economic status essay

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

104 Socioeconomic Status Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in shaping individuals' lives and opportunities. It can impact access to education, healthcare, employment, and overall well-being. As such, it is a crucial topic for research and discussion. If you are looking for essay topics on socioeconomic status, here are 104 ideas and examples to get you started.

• The impact of socioeconomic status on educational achievement
• Income inequality and its effects on society
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and health outcomes
• Poverty and its implications for mental health
• Social mobility and its challenges in today's society
• The role of social class in shaping individuals' identities
• The effects of wealth on social relationships
• The consequences of growing up in a low-income household
• Socioeconomic disparities in access to healthcare
• The intersection of race and socioeconomic status
• The effects of economic recession on low-income families
• The influence of socioeconomic status on career choices
• The impact of poverty on children's development
• Social exclusion and its consequences for individuals
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates
• The effects of socioeconomic status on mental health stigma
• The role of social class in shaping political beliefs
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to technology
• Income inequality and its effects on economic growth
• The relationship between education level and socioeconomic status
• The effects of gentrification on low-income communities
• The influence of social class on social mobility
• The consequences of living in a food desert
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and parenting styles
• The effects of poverty on access to quality housing
• The impact of unemployment on mental health
• The role of socioeconomic status in shaping educational opportunities
• The effects of income inequality on social cohesion
• The consequences of living in a high-crime neighborhood
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and access to legal representation
• The impact of poverty on access to clean water
• The influence of social class on access to cultural resources
• The effects of income inequality on social trust
• The role of socioeconomic status in shaping health behaviors
• The consequences of living in a segregated neighborhood
• The relationship between poverty and access to quality education
• The effects of income inequality on social mobility
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to transportation
• The role of social class in shaping access to social services
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with environmental hazards
• The relationship between poverty and access to mental health services
• The effects of income inequality on political participation
• The influence of social class on access to legal rights
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to recreational opportunities
• The relationship between poverty and access to quality healthcare
• The effects of income inequality on access to affordable housing
• The role of social class in shaping access to nutritious food
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited social support
• The relationship between poverty and access to job opportunities
• The effects of income inequality on access to social capital
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to financial resources
• The role of social class in shaping access to educational resources
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to public transportation
• The relationship between poverty and access to safe recreational spaces
• The effects of income inequality on access to quality childcare
• The influence of social class on access to mental health resources
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to legal representation
• The relationship between poverty and access to affordable housing
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to healthcare
• The relationship between income inequality and access to quality education
• The effects of social class on access to job training programs
• The impact of poverty on access to affordable transportation
• The role of socioeconomic status in shaping access to financial literacy programs
• The relationship between income inequality and access to safe neighborhoods
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to healthy food options
• The effects of social class on access to quality healthcare
• The influence of poverty on access to mental health services
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to legal rights
• The relationship between income inequality and access to affordable housing
• The role of social class in shaping access to job opportunities
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to educational resources
• The relationship between poverty and access to recreational opportunities
• The effects of social class on access to quality childcare
• The role of socioeconomic status in shaping access to social services
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to social support
• The relationship between income inequality and access to nutritious food
• The effects of social class on access to safe recreational spaces
• The influence of poverty on access to mental health resources
• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to job training programs
• The relationship between income inequality and access to financial resources
• The effects of social class on access to legal representation
• The role of poverty in shaping access to affordable housing
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and access to quality healthcare
• The impact of income inequality on access to mental health services
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to job opportunities
• The relationship between poverty and access to financial literacy programs
• The effects of socioeconomic status on access to safe neighborhoods
• The role of income inequality in shaping access to healthy food options
• The relationship between social class and access to recreational opportunities
• The impact of poverty on access to quality childcare
• The consequences of living in a neighborhood with limited access to affordable transportation
• The effects of income inequality on access to social support
• The influence of socioeconomic status on access to educational resources
• The relationship between poverty and access to social services
• The impact of social class on access to financial resources
• The role of socioeconomic status in shaping access to legal representation
• The consequences of income inequality on access to affordable housing
• The effects of social class on access to mental health services
• The impact of poverty on access to legal rights
• The influence of socioeconomic status on access to job opportunities

In conclusion, socioeconomic status is a complex and multifaceted topic that has profound implications for individuals and society as a whole. By exploring these essay topics and examples, you can gain a deeper understanding of how socioeconomic status shapes our lives and the challenges that come with it.

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Writing About Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Disability

View in pdf format.

As language evolves alongside our understanding of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability, it is important for writers to make informed choices about their language and to take responsibility for those choices. Accurate language is important in writing about people respectfully and in crafting effective arguments your audience can trust. This handout includes writing practices and language tips to help you discuss various groups of people respectfully and without perpetuating stereotypes.

Best Practices

• Use people-first language. Use terms that focus on people rather than on the method of categorization to ensure your language is not dehumanizing. For example, use “people with mental illness” rather than “the mentally ill,” “people with disabilities” rather than “disabled people,” and “enslaved peoples” rather than “slaves.”
• Don’t use adjectives as nouns.   Using adjectives as nouns is not only grammatically incorrect, it is often demeaning to the people you are describing. For example, use “Black people,” not “Blacks.”
• Avoid terms that imply inferiority or superiority.   Replace terms that evaluate or might imply inferiority/superiority with non-judgmental language. For example, use “low socioeconomic status” rather than “low class,” or “historically marginalized population” rather than “minority.”
• Be specific.  When these descriptors are relevant, be as specific as possible to avoid inaccurate or generalized statements. For example, use “Dominicans” rather than “Hispanics,” or “people who use wheelchairs” rather than “people with disabilities.”

Writing About Race and Ethnicity

When writing about race and ethnicity, use the following tips to guide you:

• Capitalize racial/ethnic groups, such as Black, Asian, and Native American. Depending on the context, white may or may not be capitalized.
• African Americans migrated to northern cities. (noun)
• African-American literature. (adjective)
• The terms Latino/Latina/Latin are used mostly in the US to refer to US residents with ties to Latin America .

Umbrella Terms

• Avoid the term “minority” if possible. “Minority” is often used to describe groups of people who are not part of the majority. This term is being phased out because it may imply inferiority and because minorities often are not in the numerical minority. An alternative might be “historically marginalized populations.” If it is not possible to avoid using “minority,” qualify the term with the appropriate specific descriptor: “religious minority” rather than “minority.”
• Note that the terms “people of color” and “non-white” are acceptable in some fields and contexts but not in others. Check with your professor if you’re uncertain whether a term is acceptable.  

Writing About Socioeconomic Status

When writing about socioeconomic status, use the following tips to guide you:

• “Avoid using terms like “high class” or “low class,” or even “upper class” or “lower class,” because they have been used historically in an evaluative way. Also avoid “low brow” and “high brow.” Instead, if you must incorporate adjectives like “high” or “low,” use the term “high” or “low socioeconomic status” to avoid judgmental language.
• The word “status” (without the qualifier of “socioeconomic”) is not interchangeable with “class” because “status” can refer to other measures such as popularity.
• When possible, use specific metrics: common ones include level of educational attainment, occupation, and income.Use specific language that describes what is important to the analysis.
• Be aware of numbers: there are no distinct indicators of “high” and “low,” but there are percentages that make it easy to determine, via income bracket for example, where on a range an individual falls.

General Guidelines

When writing about disability, use the following tips to guide you:

• uses a wheelchair rather than confined to a wheelchair
• diagnosed with bipolar disorder rather than suffers from bipolar disorder
• person with a physical disability rather than physically challenged
• Do not use victimizing language such as afflicted, restricted, stricken, suffering, and unfortunate.
• Do not call someone ‘brave’ or ‘heroic’ simply for living with a disability.
• Avoid the term “handicapped,” as some find it insensitive. Note that it is widely used as a legal term in documents, on signs, etc.
• Do not use disabilities as nouns to refer to people. For example, use “people with mental illnesses” not “the mentally ill.”
• Avoid using the language of disability as metaphor, which stigmatizes people with disabilities, such as lame (lame idea), blind (blind luck), paralyzed (paralyzed with indecision), deaf (deaf ears), crazy, insane, moron, crippling, disabling, and the like.
• Capitalize a group name when stressing the fact that they are a cultural community (e.g. Deaf culture); do not capitalize when referring only to the disability.

Referring to people without disabilities

Use “people without disabilities,” or “neurotypical individuals” for mental disabilities.  The term “able-bodied” may be appropriate in some disciplines. Do not use terms like “normal” or “healthy” to describe people without disabilities.

Writing with Outdated/Problematic Sources

  When analyzing or referencing a source that uses harmful language (slurs, violent rhetoric, etc.), either:

• Explain that the author or character uses harmful language without stating it verbatim. For example: “The author uses an ableist slur when discussing [context of the quote], indicating that [analysis].”
• Acknowledge its offensive nature in your analysis if you must quote the harmful language verbatim.

Do not change the quote or omit harmful language without acknowledging it. If you must use outdated and problematic sources, it is best to acknowledge any harmful language or rhetoric and discuss how it impacts the use and meaning of the text in your analysis.

Note that if you do need to use dated terminology in discussing the subjects in a historical context, continue to use contemporary language in your own discussion and analysis.

If you are still unsure of what language to use after reading this, consult your professor, classmates, writing center tutors, or current academic readings in the discipline for more guidance.

As we have noted, language is complex and constantly evolving. We will update this resource to reflect changes in language use and guidelines. We also welcome suggestions for revisions to this handout. Please contact the Writing Center with any questions or suggestions.

Thank you to the following people who contributed to earlier versions of this resource: Emma Bowman ’15, Krista Hesdorfer ’14, Jessica LeBow ’15, Rohini Tashima ’15, Sharon Williams, Amit Taneja, Phyllis Breland, and Professors Jessica Burke, Dan Chambliss, Christine Fernández, Todd Franklin, Cara Jones, Esther Kanipe, Elizabeth Lee, Celeste Day Moore, Andrea Murray, Kyoko Omori, Ann Owen, and Steven Wu.

Adapted from prior Writing Center resource “Writing about Race, Ethnicity, Social Class, and Disability.”

Tutor Appointments

Peer tutor and consultant appointments are managed through TracCloud (login required). Find resources and more information about the ALEX centers using the following links.

