (1997). Differential fertility, intergenerational educational mobility, and
racial inequality. Social Science Research, 26(3), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ssre.1997.0598
Mare, Robert D. (2000). Assortative mating, intergenerational mobility, and educational
inequality. CA: California Center of Population Research, University of California Los
Angeles (Unpublished Manuscript) 〈https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6xv5k5pc〉.
Mare, Robert D. (2011). A multigenerational view of inequality. Demography, 48(1),
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-011-0014-7
Mare, R. D. (2013). How is inequality changing in the United States? Plenary
Presentation,American Sociological Association, New York.
Mare, Robert D., & Maralani, Vida (2006). The intergenerational effects of changes in
women’s educational attainments. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 542–564.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100402
Matras, Judah (1961). Differential fertility, intergenerational occupational mobility,
andchange in occupational distribution: Some elementary interrelationships.
PopulationStudies, 15, 187–197.
Matras, Judah (1967). Social mobility and social structure: Some insights from the linear
model. American Sociological Review, 32, 608–614.
Preston, Samuel H. (1974). Differential fertility, unwanted fertility, and racial trends in
occupational achievement. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 492–506. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2094417
Preston, Samuel H., & Campbell, Cameron (1993). Differential fertility and the
distribution of traits: The case of IQ. American Journal of Sociology, 98(5), 997–1019.
Rendall, Michael, Heide Jackson, Polina Zvavitch, Shuchi Goyal, Mark Hancock,
Margaret Weeden (2021). Estimation, Simulation, and Validation of a two-sex model
of intergenerational reproduction of education, Maryland Population Research
Center. Available at: https://www.popcenter.umd.edu/research/working-papers
/papers/pwp-mprc-2021-004f/view.
Rogers, Andrei (1975). Introduction to multiregional mathematical demography. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Sibley, Elbridge (1942). Some demographic clues to stratification. American Sociological
Review, 7(3), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085361
Song, Xi, & Robert, D. Mare (2017). Short-term and long-term educational mobility of
families: A two-sex approach. Demography, 54(1), 145–173. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13524-016-0540-4