Office / Department Name

Nesbitt-Johnston Writing Center

Contact Name

Jennifer Ambrose

Writing Center Director

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search

Socioeconomic Status - List of Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to an individual’s or group’s position within a hierarchical social structure, often measured by factors like education, income, and occupation. Essays could explore the impact of SES on various life outcomes including health, education, and overall well-being. Furthermore, discussions might delve into systemic issues contributing to socioeconomic disparities and potential policies to alleviate such inequalities. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Socioeconomic Status you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Counseling Black Gay Men Living in Low Socioeconomic Status Community

The film, Moonlight, depicts the growing life of a black man and his struggles through growing up within a low socioeconomic community, as well as his homosexuality (Romanski, Garner, Kleiner, & Jenkins, 2016). The main character, Chiron struggles to find and hold onto his identities of being a black gay man within the black community of a low socioeconomic neighborhood. He faces constant bullying in regards to his homosexuality and is often isolated by his peers. The one friend he […]

How Poverty Affects a Child’s Brain and Education

Although children are some of the most resilient creatures on earth. Living in poverty has risks that can cause children all types of issues. That makes you wonder, does poverty have an effect on a child's brain development? The million dollar question. How does poverty affect children's brain development? Poverty can cause health and behavioral issues. There is suggestive evidence that living in poverty may alter the way a child's brain develops and grows, which can, in turn, alter the […]

Childhood Obesity is an Epidemic in the USA

Introduction Childhood obesity has become an epidemic in the United States and other western industrialized societies. "Childhood obesity affects more than 18 percent of children in the United States, making it the most common chronic disease of childhood" (Obesity Action Coalition). According to the OAC, the percentage of children suffering from childhood obesity has tripled since 1980. A child is considered obese if their body mass index for their age is greater than 95 percent. Childhood obesity is both an […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

The Impact of Stress in our Everyday Lives

Stress and Health Behaviors The first article I read was written by Patrick M. Krueger and Virginia W. Chang. They wrote an article named ""Being Poor and Coping With Stress: Health Behaviors and the Risk of Death on the relationship between stress and the possibility of dying. Their focal point is based on pointing out the negative effects of health behaviors as a gateway that unites stress with death. Krueger and Chang made observations on different Socioeconomic Status groups by […]

Breast Cancer in African American Women

Summary Despite the fact that Caucasian women in the United States have a higher incidence rate of breast cancer than any other racial group, African-Americans succumb notably worse to the disease and record the highest mortality rate. To comprehend the barriers and challenges that predispose African-American women to these disparities, this research was conducted to get a better understanding from the perspective of oncologists. With diverse ethnicity and gender representation, the participation of seven medical, surgical and radiation oncologists that […]

Tackling Childhood Obesity in Rural Mississippi

Childhood obesity is a growing health issue in the United States. Children with higher Body Mass Indexes than the recommended by the National Institutes of Health are more prone to adverse health effects later in life. Obesity in early age can translate into adulthood and increases the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and diabetes (Franks 2010). The highest rates of childhood obesity can be observed in the southeastern corner of the United States, Mississippi, in particular, with the highest prevalence […]

The Effect of Poverty on Child Development

What happens when a child enters kindergarten without being ready? Why are scores in third grade reading and eight grade math continuing to lag? Children who are inadequately ready for kindergarten have a hard time catching up over the years, and a report from the education advocacy organization Groundwork Ohio found that poverty is often tied to this insufficient kindergarten readiness. Early education is the foundation for a child's future and, according to the report, the repercussions of not being […]

Children of Poverty in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an estimated 39.7 million Americans lived in poverty in 2017 (15). Based on this measure, the official poverty rate in the U.S. was near 14 percent overall (15). For children, almost half in the U.S. are living in or near poverty (1). When compared to adults, 1 in 5 live in poverty, versus 1 in 8 of adults, which translates to 15.5 million impoverished kids in the U.S. (2). Poverty is defined as making […]

Diabetes Amongst Latino Population in the US

In the United States, approximately 15% of the population is made up of Latinos (Cobas et al., 2015). This population comprises of people who were within and without the borders of the United States; it is heterogeneous in the sense that they have varied behavioral, cultural, and social attitudes that are likely to affect their health. According to Casey et al. (2014 pp.395), there is a high rate of diabetes in Latino adults of 20 years and above as compared […]

Literacy and Poverty Among African American Children

The United States' Declaration of Independence (US, 1776) proudly declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." While Americans certainly have such liberties and rights, notably the rights of free speech and assembly to protest social injustice, nearly 17 million of America's children live in abject poverty, with families whose income is […]

Diabetes Type 2: a Chronic Disease

Diabetes type 2 is a chronic disease which is widespread around the world. According to Mayo Clinic, type 2 diabetes is the most common type of diabetes that occurs due to high blood sugar and the lack of ability of the body to use insulin properly or make enough of it. Diabetes type 2 does not have a cure. However, it can be prevented or delayed. The most common causes of diabetes relate to people's lifestyle and their genetics. Physical […]

A Problem of Diabetes

Low socioeconomic status has previously been associated with type 2 diabetes. Health is not only affected by individual risk factors and behaviors, but also a range of economic circumstances. Primarily, this issue is caused by the underuse or reduced access to recommended preventive care in individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Economic issues inherent in diabetes stem from the fact that economically disadvantaged individuals do not have the support for healthy behaviors. Furthermore, economically disadvantaged individuals may lack access to clinical […]

Problem of Discrimination in Plain Sight

Race relations has arguably been the most divisive and hotly contested issue in contemporary American politics and throughout United States history. A solution to this issue in the past was to "level the playing field" through programs now colloquially named affirmative action. Many people feel that these programs are necessary to either counteract injustices or ensure the advancement of certain minorities. However, there is evidence to show that affirmative action has become a form of discrimination in and of itself […]

Failed Education System: does Discussion in the Classroom Lead to a Better Democracy

When schools teach about politics that the teachers are “indoctrinating” their kids and essentially molding them to fit to one side and ideology. The results however, show that Kids Voting did not have an appreciable impact on partisanship or ideological identity but it did stimulate support for conventional participation-voting (r = .24, p < .001) and for unconventional activism-protests and boycotts (r = .21, p < .001) (McDevitt). Clearly KVUSA is not indoctrinating kids, evoking the fear of which is […]

Additional Example Essays

• Great Depression vs. Great Recession
• Bill Gates entrepreneur
• Professionalism In Healthcare
• What is the Importance of Professionalism?
• Positives and Negatives of Marxism
• Why I Want To Be A Special Education Teacher
• The Mental Health Stigma
• Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner
• Substance Abuse and Mental Illnesses
• Personal Philosophy of Leadership
• The Importance of Professional Bearing in the Military
• Reasons Why I Want to Study Abroad

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Economics — Socioeconomic Status

Essays on Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status essay topics for college students.

As a college student, choosing the right essay topic is crucial for a successful and engaging paper. It is important to select a topic that interests you and allows for creativity, while also addressing important issues related to socioeconomic status.

Essay Types and ... Read More Socioeconomic Status Essay Topics for College Students

Essay types and topics, argumentative essay.

• The impact of socioeconomic status on access to education
• Income inequality and its effects on society

Paragraph Example: The impact of socioeconomic status on access to education is a crucial issue that affects individuals and communities. In this essay, we will explore the barriers faced by individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and the implications for society as a whole. It is clear that access to education is not equal for all, and this has far-reaching consequences for our future.

Paragraph Example: The barriers to education faced by individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds must be addressed to create a more equitable society. By investing in educational resources and support for these individuals, we can work towards a future where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.

Compare and Contrast Essay

• The impact of socioeconomic status on healthcare access in urban and rural areas
• The portrayal of socioeconomic status in literature: A comparison of classic and contemporary works

Descriptive Essay

• Living in poverty: A personal experience
• The impact of socioeconomic status on neighborhood communities

Persuasive Essay

• Implementing policies to reduce income inequality
• Raising awareness about the challenges faced by low-income families

Narrative Essay

• Overcoming socioeconomic barriers to achieve academic success
• A personal journey of upward mobility

Engagement and Creativity

Essay writing is an opportunity to explore your interests and critical thinking skills. Choose a topic that resonates with you and allows for creative expression. Engage with the issues related to socioeconomic status and think critically about the impact on individuals and society.

Educational Value

Each essay type offers unique learning outcomes. Argumentative essays develop analytical thinking and persuasive writing skills, while descriptive essays enhance your ability to create vivid and detailed descriptions. Compare and contrast essays encourage critical thinking and analysis, while narrative essays allow for personal reflection and storytelling.

In Sickness and in Wealth

American dream: a mirage for many, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Effects of Social Ranking on The Education System and Appropriate Solutions

Overview of the relationship between socio-economic-status (ses) and health, research on unethical nature of people based on their socioeconomic status, the relation between race and ethnicity and socioeconomic status, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Influence of Economics on Behaviors of People

Class and status according to weber, history, politics and legal situation of tibet, globalization from a socio-economic point of view, understanding social status and its impact, relevant topics.

• American Dream
• Macroeconomics
• Industrialization
• Microeconomics
• Freakonomics
• Economic Growth
• Human Development
• Minimum Wage

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes pp 7–17 Cite as

A Review of the Literature on Socioeconomic Status and Educational Achievement

• Markus Broer 19 ,
• Yifan Bai 19 &
• Frank Fonseca 19  
• Open Access
• First Online: 16 May 2019

114k Accesses

34 Citations

53 Altmetric

Part of the book series: IEA Research for Education ((IEAR,volume 5))

The foundations of socioeconomic inequities and the educational outcomes of efforts to reduce gaps in socioeconomic status are of great interest to researchers around the world, and narrowing the achievement gap is a common goal for most education systems. This review of the literature focuses on socioeconomic status (SES) and its related constructs, the association between SES and educational achievement, and differences among educational systems, together with changes over time. Commonly-used proxy variables for SES in education research are identified and evaluated, as are the relevant components collected in IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Although the literature always presents a positive association between family SES and student achievement, the magnitude of this relationship is contingent on varying social contexts and education systems. TIMSS data can be used to assess the magnitude of such relationships across countries and explore them over time. Finally, the literature review focuses on two systematic and fundamental macro-level features: the extent of homogeneity between schools, and the degree of centralization of education standards and norms in a society.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Educational inequality occurs in multiple forms. Van de Wefhorst and Mijs ( 2010 ) discussed its existence through the inequality of educational opportunity in terms of the influence of social background on students’ test scores, as well as in learning, as expressed by the performance distribution in test scores. According to the authors, these two characteristics of inequality are conceptually different in that an educational system may have equality in terms of dispersion (or variance) in educational achievement but inequality in terms of opportunities; yet, in general, societies that are equal in terms of dispersion are also more equal in terms of opportunities.

Different education systems take part in each cycle of TIMSS, but 25 education systems took part in the grade eight mathematics student assessment in both 1995 and 2015. For these 25 participating systems, the average mathematics achievement score increased by only five score points between 1995 and 2015 (Mullis et al. 2016 ). Focusing only on more recent trends, for the 32 education systems that participated in the grade eight mathematics student assessment in both 2011 and 2015, there was a gain of nine scale score points between 2011 and 2015, suggesting that many of the education systems with the largest gains are those starting from a low base. As there is limited information on family and home background and its relationship with TIMSS international achievement, this spread in achievement is not sufficient to explain why education systems perform differently. Therefore, our study focuses on the other aspect of educational inequality, namely how SES background is related to educational achievement. In the next two sections of this chapter, we review the concept and measurement of socioeconomic status, and the literature regarding the relationship between family SES and student academic achievement. The rest of this chapter focuses on differences between the various education systems and changes in educational inequality over time.

2.1 Socioeconomic Status and Related Constructs and Measures

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines socioeconomic status as “the social standing or class of an individual or group” (APA 2018 ). SES has been commonly used as a latent construct for measuring family background (Bofah and Hannula 2017 ). However, among empirical studies, there is no consensus on how to best operationalize the concept. In many studies, the measurement of SES does not receive much attention, with very limited discussion over why certain indicators were used rather than others (Bornstein and Bradley 2014 ). Liberatos et al. ( 1988 ) argued that there was no one best measure, because the choice of the SES measure depended on the conceptual relevance, the possible role of social class in the study, the applicability of the measure to the specific populations being studied, the relevance of a measure at the time of study, the reliability and validity of the measure, the number of indicators included, the level of measurement, the simplicity of the measure, and comparability with measures used in other studies.

Historically, SES has been conceptualized and measured in various ways. Taussig ( 1920 ) conceptualized SES as the occupational status of the father. Later, Cuff ( 1934 ) adopted a score card proposed by Sims ( 1927 ) as a measure of SES; this included questions about items possessed by the home, parents’ education, father’s occupation, and other relevant information. Moving on from these early studies, development of instruments for measuring SES has become more complicated, including more advanced methods such as factor analysis or model-based approaches (NCES [National Center for Educational Statistics] 2012 ). By the 1980s, one general agreement had emerged: SES should be a composite variable, typically measuring education, income, and occupation, since these three indicators reflect different aspects of family background (Brese and Mirazchiyski 2013 ).

However, collecting this information is known to be challenging. Besides privacy concerns, there are also concerns about information accuracy (Keeves and Saha 1992 ). For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States does not collect family income or parental occupation directly from students, as many of them are unable to accurately report such data (Musu-Gillette 2016 ). Similarly, TIMSS decided not to include questions about parental occupation and income because of doubts about the reliability and utility of similar information collected by previous IEA surveys (Buchmann 2002 ). Therefore, the grade eight student questionnaires for TIMSS include only three proxy components for SES: parental education, books at home, and home possessions (such as ownership of a calculator, computer, study desk, or dictionary), with some evolution in the home possession items over time owing to rapid advancements in technology over the 20 years of TIMSS (more recent items include the internet, or computer tablet, for example).

The abstract nature of the concept of SES leaves some room for researchers to decide what proxy variables to use as SES measures. Yang ( 2003 ), for example, found that the possession of a set of household items may be used as SES indicators. Despite variability and limitations in the measurement of SES, its association with student performance has been demonstrated in numerous studies (Sirin 2005 ).

2.2 Family SES and Student Achievement

Theoretical and empirical work has emphasized that family SES has an impact on children’s educational outcomes, examined mechanisms through which family SES is related to children’s achievement, and identified potential pathways behind this relationship, one of which uses three forms of capital: economic, cultural, and social capital (Bourdieu 1986 ; Coleman 1988 , 1990 ). In other words, differences in the availability of these forms of capital Footnote 1 across households eventually lead to disparities in children’s academic achievement (Buchmann 2002 ).

Bourdieu ( 1986 ) posited that capital can present itself in three fundamental forms and that economic capital is the source of all other forms of capital. The other types of capital are treated as transformed and disguised forms of economic capital. Economic capital can be used in pursuit of other forms of capital; for example, family income can be used to pay for organized after-school activities, to access elite educational opportunities, or to build up valuable social networks (Lareau 2011 ). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are constrained by the financial resources they and their family possess (Crosnoe and Cooper 2010 ). As such, economic capital determines the extent to which parents can offer financial support to children’s academic pursuits.

In addition to economic capital, cultural capital, namely knowledge of cultural symbols and ability to decode cultural messages, helps parents transmit their advantages to children and to reproduce social class (Bourdieu 1986 ). According to Bourdieu ( 1986 ), an individual’s cultural capital can exist in an embodied state as well as in an objectified state. In the embodied state, cultural capital focuses on “physical capital,” where the body itself is a marker of social class, as particular embodied properties exist as a consequence of specific class practices (Tittenbrun 2016 ). Through this state, inequality in socioeconomic class can find expression in embodied ways, such as physical appearance, body language, diet, pronunciation, and handwriting. In the objectified state, inequality is expressed in forms of cultural goods, such as accessibility to pictures, books, dictionaries, and machines. Therefore, in this view, Bourdieu sees the body and cultural goods as forms of currency that result in the unequal accumulation of material resources and, by extension, represent an important contributor to class inequality (Perks 2012 ).

Children from higher social classes also have advantages in gaining educational credentials due to their families. Cultural capital is considered an important factor for school success. Yang ( 2003 ) suggested possession of cultural resources had the most significant impact on students’ mathematics and science achievement in most countries. If cultural resources are differentiated according to family background, and if some cultural resources have more value than others in the education system, it is reasonable to assume that differential achievement is related to an individual’s social class (Barone 2006 ). For example, a student’s social ability and language style, as well as attitudes toward the school curriculum and teachers, may differ according to social class origins (Barone 2006 ). As such, parental school choice in some countries favors children from those families that already possess dominant cultural advantages (i.e., children attending private schools in the United States), thus confirming the cultural inequalities between classes and status groups of families to produce educational inequalities among their children (Shavit and Blossfeld 1993 ). Lareau ( 1987 , 2011 ) further posited that middle-class parents have a different parenting style, which she termed concerted cultivation, fostering their child’s talent through organized activities, while working-class parents tend to have a natural growth parenting style, letting their children create their own activities with more unstructured time. Consequently, middle-class families prepare their children better for school since their parenting style is more valued and rewarded by the school system.

Finally, the possession of social capital reflects the resources contained in social relations, which can be invested with expected benefits (Bourdieu 1986 ). Differences in educational success can be attributed to different levels of existing social capital, which is produced in networks and connections of families that the school serves (Rogošić and Baranović 2016 ). Coleman ( 1988 ) developed a conceptual framework of social capital in which social structure can create social capital, through family, school, and community. The relationships between the family and the community may be used to explain the higher educational achievements of students based on expected achievements with respect to their socioeconomic status (Mikiewicz et al. 2011 ).

In summary, while the overall association between family SES and students’ academic achievement is well documented in theoretical and empirical work, the magnitude of the relationship between family SES and achievement differs across countries. This may be related to differences in education systems and jurisdictions, and societal changes over time.

2.3 Differences in Education Systems and Changes Over Time

In any society, there are two systematic and fundamental macro-level features that highlight the differences in education systems and how they have changed over time. First, is the extent of homogeneity among education systems. Second, is the degree of centralization of education standards and norms in a society. The association between family background and children’s achievement depends on the education system and the social context (i.e., the level of homogeneity and centralization). Where educational inequality is prominent, students from different backgrounds may demonstrate larger achievement gaps.

2.3.1 Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous

Previous research has shown that students at lower levels of SES perform better in education systems with lower levels of inequality than their counterparts in countries with more significant SES differences (Ornstein 2010 ). That is, some education systems are more homogeneous than others, with schools being more similar to each other in terms of funding. As an example, Finnish households have a narrow distribution of economic and social status at the population level and their schools show little variation in terms of funding (Mostafa 2011 ).

Furthermore, Mostafa ( 2011 ) found that school homogeneity on a large scale is a source of equality since it diminishes the impact of school characteristics on performance scores. Finland is often seen as an example of a homogeneous education system with high levels of similarity between schools, which in turn reduces the impact of school variables on performance scores (Kell and Kell 2010 ; Mostafa 2011 ). More specifically, Montt ( 2011 ) examined more than 50 school systems, including Finland, in the 2006 cycle of PISA and found that greater homogeneity in teacher quality decreased variability in opportunities to learn within school systems, potentially mitigating educational inequality in achievement.

By contrast, Hong Kong has a relatively high-income disparity compared to other societies (Hong Kong Economy 2010 ). However, the relationship between socioeconomic status and mathematics achievement was found to be the lowest among the education systems participating in the 2012 cycle of PISA (Ho 2010 ; Kalaycıoğlu 2015 ). This suggests that, despite diversity in their SES background, most students from Hong Kong access and benefit from the education system equally. Hong Kong’s high performance in reading, mathematics, and science also suggests the average basic education is of high quality (Ho 2010 ).

However, in many other countries with heterogeneous education systems, educational inequality has manifested itself primarily through the stratification of schools on the basis of socioeconomic composition, resource allocation, or locale. For example, unlike schooling in many other countries, public schooling policies in the United States are highly localized. Local property taxes partially finance public schools, school assignments for students depend on their local residence, and neighborhoods are often divided by racial and socioeconomic background (Echenique et al. 2006 ; Iceland and Wilkes 2006 ). Cheema and Galluzzo ( 2013 ) confirmed the persistence of gender, racial, and socioeconomic gaps in mathematics achievement in the United States using PISA data from its 2003 cycle. Inequalities in children’s academic outcomes in the United States are substantial, as children begin school on unequal terms and differences accumulate as they get older (Lareau 2011 ; Lee and Burkam 2002 ).

In Lithuania, there has also been a growing awareness that an ineffectively organized or poorly functioning system of formal youth education increases the social and economic divide and the social exclusion of certain groups (Gudynas 2003 ). To ensure the accessibility and quality of educational services in Lithuania, special attention has traditionally been paid to a student’s residential location. Gudynas ( 2003 ) suggested that the achievement of pupils in rural schools in Lithuania was lower than that of pupils in urban schools, with the difference being largely explained by the level of parental education in rural areas, which was on average lower than that of urban parents. Similarly, in New Zealand, residential location is considered to be a barrier to educational equality. Kennedy ( 2015 ) observed that students residing in rural residential areas on average tend to have lower SES than those in urban areas, and receive a considerably shorter education than their counterparts living in urban centers, thereby promoting SES disparities in access to education.

In the Russian Federation, Kliucharev and Kofanova ( 2005 ) noted that the inequality between well-off and low-income individuals regarding access to education has been increasing since the turn of the century. According to Kosaretsky et al. ( 2016 ), the greatest inequality in educational access in the Russian Federation was observed in the 1990s, where the rising number of educational inequalities was largely determined by the accelerating socioeconomic stratification of the population, as well as significant budget cuts to education. Although the state articulated policies aiming for universal equality of educational opportunities, they argued that the policies were not implemented with the required financial and organizational support. As a result, in the immediate post-Soviet era, the Russian Federation has observed increasing educational inequality and some loss of achievement compared to the Soviet period.

A final example is Hungary. Horn et al. ( 2006 ) noted that OECD’s PISA studies in the early 2000s highlighted the need for the Hungarian school system to improve both in effectiveness and equality. They contended that achievement gaps among schools make the Hungarian education system one of the most unequal among the participating countries in the PISA 2000 and 2003 cycles. The variation in performance between schools in Hungary is alarmingly large, about twice the OECD average between-school variance (OECD 2004 ). By contrast, the within-school variance is less pronounced, suggesting that students tend to be grouped in schools with others sharing similar characteristics. In other words, students’ achievement gaps seemingly mirror the differences in socioeconomic backgrounds of students across different schools (OECD 2001 , 2004 ). In recent years, persistent education performance gaps with regard to socioeconomic background of students have been observed in Hungary, with 23% of the variation in students’ mathematics performance being explained by differences in their SES background, well above the average of 15% for OECD countries (OECD 2015 ).

2.3.2 Centralized Versus Decentralized

In addition to differences in homogeneity, education systems can be classified as centralized or decentralized. A centralized education system is one that would have centralized education funding (e.g., at the national level) across the education system with little local autonomy, while in decentralized education systems, municipalities oversee school funding for both public and private schools (Böhlmark and Lindahl 2008 ; Oppedisano and Turati 2015 ). Centralization generally leads to the standardization of curriculum, instruction, and central examinations in an education system, and can be helpful in reducing inequalities since it mitigates the influence of a student’s family background (Van de Wefhorst and Mijs 2010 ). By contrast, high levels of decentralization can create greater disparities between schools, especially when the level of funding is determined by the local context (Mostafa 2011 ).

Sweden is an example of a decentralized education system that was centralized until the implementation of wide-reaching reforms in the early 1990s (Hansen et al. 2011 ). The previously centralized Swedish school system has been thoroughly transformed into a highly decentralized and deregulated one, with a growing number of independent schools and parental autonomy in school choice (Björklund et al. 2005 ). Concurrently, examining multi-level effects of SES on reading achievement using data from IEA’s Reading Literacy Study from 1991 and PIRLS data from 1991 to 2001, the SES effect appears to have increased in Sweden over time, with between-school differences being greater in 2001 than in 1991, suggesting school SES has a strong effect (Hansen et al. 2011 ).

Similarly, there has also been growing debate about educational inequality in the Republic of Korea in recent years. By analyzing grade eight TIMSS data from the 1999, 2003, and 2007 cycles of the assessment, Byun and Kim ( 2010 ) found the contribution of SES background on student achievement had increased over time. They suspected the higher educational inequality might be related to various factors, including a widening income gap and recent educational reforms geared toward school choice, as well as increased streaming by academic ability and curriculum differentiation created by a decentralized education system.

Researchers have found evidence to support the view that decentralized education systems in developed countries perform better than centralized systems in terms of reducing students’ achievement inequality (see, e.g., Rodríguez-Pose and Ezcurra 2010 ). Conversely, Causa and Chapuis ( 2009 ) used PISA data for the OECD countries to confirm that decentralized school systems were positively associated with equity in educational achievement. Furthermore, according to PISA 2000 and 2006, in European countries inequality in educational outcomes has apparently declined in decentralized school systems, while it has concomitantly increased in centralized systems (Oppedisano and Turati 2015 ).

Mullis et al. ( 2016 ) argued that efficiency and equality can work together. They found that many countries have improved their TIMSS national averages while also reducing the achievement gap between low- and high-performing students. Similarly, an analysis using TIMSS scores from 1999 and 2007 discovered a prominent inverse relation between the within-country dispersion of scores and the average TIMSS performance by country (Freeman et al. 2010 ; Mullis et al. 2016 ). The pursuit of educational equality does not have to be attained at the expense of equity and efficiency.

In conclusion, the positive association between family background and children’s achievement is universal. However, the magnitude of such associations depend on the social context and education system. In other words, the achievement gap between students from different backgrounds is more pronounced in education systems where overall inequality (e.g., income inequality) is strong. Narrowing the achievement gap is a common goal for most education systems. But it is well understood that stagnant scores for low-SES students and declines in the scores of high-SES students should not be seen as an avenue for enhancing equality. Rather, education systems should strive for equality by improving the performance of all students while focusing on improving the achievement of low-SES students at a faster rate to reduce gaps in achievement (Mullis et al. 2016 ). In recognition of this, our study not only focuses on how inequalities in educational outcomes relate to socioeconomic status over time for select participating education systems in TIMSS but also tracks the performance of low-SES* Footnote 2 students separately. In order to make a comparable trend analysis, we first constructed a consistent measure of family SES* based on a modified version of the TIMSS HER. Chapter 3 describes the data and methods used in the study and Chap. 4 presents the trends in SES* achievement gaps of the 13 education systems that participated in three cycles of TIMSS, including the 1995 and 2015 cycles.

Note that family socioeconomic status is clearly related to Bourdieu’s theory of capital in the empirical world. Conceptually, however, they do not equate with each other.

The SES measure used in this study is a modified version of the TIMSS home educational resources (HER) index and does not represent the full SES construct, as usually defined by parental education, family income, and parental occupation. In this report, we therefore term our measure SES* to denote the conceptual difference (Please refer to Chap. 1 for more details).

APA. (2018). Socioeconomic status . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/

Barone, C. (2006). Cultural capital, ambition and the explanation of inequalities in learning outcomes: A comparative analysis. Sociology, 40 (6), 1039–1058.

Article   Google Scholar  

Björklund, A., Clark, M. A., Edin, P.-A., Fredriksson, P., & Krueger, A. (2005). The market comes to education in Sweden: An evaluation of Sweden’s surprising school reforms . London: Russell Sage Foundation.

Google Scholar  

Bofah, E. A., & Hannula, M. S. (2017). Home resources as a measure of socio-economic status in Ghana. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5 (1), 1–15.

Böhlmark, A., & Lindahl, M. (2008). Does school privatization improve education achievement? Evidence from Sweden’s Voucher Reform . IZA Discussion paper no. 3691. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp3691.pdf

Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2014). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development . Abingdon: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education . New York: Greenwood.

Brese, F., & Mirazchiyski, P. (2013 ). Measuring students’ family background in large-scale international education studies. Issues and methodologies in large-scale assessments. Special issue 2. IERI Monograph series. Hamburg: IERI. Retrieved from http://www.ierinstitute.org/fileadmin/Documents/IERI_Monograph/Special_Issue_2/10_IERI_Special_Issue_2_complete.pdf

Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring family background in international studies of education: Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In National Research Council (Ed.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 150–197). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/10322

Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeconomic gap in student achievement. Research in Sociology of Education, 17 , 155–182.

Causa, O., & Chapuis, C. (2009). Equity in student achievement across OECD countries: An investigation of the role of policies . OECD Economics Department working papers no.708. Paris: OECD.

Cheema, J. R., & Galluzzo, G. (2013). Analyzing the gender gap in math achievement: Evidence from a large-scale US sample. Research in Education, 90 , 98–112.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1) Supplement. Organizations and institutions: Sociological and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure, pp. 95–120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47 (2), 258–291.

Cuff, N. B. (1934). The vectors of socio-economic status. Peabody Journal of Education, 12 (3), 114–117.

Echenique, F., Fryer, R. G., Jr., & Kaufman, A. (2006). Is school segregation good or bad? American Economic Review, 96 (2), 265–269.

Freeman, R. B., Machin, S., & Viarengo, M. (2010). Variation in educational outcomes and policies across countries and of schools within countries . NBER Working paper series no. 16293. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16293

Gudynas, P. (2003). Education and social inclusion in Lithuania. Prospects, 33 (1), 63–76.

Hansen, K. Y., Rosén, M., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2011). Changes in the multi-level effects of socio-economic status on reading achievement in Sweden in 1991 and 2001. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55 (2), 197–211.

Ho, E. S. (2010). Assessing the quality and equality of Hong Kong basic education results from PISA 2000+ to PISA 2006. Frontiers of Education in China, 5 (2), 238–257.

Hong Kong Economy. (2010). Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient compared with other economies . The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Special Topics, Research Notes. Retrieved from https://www.hkeconomy.gov.hk/en/pdf/gini_comparison.pdf

Horn, D., Balázsi, I., Takács, S., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Tracking and inequality of learning outcomes in Hungarian secondary schools. Prospects, 36 (4), 433–446.

Iceland, J., & Wilkes, R. (2006). Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Social Problems, 53 (2), 248–273.

Kalaycıoğlu, D. B. (2015). The influence of socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and anxiety on mathematics achievement in England, Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the USA. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15 (5), 1391–1401.

Keeves, J. P., & Saha, L. J. (1992). Home background factors and educational outcomes. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), The IEA Study of Science III: changes in science education and achievement: 1970–1984 (pp. 165–186). Oxford: Pergamon.

Kell, M., & Kell, P. (2010). International testing: Measuring global standards or reinforcing inequalities. The International Journal of Learning, 17 (9), 486–501.

Kennedy, C. M. (2015). Lessons from outside the classroom: What can New Zealand learn from the long Chilean winter? Asia Pacific View Point, 56 (1), 169–181.

Kliucharev, G. A., & Kofanova, E. N. (2005). On the dynamics of the educational behavior of well-off and low-income Russians. Russian Education and Society, 47 (11), 22–36.

Kosaretsky, S., Grunicheva, I., & Goshin, M. (2016). Russian education policy from the late 1980s through the early 2000s. Russian Education and Society, 58 (11), 732–756.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60 (2), 73–85.

Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Liberatos, P., Link, B. G., & Kelsey, J. L. (1988). The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiologic Reviews, 10 (1), 87–121.

Mikiewicz, P., Torfi, J., Gudmundsson, J. G., Blondal, K. S., & Korczewska, D. M. (2011). Social capital and education: Comparative research between Poland and Iceland, final report . Wroclaw: University of Lower Silesia.

Montt, G. (2011). Cross-national differences in educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Education, 84 (1), 49–68.

Mostafa, T. (2011). Decomposing inequalities in performance scores: The role of student background, peer effects and school characteristics. International Review of Education, 56 , 567–589.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 Years of TIMSS: International trends in mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction . Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from: http://timss2015.org/timss2015/wp-content/uploads/2016/T15-20-years-of-TIMSS.pdf

Musu-Gillette, L. (2016). Challenges, changes, and current practices for measuring student socioeconomic status. National Center for Educational Statistics Blog. Washington, DC: NCES. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/challenges-changes-and-current-practices-for-measuring-student-socioeconomic-status

NCES (Ed.). (2012). Improving the measurement of socioeconomic status for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: A theoretical foundation. Recommendations to the National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: NCES. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542101.pdf

Oppedisano, V., & Turati, G. (2015). What are the causes of educational inequality and of its evolution over time in Europe? Evidence from PISA. Education Economics, 23 (1), 3–24.

OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000 . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003 . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2015). Government performance and the education system in Hungary. In OECD (Ed.). Government at a glance: How Hungary compares . Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233720-en

Ornstein, A. C. (2010). Achievement gaps in education. Social Science and Public Policy, 47 , 424–429.

Perks, T. (2012). Physical capital and the embodied nature of income inequality: Gender differences in the effect of body size on workers’ incomes in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, 40 (1), 1–25.

Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ezcurra, R. (2010). Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 10 (5), 619–644.

Rogošić, S., & Baranović, B. (2016). Social capital and educational achievements: Coleman versus Bourdieu. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6 (2), 81–100.

Shavit, Y., & Blossfeld, H. (1993). Persistent inequality: Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries . Boulder, CO: Westview.

Sims, V. M. (1927). The measurement of socioeconomic status . Bloomington, IL: Public School Printing.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 417–453.

Taussig, F. W. (1920). Principles of Economics . Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Tittenbrun, J. (2016). Concepts of capital in Pierre Bourdieu’s theory. Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica, 17 (1), 81–103.

Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36 , 407–428.

Yang, Y. (2003). Dimensions of socio-economic status and their relationship to mathematics and science achievement at individual and collective levels. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1), 21–41.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

American Institutes for Reserach, Washington, DC, USA

Markus Broer, Yifan Bai & Frank Fonseca

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Broer, M., Bai, Y., Fonseca, F. (2019). A Review of the Literature on Socioeconomic Status and Educational Achievement. In: Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes. IEA Research for Education, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1_2

Published : 16 May 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-11990-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-11991-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 30 January 2018

What has economics got to do with it? The impact of socioeconomic factors on mental health and the case for collective action

• Anna Macintyre 1 ,
• Daniel Ferris 2 ,
• Briana Gonçalves 3 &
• Neil Quinn 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  4 , Article number:  10 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

58k Accesses

54 Citations

96 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Social policy

A clear link exists between social and economic inequality and poor mental health. There is a social gradient in mental health, and higher levels of income inequality are linked to higher prevalence of mental illness. Despite this, in the late 20th and early 21st century, psychiatric and psychological perspectives have dominated mental health research and policy, obscuring root socioeconomic contributors. Drawing on contemporary research on the social determinants of mental health, with particular reference to Europe and the U.S., this paper argues that a sharper focus on socioeconomic factors is required in research and policy to address inequalities in mental health. Current attempts to move this direction include: evaluation of the impact of economic policies on mental health, community-based partnerships, increased professional awareness and advocacy on socioeconomic factors. This necessitates greater understanding of the barriers to such actions. This paper argues that advancing ‘upstream’ approaches to population mental health requires an interdisciplinary research vision that supports greater understanding of the role of socioeconomic factors. It also demands collective cross-sectoral action through changes in social and economic policy, as well as economic frameworks that move beyond an exclusive focus on economic growth to embrace collective and societal wellbeing.

The importance of socioeconomic factors for mental health

'Economics is the mother tongue of public policy, the language of public life, and the mindset that shapes society' (Raworth, 2017 , p. 6)

Growing evidence connects economic inequality and poor mental health (Friedli, 2009 ; Pickett and Wilkinson, 2010 ; Platt et al., 2017 ). Experience of socioeconomic disadvantage, including unemployment, low income, poverty, debt and poor housing, is consistently associated with poorer mental health (Silva et al., 2016 ; Elliott, 2016 ; Platt et al., 2017 ; Friedli, 2009 , Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ). Mental health problems are particularly prominent amongst marginalised groups experiencing social exclusion, discrimination and trauma, leading to compound vulnerability (Rafferty et al., 2015 ). Greater inequality within societies is associated with greater prevalence of mental illness (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009 ; Pickett and Wilkinson, 2010 ), and economic recessions have had devastating impacts on population mental health (Platt et al., 2017 ; Wahlbeck and McDaid, 2012 ). At a global level, mental health and substance use disorders account for between one fifth and almost one third of Years Lived with Disability (Whiteford et al., 2013 ; Vigo et al., 2016 ). At the same time there is increasing interest in how to promote positive mental health at a societal level (Friedli, 2009 ; Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ; Hanlon and Carlisle, 2013 ).

However, the dominance of medical, psychiatric and psychological perspectives on mental health from the 1970s onwards has distracted from socioeconomic factors (Smith, 2016b ; Shim et al., 2014 ). Drawing on contemporary research on the social determinants of mental health, with particular reference to Europe and the U.S., this paper argues that a sharper focus on socioeconomic factors is required in research and policy to address inequalities in mental health.

Contemporary research on socioeconomic determinants of mental health

'Today, in the wake of the global economic slowdown, rising rates of mental illness and disaffection with psychopharmacology, the idea that there are social determinants of mental health is taking root once more'. (Smith, 2016b , p. 9)

There is growing interest across disciplines in understanding and addressing the social determinants of mental health (Friedli, 2009 ; Fisher and Baum, 2010 ; Bowen and Walton, 2015 ; Kinderman, 2016 ; Compton and Shim, 2015 ; Smith, 2016b ; Silva et al., 2016 ). This sits alongside increased attention to public mental health, and the promotion of positive societal well-being (Wahlbeck, 2015 ; Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ; Hanlon and Carlisle, 2013 ). The role of psychosocial factors and chronic stress has also been emphasised in understanding health inequalities (Fisher and Baum, 2010 ; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2017 ). Furthermore, stigma (a ubiquitous component of mental health difficulties), has been recognised as a fundamental cause of health inequalities (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2013 ).

However, within the broad literature on the social determinants of mental health, to what extent are socio-economic factors considered? There is consistent evidence supporting the link between socioeconomic inequality in terms of income, employment, and neighbourhood environments and poorer mental health outcomes (Silva et al., 2016 ). At an ecological level, a significant relationship has been shown between higher income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) and higher incidence rates of schizophrenia (Burns et al., 2014 ). In addition, the connection between experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and increased risk of suicidal behaviour has also been established (Platt et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, the association between educational inequalities and mental health outcomes may be attenuated by controlling for employment status, indicating the importance of employment for mental health (Katikireddi et al., 2016 ). At a community level, low socioeconomic status may lead to greater concerns about neighbourhood safety, and decrease the amount of physical activity in the community, with consequent impacts on mental health (Meyer et al., 2014 ). A focus on socioeconomic factors may also link with ideas of social capital or community efficacy, measures of trust and commitment by residents to a neighbourhood (Platt et al., 2017 ), which have been linked to rates of depression, suicide, and internalising behaviours (Schmidt et al., 2014 ).

Many argue for a renewed focus on social justice, advocating for the significance of socioeconomic factors for mental health (Friedli, 2009 ; Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ). The impact of material and economic conditions and consumerism on population wellbeing is also recognised (Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ; Friedli, 2009 ). From a U.S. perspective, Jones et al. ( 2009 ) offer a theoretical framework to identify the social determinants of inequity shaped by systems of power and the distribution of resources, including an economic system that creates class structures and dimensions of opportunity (Jones et al., 2009 ). In addition, disparities in education and income play a major role in understanding racial difference in health and mental health (Williams et al., 1997 ). Krieger et al. ( 1997 ) argue that social class, at the household and community level, predicts inequalities in health (Krieger et al., 1997 ), and the role of economic inequality, poverty, and deprivation is implicated in poor mental health in the United States (Compton and Shim, 2015 ; Manseau, 2015 ).

Despite this, in comparison with biomedical, neuropsychiatric and psychological literature, the social determinants of mental health are strikingly understudied (Shim et al., 2014 ). In Europe, research on the prevention of poor mental health has received a comparatively low level of investment (Wykes et al., 2015 ). In the United States, funding of prevention constitutes a notoriously small percentage of overall healthcare expenditures (Miller et al., 2012 ). Yet the economic cost of treatment and lost productivity related to mental health and substance use disorder is well documented. While the National Institute for Mental Health named prevention as a core objective in its strategic plan for research (National Institute for Mental Health, 2015 ), there is not a clear picture of the scope and scale of investment in mental health prevention across government and philanthropy. It is likely there has been even less investment in research on the social determinants of mental health, and socioeconomic factors in particular. Thus, there is a need for greater research capacity (Wahlbeck and McDaid, 2012 ).

Moving from evidence to action: policy, communities and practice

'levels of mental distress among communities need to be understood less in terms of individual pathology and more as a response to relative deprivation and social injustice' (Friedli, 2009 , p.III)

However, it is not only further evidence on the link between economic inequality and mental health that is required, but also action to address it (Smith, 2016b ). This may require a shift from addressing individuals’ psychological states to a focus on social justice and broader economic conditions. Current attempts to move this direction include action in policy, communities and service provision.

In policy, this agenda was advanced by a World Health Organisation report in 2014, which highlighted the social determinants of mental health at an international level (World Health Organization, 2014 ). In Europe, the Joint Action on Mental Health has championed a focus on ‘Mental Health in All Policies’, which promotes action in non-health policy areas including employment and welfare (EU Directorate General for Health and Food Safety, 2015 ). Evidence is beginning to accumulate on relevant policy actions, including labour market regulation (Katikireddi et al., 2016 ) and part-time sickness absence (EU Directorate General for Health and Food Safety, 2015 ), investment in social protection (Niedzwiedz et al., 2016 ), and protective employment policies (Platt et al., 2017 ). In the United States, better population health outcomes have also been found in states with more progressive policies such as minimum wage and corporate tax rates (Rigby and Hatch, 2016 ). It has also been raised that a Universal Basic Income might positively impact on population mental health (Smith, 2016b ). Whilst there is evidence for interventions which can lessen the impact of poverty and inequality on mental health, including interventions aimed at the individual or family level (e.g., parenting interventions), evidence is more limited on community interventions or on cross-sectoral action on policies (Wahlbeck et al., 2017 ).

At a community level, the expansion of the Community Schools model in the U.S., which provides children in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, with access to health services (medical, dental, vision and counselling services), brings more holistic attention to the education and healthy development of children (Oakes and Daniel, 2017 ). Education policies that recognise structural inequalities show promise to close the economic and achievement gap. Additionally, New York City has launched Thrive NYC, a comprehensive city-based mental health plan to reduce stigma, intervene early, and improve access to services (NYC Thrive, 2016 ). Encouraging partnership and reducing silos, a major component of the initiative, has linked community based organisations serving the most socially and economically disadvantaged populations with mental health providers to increase access to mental health and substance use services (Chapman et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, efforts at a community level which promote social capital are promoted as a buffer against the impact of socioeconomic factors (Wahlbeck and McDaid, 2012 ).

At the level of service provision, there are moves to increase professional awareness and advocacy on the social determinants of mental health (Compton and Shim, 2015 , Shim et al., 2014 ). This may include a focus on social justice and socioeconomic factors in therapeutic work. Kinderman argues 'practical help to resolve real-world issues such as debt, employment issues, housing problems and domestic violence' may be important roles for clinicians (Kinderman, 2016 , p. 4). Shim et al. ( 2014 ) also suggest that mental health professionals have an advocacy role to influence public policies that impact on mental health (Shim et al., 2014 ). Bowen and Walton argue that there is a role for social workers in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in mental health (Bowen and Walton, 2015 ). One relevant example from the U.K. is the work of Psychologists Against Austerity, who have campaigned on the mental health impact of welfare policies (McGrath et al., 2016 ).

Trying to focus ‘upstream’: barriers to action on socioeconomic factors

'We are failing on health equity because we are failing on equity' (Braveman, 2012 , p. 515)

A distinction is often made between 'upstream societal influences' (which can include living and working conditions and wider societal structures) and 'downstream risk factors' (which include behaviours such as smoking or drinking as well as biological risk factors) (Graham, 2009 , p. 472). To effectively take action on socioeconomic factors and mental health, there is a need for awareness of what might pull research and policy ‘downstream’ (Douglas, 2016 ; Graham, 2009 ). These barriers might include the dominance of the current economic paradigm, a focus on psychological or community resilience, ignoring factors like structural racism, or the challenges of mental health care provision.

In health inequalities research it is argued that an exclusive focus on health may over-medicalise the issue, veiling the fundamental problem of social inequality (Lynch, 2017 ; Douglas, 2016 ). It is stated that efforts should include awareness of the socioeconomic and political contexts which generate health inequalities, particularly the influence of neoliberalism (Smith et al., 2016a ; Collins et al., 2016 ) Such arguments are equally salient to mental health. However, focusing ‘upstream’ presents challenges given that the dominant neoliberal paradigm 'actively embraces inequality' (Collins et al., 2016 , p. 129). This may point to confronting the current inequitable economic paradigm and considering alternatives to economic growth that incorporate broader social and environmental concerns (Fioramonti, 2016 ; Raworth, 2017 ). A sharper focus on fundamental inequalities, and the economic system which underpins them, may be critical to addressing the ‘upstream’ influences on mental health.

It has also been argued that it may be problematic to focus on psychological or community assets and strengths, and social capital, as this may mask a focus on socioeconomic factors, which are fundamental causes of distress (Friedli, 2016; Rogers and Pilgrim, 2010 ; Knifton, 2015 ). Indeed, Friedli argues: 'Choosing psycho -analysis over economic analysis has serious consequences for how public health explains and responds to issues of social justice' (Friedli, 2016 , p. 216, original emphasis). This argument may be particularly relevant for mental health, where psychological conceptualisations may predominate. Within a neoliberal policy framework, there is the danger of endorsing individualistic conceptualisations of complex social and economic problems, where the predominant biomedical model has often resulted in a systematic neglect of the impact of social and structural barriers experienced by people with poor mental health (Bayetti et al., 2016 ; Friedli, 2016 ). Thus, whilst the relevance of psychosocial factors is recognised, it is important to increase the salience of social and economic inequalities which generate inequalities in mental health at a population level.

Furthermore, it is critical to consider race and ethnicity (Lynch and Perera, 2017 ). While racism has been identified as a social determinant of health, there is a significant lack of research or policy to address it (Bailey et al., 2017 ; Rafferty et al., 2015 ). Advancing policies to tackle structural racism may have significant implications for population mental health. Despite having distinct healthcare systems and ideologies on healthcare access, both the U.S. and U.K. have significant health inequalities by race and ethnicity (Bailey et al., 2017 ; Department of Health, 2009 ). Research on mental health and racial discrimination has largely considered interpersonal discrimination, not structural racism and the link to inequalities (Bailey et al., 2017 ). While increased funding and resources for mental health services and prevention is needed, greater attention must be given to addressing structural racism that leads to inequalities in education, employment, and mental health.

Finally, the need to ensure adequate mental health care provision is a pressing concern in both Europe and the U.S. Indeed, many OECD countries face ongoing challenges regarding adequate levels of resourcing for mental health services (Wahlbeck and McDaid, 2012 ). Current healthcare policy debates in the U.S. threaten progress in increasing the number of insured individuals as well as what services they can receive. Current debate, focused on insurance access and eligibility, is troublingly void of a focus on prevention or addressing social determinants and structural racism. In fact, while mental health care access improved following implementation of the Affordable Care Act, there was no progress in reducing racial and ethnic disparities (Creedon and Le Cook, 2016 ). While advocates and researchers are pulled toward policy and legislative fights over healthcare provision, larger macro issues impacting health and mental health, i.e. social determinants, are lost. Negotiating space for dialogue on the importance of prevention, alongside service provision, will be crucial.

Conclusions: taking collective action

Smith ( 2016b ) argues that a focus on socioeconomic factors and mental health is not new, but had previously gained ground in the early 20th century (Smith, 2016b ). As a renewed interest emerges in the current context, there are increasing calls for collective actions (Kinderman, 2016 ) and inter-disciplinary and inter-sectoral approaches, which re-invigorate a focus on fundamental socioeconomic inequalities and social justice (Friedli, 2009 ; Braveman, 2012 ).

Encouragingly, the growing body of research on socioeconomic factors and social determinants of health is narrowing in on mental health. Diagnosing problems, however, is not enough. Evidence on policy actions and a collective appreciation of issues that prevent upstream approaches is also needed: structural barriers including racism and discrimination, the medicalising of population mental health, access and quality of services, and ultimately the economic system itself.

To advance upstream approaches will require an inter-disciplinary research vision which extends beyond biomedical, neuropsychiatric and psychological models of mental health, and which supports greater understanding of the role of socioeconomic factors and economics. It will necessitate bold cross-sectoral policy action including changes to wider social and economic policies such as social protection, taxation, employment and housing policy, as well as health policy. Given the ubiquity and influence of economics, this agenda should be supported by the advancement of paradigms that move beyond an exclusive focus on economic growth (Raworth, 2017 ; Fioramonti, 2016 ), and which appreciate the importance of collective and societal wellbeing (Knifton, 2015 ).

Population mental health is intimately connected to societal economic conditions. The (poor) mental health of modern societies offers a stark indication of the consequences of not taking action: 'economic growth at the cost of social recession' (Friedli, 2009 , p. IV). Socioeconomic inequality may be 'the enemy between us' (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2017 , p. 11), increasing status competition, undermining the quality of social relations, increasing stress and impacting on health, mental health, and wellbeing. In response to this, there is a need to build an economic system that tackles these inequalities in mental health.

Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agenor M, Graves J et al. (2017) Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet 389:1453–1463

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bayetti C, Jadhavb S, Jainc S (2016) The Re-covering self: a critique of the recovery-based approach in India’s mental health care. Disabil Glob South 3:889–909

Google Scholar  

Bowen EA, Walton QL (2015) Disparities and the social determinants of mental health and addictions: opportunities for a multifaceted social work response. Health Soc Work 40:E59–E65

Article   Google Scholar  

Braveman P (2012) We are failing on health equity because we are failing on equity. Aust N Z J Public Health 36:515–515

Burns JK, Tomita A, Kapadia AS (2014) Income inequality and schizophrenia: Increased schizophrenia incidence in countries with high levels of income inequality. Int J Social Psychiatr 60:185–196

Chapman E, Chung H, Pincus HA (2017) Using a continuum-based framework for behavioral health integration into primary care in New York state. Psychiatr Serv 68:756–758

Collins C, McCartney G, Garnham L (2016) Neoliberalism and health inequalities. In: Smith KE, Hill S, Bambra C (eds) Health inequalities: critical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Compton MT, Shim RS (2015) Social determinants of mental health. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington

Creedon TB, Le Cook B (2016) Access to mental health care increased but not for substance use, while disparities remain. Health Aff 35:1017–1021

Department of Health (2009) Tackling health inequalities: 10 years on—a review of developments in tackling health inequalities in England over the last 10 years. Department of Health, London

Douglas M (2016) Beyond ‘health’: why don’t we tackle the cause of health inequalities? In: Smith KE, Hill S, Bambra C (eds) Health inequalities: critical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

EU Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (2015) Joint action on mental health and well-being. Mental Health in all Policies—situation analysis and recommendations for action. http://www.mentalhealthandwellbeing.eu/assets/docs/publications/MHiAP%20Final.pdf . Accessed 20 Jul 2017

Elliott I (2016) Poverty and mental health: A review to inform the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Anti-Poverty Strategy. Mental Health Foundation, London

Fioramonti L (2016) A post-GDP world? Rethinking international politics in the 21(st) century. Glob Policy 7:15–24

Fisher M, Baum F (2010) The social determinants of mental health: implications for research and health promotion. Aust NZ J Psychiatr 44:1057–1063

Friedli L (2009) Mental health, resilience and inequalities. World Health Organization, Copenhagen

Friedli L (2016) The politics of tackling inequalities: The rise of psychological fundamentalism in public health and welfare reform. In: Smith KE, Hill S, Bambra C (eds) Health inequalities: critical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Graham H (2009) Health inequalities, social determinants and public health policy. Policy & Polit 37:463–479

Hanlon P, Carlisle S (2013) Positive mental health and wellbeing: connecting individual, social and global levels of wellbeing. In: Knifton L, Quinn N (eds) Public mental health: global perspectives. Open University Press, Maidenhead

Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG (2013) Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am J Public Health 103:813–821

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jones CP, J C, Perry GS, Barclay G, Jones CA (2009) Addressing the social determinants of children’s health: a cliff analogy. J Health Care Poor Under 20:1–12

Katikireddi SV, Niedzwiedz CL, Popham F (2016) Employment status and income as potential mediators of educational inequalities in population mental health. Eur J Public Health 26:814–816

Kinderman P (2016) Knots and black holes: why we are all prone to madness and what we can do about it. Palgrave Commun 2:16074. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.74

Knifton L (2015) Collective wellbeing in public mental health. Perspect Public Health 135:24–26

Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE (1997) Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 18:341–378

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lynch J (2017) Reframing inequality? The health inequalities turn as a dangerous frame shift J Public Health 39:1–8

Lynch JF, Perera IM (2017) Framing Health Equity: US health disparities in comparative perspective J Health Polit Policy Law 42:803–839

Manseau MW (2015) Economic inequality, poverty and neighbourhood deprivation. In: Compton MT, Shim RS (eds) The social determinants of mental health. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington

McGrath L, Griffin V, Mundy E (2016) The Psychological Impact of Austerity. A briefing paper. Educational Psychology Research and Practice 2:46–57

Meyer OL, Castro-Schilo L, Aguilar-Gaxiola S (2014) Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: a model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity. Am J Public Health 104:1734–1741

Miller G, Roehrig C, Hughes-Cromwick P, Turner A (2012) What is currently spent on prevention as compared to treatment?. In: Faust H, M P (eds) Prevention vs. treatment: what’s the right balance?. Oxford University Press, New York

National Institute of Mental Health (NIOM) (2015) Strategic objective 3. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/strategic-objective-3.shtml

Niedzwiedz CL, Mitchell RJ, Shortt NK, Pearce JR (2016) Social protection spending and inequalities in depressive symptoms across Europe. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 51:1005–1014

NYC Thrive (2016) Thrive NYC. A roadmap for mental health for all. https://thrivenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ThriveNYC.pdf

Oakes J, Maier A, Daniel J (2017) Community schools: an evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. National Education Policy Center, Boulder, CO

Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG (2010) Inequality: an underacknowledged source of mental illness and distress. Br J Psychiatr 197:426–428

Platt S, Stace S, Morrissey J (eds) (2017) Dying From Inequality: Socioeconomic Distadvantage and Suicidal Behaviour. Samaritans, London

Rafferty JA, Abelson JM, Bryant K, Jackson JS (2015) Discrimination. In: Compton MT, Shim RS (ed) The Social Determinants of Mental Health. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington

Raworth K (2017) Doughnut economics. Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Random House Business Books, London

Rigby E, Hatch ME (2016) Incorporating economic policy into a ‘health-in-all-policies’ agenda. Health Aff 35:2044–2052

Rogers A, Pilgrim D (2010) A sociology of mental health and illness. Open University Press, Maidenhead

Schmidt NM, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Ehntholt A, Almeida J, Nguyen QC, Molnar BE, Azrael D, Osypuk TL (2014) Does neighborhood collective efficacy for families change over time? The Boston Neighborhood Survey. J Commun Psychol 42:61–79

Shim R, Koplan C, Langheim FJP, Manseau MW et al. (2014) The social determinants of mental health: an overview and call to action. Psychiatr Ann 44:22–26

Silva M, Loureiro A, Cardoso G (2016) Social determinants of mental health: a review of the evidence. Eur J Psychiatry 30:259–292

Smith KE, Hill S, Bambra C (eds) (2016a) Conclusion—where next for advocates, researchers, and policymakers trying to tackle health inequalities? In: Health inequalities. Critical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Smith M (2016b) A fine balance: individualism, society and the prevention of mental illness in the United States, 1945–1968. Palgrave Commun 2. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.24

Vigo D, Thornicroft G, Atun R (2016) Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. Lancet Psychiatr 3:171–178

Wahlbeck K (2015) Public mental health: the time is ripe for translation of evidence into practice. World Psychiatr 14:36–42

Wahlbeck K, Cresswell-Smith J, Haaramo P, Parkkonen J (2017) Interventions to mitigate the effects of poverty and inequality on mental health. Soc Psychiatr Psychiatr Epidemiol 52:505–514

Wahlbeck K, McDaid D (2012) Actions to alleviate the mental health impact of the economic crisis. World Psychiatr 11:139–145

Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ et al. (2013) Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 382:1575–1586

Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The Spirit level. Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin Books, London

Wilkinson RG, Pickett KE (2017) The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. Eur J Soc Psychol 47:11–24

Williams DR, Y Y, Jackson JS, Anderson NB (1997) Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. J Health Psychol 2:335–351

World Health Organization and Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (WHOCG) (2014) Social determinants of mental health. World Health Organization, Geneva

Wykes T, Haro JM, Belli SR, Obradors-Tarrago C et al. (2015) Mental health research priorities for Europe. Lancet Psychiatr 2:1036–1042

Download references

Acknowledgements

The collaboration for this paper was made possible by a European Union funded Horizon 2020 RISE project ‘Citizenship, Recovery and Inclusive Society Partnership’ ( www.crisppartnership.eu) . This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement, No 690954. The views in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors. The Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Health Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Anna Macintyre & Neil Quinn

Brown School of Social Work at Washington University; Envolve Center for Health Behavior Change, St. Louis, MO, USA

Daniel Ferris

McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research at New York University Silver School of Social Work, New York, NY, USA

Briana Gonçalves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Macintyre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Macintyre, A., Ferris, D., Gonçalves, B. et al. What has economics got to do with it? The impact of socioeconomic factors on mental health and the case for collective action. Palgrave Commun 4 , 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0063-2

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2017

Accepted : 19 December 2017

Published : 30 January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0063-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Longitudinal microstructural changes in 18 amygdala nuclei resonate with cortical circuits and phenomics.

• Karam Ghanem
• Karin Saltoun
• Danilo Bzdok

Communications Biology (2024)

Emotional and Financial Stressors in New York City During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consecutive Cross-Sectional Analysis

• David J. Heller
• Devin Madden
• Nita Vangeepuram

Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (2024)

Period poverty and mental health in a representative sample of young women in Barcelona, Spain

• Marga Marí-Klose
• Albert Julià
• Pedro Gallo

BMC Women's Health (2023)

Longitudinal mediating effect of social capital on the relationship between public housing and mental health: evidence from South Korea

• In Kwon Park

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (2023)

Longitudinal evidence on the development of socioeconomic inequalities in mental health due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway

• Bjørn-Atle Reme
• Jonathan Wörn
• Vegard Skirbekk

Scientific Reports (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

15 Socioeconomic Status Examples (Top Influencing Factors)

Socioeconomic status refers to a person’s position in the social hierarchy, as determined by a combination of economic and social factors .

Examples of things that make up a person’s socioeconomic status include the amount and type of education the person has, their income, their type of occupation, and their area of residence.

In some societies such as caste societies , the person’s position is also determined by a range of religious background or ethnic origin.

Sometimes, socioeconomic status is also seen as the amount of financial stress or the ability to balance income with the available expenses (American Psychological Association, 2010).

Definition of socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combined measure of a person’s or family’s social and economic position in relation to others in the community (Baker, 2014).

SES is usually broken into three categories:

• High socioeconomic status (often correlating with upper-class)
• Middle socioeconomic status (often correlating with middle-class )
• Low socioeconomic status (often correlating with working-class and poor)

When categorizing families or individuals, the three most considered variables include:

There is a clear relationship between economic inequalities and the health of populations (Glymour et al, 2014). In other words, socioeconomic disadvantage is a social determinant of health . Low education and income have been associated with a range of mental and physical health issues such as arthritis, respiratory viruses, and coronary disease.

Socioeconomic Status Examples

The following are factors affecting socioeconomic status according Calixto and Anaya (2014), Brown et al (2001), and Braveman et al (2005).

• The family’s or individual income
• The education level
• The occupation type and level
• Community safety (evaluated based o the number of violent crimes and injury deaths in the surrounding community)
• Family and social support (e.g. social capital , which enables the enjoyment of social opportunities)
• Wealth possessed by the individual or family
• Access to quality healthcare
• Access to proper nutrition
• Access to food security
• Working life conditions for the employed people
• The availability of quality housing

Key SES Factors

1. the family’s or individual income.

Income refers to profits, wages, salaries, rents, and other income flows. Income can also be generated from social security, workers’ compensation, dividends, and interests, or other public, family, or government financial assistance (Stone et al, 2015).

Income can also come from lotteries and monetary winnings in competitions where money is the final award. Household income is deemed the general measure of a family’s well-being.

There should be a balance between family expenditure and income level to ensure healthy living where a family or an individual is able to afford all the required goods and services without having to strain.

Since income is relatively easy to figure out between various individuals, it is deemed a very important factor in determining the socioeconomic status of various people in the community.

Income inequality is common in the community and the difference is vivid. Low-income families focus on meeting basic needs and not accumulating wealth for future generations.

Families and individuals with higher incomes can focus on meeting the required needs as well as accumulating wealth while still enjoying luxurious lifestyles (Stone et al, 2015).

2. The education level

Education is a key contributor to individual skills and the enhancement of human capital . It is an important factor that determines the amount of income earned by an individual.

Earnings tend to increase with educational level. The highest professional and doctoral degree holders earn the highest weekly and monthly wages compared to others with less levels of formal education.

Higher education levels are associated with better psychological and economic outcomes such as networking, greater social support, more income, and more control.

Education is not only important for improving people’s living standards but also strengthens individuals’ developmental capacities (Lee et al, 2003).

3. The occupation type and level

The prestige of an occupation is often linked to education level and income, but is also linked to the perceived value of the profession to society.

Jobs that are categorized in the higher SES (often, white-collar jobs) include surgeons and physicians, engineers, communication analysts, and professors. These occupations are deemed more challenging requiring competency and more ability to meet the job objectives.

Jobs with low rankings (often, blue-collar jobs) include bartenders and helpers, janitors, dish-washers, counter attendants, parking lot attendants, housekeepers, and vehicle cleaners among others. These jobs offer lower wages and tend to be less valued, more laborious, and sometimes associated with hazardous working conditions (Stone et al, 2015).

4. Access to quality healthcare

The SES ladder tends to significantly correlate with healthcare outomces in the community. Disadvantaged populations such as the poor, rural residents, and the less educated are more affected by poor access to healthcare than their richer counterparts in the urban areas.

Individuals in higher social positions enjoy better health than those in lower ones. Low education and income levels have been associated with poor mental and physical health.

These health problems may result from poor working environment, high levels of stress, failure to access quality healthcare, poor nutrition, and food scarcity (Braveman et al, 2005).

5. Wealth possessed by the individual or family

High SES people tend to have higher wealth, intergenerational wealth, and more ownership of income-generating assets. Lower SES people tend to live with less economic reserves, leading to financial stress.

Predictors of wealth attainment include family size, income, occupation, marital status, and education. Small and highly-educated family groups tend to have higher wealth than single-parent families, larger families, or families where the parents are in blue-collar work.

The wealth gap is very common just like the income inequalities. Wealthy people are deemed to hold higher positions in the community and tend to be involved in higher-level community decision-making processes as they are seen as powerful community members (Fraser et al, 2006).

socioeconomic Status vs Social Class

In sociology, we engage with both socioeconomic status and social class. Whereas socioeconomic status refers to generally economic factors and how they affect a person’s social status, class theorists explore cultures within different tiers of society.

Of course, the two terms overlap significantly. For example, working-class people tend to be of low socio-economic status.

However, when discussing working-class people, we’re also including cultural and subcultural factors in the discussion. Often, in class analysis, you will hear of concepts like social and cultural capital included in the analysis.

For example, upper-class culture often involves a taste for fine foods, expensive services, and elite sports that lower-middle class and lower-class people tend to disregard.

Similarly, many sociologists have explored how working-class culture values a more rugged form of masculinity than other social classes, where the ability to work hard and have street smarts is more valuable than educational attainment or renaissance man characteristics.

Socioeconomic status refers to the position an individual or a group holds in the community which can be termed as high, medium, or low.

The status is determined by various factors such as education level, occupation, income, wealth, access to healthcare, and social and family protection among others. The status can be determined on a personal or family level where a family or an individual is compared to others in the community.

Socioeconomic status is associated with greater inequalities in the community including access to quality healthcare, education, and developmental opportunities. People with higher socioeconomic status are seen as the lucky ones in society who have to live a respected life without many struggles.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved from; https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status

Baker, E. H. (2014). Socioeconomic status, definition.  The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of health, illness, behavior, and society , 2210-2214.

Braveman, P. A., Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Chideya, S., Marchi, K. S., Metzler, M., & Posner, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all.  Jama ,  294 (22), 2879-2888.

Brown, P. R., Brown, W. J., Miller, Y. D., & Hansen, V. (2001). Perceived constraints and social support for active leisure among mothers with young children.  Leisure sciences ,  23 (3), 131-144.

Calixto, O. J., & Anaya, J. M. (2014). Socioeconomic status. The relationship with health and autoimmune diseases.  Autoimmunity reviews ,  13 (6), 641-654.

Fraser, E. D., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management.  Journal of environmental management ,  78 (2), 114-127.

Glymour, M. M., Avendano, M., & Kawachi, I. (2014). Socioeconomic status and health.  Social epidemiology ,  2 , 17-63.

Hulton, G., & World Health Organization. (2012).  Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to reach the MDG target and universal coverage  (No. WHO/HSE/WSH/12.01). World Health Organization.

Lee, S., Kawachi, I., Berkman, L. F., & Grodstein, F. (2003). Education, other socioeconomic indicators, and cognitive function.  American journal of epidemiology ,  157 (8), 712-720.

Stone, C., Trisi, D., Sherman, A., & Debot, B. (2015). A guide to statistics on historical trends in income inequality.  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ,  26 , 1-23.

Szromek, A. R., & Wolniak, R. (2020). Job satisfaction and problems among academic staff in higher education.  Sustainability ,  12 (12), 4865.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Socioeconomic Inequities in Youth Participation in Physical Activity and Sports

Pooja s. tandon.

1 Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; ude.wu@suhsorke (E.K.); [email protected] (K.G.); [email protected] (P.Q.)

2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

Emily Kroshus

Katharine olsen.

3 Center for Leadership in Athletics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; ude.wu@neslomk (K.O.); ude.wu@4meiluj (J.M.)

Kimberly Garrett

Pingping qu, julie mccleery, associated data.

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Access to opportunities for physical activity and sports, and therefore potential benefits of participation, are distributed inequitably. The aims of this study were to describe and compare youth experiences related to sport and physical activity by socioeconomic factors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted of students in 5–12th grades in King County, Washington, USA. Students were asked about physical activity and sports experiences and about demographic factors including family affluence, which was categorized as low, medium, and high. Participants were 1038 youth (50% girls, 58% non-White, and 32% from homes where languages other than English are spoken). Children from low-affluence families reported fewer days/week of physical activity, fewer sports sampled, and lower rates of ever playing sports. Greater proportions of children from low-affluence families reported these barriers to sports: (1) don’t want to get hurt, (2) don’t feel welcome on teams, (3) too expensive, and (4) transportation. Middle school children from high-affluence families had three times higher odds of meeting physical activity recommendations, and high-affluence high schoolers had three times higher odds of ever participating in sports compared to peers from low-affluence families. Socioeconomic status was inversely associated with outcomes related to youth physical activity and sports participation. The disproportionately reported barriers to sports participation are modifiable, and cross-sector solutions can help promote play equity.

1. Introduction

Physical activity in youth contributes to a range of positive outcomes including reduced risk of obesity and improved cardiometabolic health, mental health, and academic performance [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. However, only 24% of U.S. children meet physical activity guidelines of at least 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [ 4 ]. School-based physical education, organized sport and physical activity programs, unstructured free play, and general outdoor recreation provide a variety of ways for youth to be physically active [ 5 ]. However, access to these opportunities, and therefore potential benefits of participation, are distributed inequitably. There are documented inequities in youth physical activity, with youth from lower income families and those living in lower resource communities engaging in less physical activity [ 6 ]. Organized sport participation and sport specialization [ 7 ] tend to be lower in children from families of lower socioeconomic status [ 8 ]. There are fewer commercial facilities for physical activity and fewer options for organized sport in communities characterized by a high proportion of low-income residents [ 9 ]. Affluent neighborhoods often have more pedestrian- and bike-friendly facilities, are safer from crime and traffic, have a more favorable appearance, and host better access to recreation facilities than low-income neighborhoods [ 10 ]. Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), as well as lower income families, are less likely to have access to a nearby park, and the parks in their neighborhoods tend to be smaller and of lower quality [ 11 , 12 ].

Simultaneously, an industry has sprung up around physical activity provision. A highly structured youth sports model has commodified organized physical activity: instead of free play and outdoor unstructured activity, youth are funneled into paid programming. This model is inaccessible to many youth for reasons including high cost, transportation, and location of programming [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. This trend likely makes it more challenging for some youth to engage in sport sampling—the process of children trying out various sports and physical activities—which is considered a developmentally appropriate means for building physical literacy and limiting burnout and injuries [ 16 ]. There is limited data currently on how sport sampling and sports attrition are patterned by socioeconomic factors [ 17 ].

Although research suggests that a combination of neighborhood, household, and individual factors can explain socioeconomic inequalities in sports participation and physical activity [ 18 ], previous studies tend to focus on the relationship between physical and social environmental factors with physical activity [ 19 , 20 ]. Household-level factors such as family affluence and English language proficiency of parents could be critical determinants of children’s access to opportunities to try various sports and sustain participation. Furthermore, understanding individual-level factors from youth perspectives, such as their own perceived barriers to participation, would provide insight into modifiable solutions to address them [ 21 ]. The objectives of this study are to describe and compare youth experiences and attitudes related to sport and physical activity by socioeconomic status.

2.1. Sample and Procedure

Survey data were collected as part of the State of Play: Seattle-King County study from students in 5th through 12th grade from 14 Schools in King County, Washington (USA). They were stratified into twelve groups by grades served (elementary, middle, and high schools) location (urban/rural), and income (low-income schools were defined as schools where more than 40% of the students received free- or reduced-price lunch). Schools were selected from within each strata, oversampling for low-income schools, resulting in twenty-four randomly selected schools. Ultimately, only three school districts agreed to the research, and only five schools from the originally-selected sample agreed to participate. A Community Advisory Board engaged three additional schools for a total of eight schools and distributed the youth survey to participants in local after-school programs in alignment with the strata outlined above. Parents provided passive permission for their child to participate in the survey. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Washington.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. demographic and socioeconomic factors.

Questions related to Race/ethnicity and language(s) spoken at home were taken directly from the 2018 Washington State Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) [ 22 ]. Affluence was determined using the Family Affluence Scale, an age-appropriate scale for assessing the socioeconomic status of children and adolescents [ 23 ]. Children and adolescents typically do not have accurate information on their family’s finances, so a less intrusive, more comprehensible approach has to be utilized to identify their socioeconomic status. These questions were asked: (1) Does your family own a car, van, or truck? (2) Do you have your own bedroom for yourself? (3) During the past 12 months, how many times did you travel away with your family? Responses were divided into Low (3–5), Medium (6–7), and High (8–9) affluence for analyses.

2.2.2. Physical Activity and Sports Participation

Participants reported physical activity by recalling the number of days they were physically active for at least 60 min per day in past seven days, which is the same question used in the HYS [ 22 ]. Park use was assessed with one survey item: “Think about the outdoor parks and green spaces that are closest to your home. In the past year, during the warmer months, how often did you play at these outdoor parks and green spaces?” Number and type of sports sampled were assessed with a survey item sourced from the Aspen Institute’s Sport and Society Program’s State of Play landscape analyses nationwide and edited by the research team to enhance clarity and inclusivity based on stakeholder feedback. Participants were asked to select the activities they had tried in the last year from a list of 47 sports and add others not listed. Respondents self-reported sport participation on an organized sports team or organized athletic activity, which was defined as a group that meets on a regular basis and is led by a coach or instructor.

2.2.3. Barriers

Question about perceived barriers for different types of physical activity were developed using a stakeholder-engaged process in which questions created by the research team were reviewed by diverse stakeholders from the State of Play: Seattle-King County Advisory Board for content and clarity. Barriers to participation in organized sports were assessed with two survey items:

• (1) For those respondents who have never played organized sports: If you don’t play organized sports, what are the reasons why? Select up to three.
• (2) For those respondents who played organized sports before but stopped: What are the reasons why you stopped playing or participating? Select up to three.

2.3. Analysis

All data were analyzed using R version 4.0.3. Continuous measures were summarized using means and standard deviations, and categorical variables using frequencies and proportions. Logistic regression models were used to determine the odds ratios of meeting physical activity standards and participating in organized sports based on various respondent characteristics.

Participants were 1038 youth in grades 5–12 from King County, WA. Half of the respondents were girls, 58% were non-White, and 32% were from homes where languages other than English were spoken. Using the family affluence scale, 13% of respondents were categorized as coming from families with “low affluence”, 31% as “medium”, and 56% as “high” affluence. Table 1 has more details about participant characteristics.

Participant characteristics.

Physical activity and sports participation by demographic characteristics and family affluence are shown in Table 2 . On average, boys reported more days per week of physical activity (4.41 vs. 3.97) and more of them met the recommendation of 60 min of daily physical activity (23% vs. 16%). Rates of sports participation ever and in the past year were similar between boys and girls in this sample. Compared to youth from homes where only English is spoken, youth coming from homes where no English is spoken reported lower rates of ever playing organized sports (57% vs. 90%) and had sampled fewer sports (11.1 vs. 13.0). Children from low-affluence families reported fewer days per week of participation in physical activity (3.5 vs. 3.76 medium vs. 4.46 high), fewer sports sampled (8.45 vs. 10.20 vs. 14.77), lower rates of ever having played organized sports (63% vs. 79% medium vs. 80% high), or playing in sports in the past year (69% vs. 73% medium vs. 84% high).

Physical activity and sports participation by demographic and socioeconomic factors.

For children that reported never having played organized sports or having quit playing, barriers to participation by affluence level are reported in Table 3 . The top three most commonly reported barriers were (1) lack of interest in sports, (2) not having time due to schoolwork, and (3) not feeling good enough to play, and there were no difference by affluence level for these responses. There were statistically significant differences by affluence level for the next several barriers with greater proportions of children from low-affluence families reporting that they (1) don’t want to get hurt (35%), (2) don’t feel welcome on teams (27%), (3) find sports too expensive (27%), and (4) don’t have a way to get to practices/games (18%). Twenty-three percent of children from low-affluence families also reported that they don’t have time to play sports due to family responsibilities. No participants reported that safety concerns at fields/gyms/courts were a barrier to sports participation for them.

Barriers to sports participation (among those who do not currently participate in organized sport) by family affluence ( n = 316).

Bold p -Values signify statistical significance at p < 0.05.

For the middle school students (grades 5–8), children in higher grades had lower odds (OR 0.67; CI 0.52, 0.86) of meeting the physical activity recommendation of 60 min per day. Children from more affluent families had higher odds of meeting recommendations (OR 3.08, CI 1.07, 8.87) compared to the low-affluence families. For high school students (grades 9–12), boys had higher odds (OR 1.81, CI 1.02, 3.22) than girls of meeting physical activity recommendations. Other demographic characteristics and family affluence did not result in statistically significant differences. The results for children who reported participating in organized sports in the past year trended towards significance for meeting recommendations (OR 2.76; CI 0.93, 8.2; p = 0.067). The full results from the regression model are presented in Table 4 .

Characteristics Associated with Meeting the Physical Activity Standard.

Table 5 displays the results from the regression model regarding the odds of children ever having participated in organized sports. For middle school children, there were no statistically significant results although the odds ratios were in the hypothesized directions. For high school students, children from medium-affluence families had twice the odds (OR 2.08; CI 1.06, 4.11) and those from high-affluence families had more than thrice the odds (OR 3.33; CI 1.62, 6.85) of ever having participated in sports compared to children from low-affluence families. Lower odds ratios for sports participation were seen for youth who identified as Hispanic, Black, and Asian, with the results for the last two groups reaching statistical significance. Children from families where no English is spoken at home had lower odds of ever having participated in organized sports with statistically significant results for the middle school age group (OR 0.27; CI 0.14, 0.53).

Characteristics Associated with ever having participated in organized sports.

4. Conclusions

Using data reported by youth, this study found that socioeconomic status is positively associated with meeting physical activity recommendations and sports participation among children in grades 5 through 12. During the middle school years, children from medium and high-affluence families were about three times as likely to meet physical activity recommendations compared to children from low-affluence families, even when controlling for sports participation and time spent in parks. For high school students, although family affluence did not emerge as an independent predictor of meeting physical activity recommendations, sports participation was significantly lower for children from lower affluence families. Previous evidence on the relationship between SES and physical activity has been mixed, with lower SES frequently associated with children’s sedentary time and obesity, but not consistently with lower physical activity [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. While we also did not find consistent results across the age groups in our sample, our findings suggest areas of concern related to equitable access and opportunities for children to engage in physical activity. Poverty has been shown to have a detrimental effect on child health with lifelong consequences [ 28 ], and these results extend the evidence to show that lower affluence is also associated with children’s participation in optimal amounts of health promoting physical activity. Consistent with considerable literature that finds boys are more likely to meet physical activity recommendations than girls, sex was also a statistically significant predictor in our analyses.

For high school students, family affluence was positively associated with the likelihood of ever trying organized sports. In the entire sample, only two-thirds of children from low-affluence families had ever tried an organized sport, compared to 89% from high-affluence families. In terms of sports participation, family affluence was a significant factor for the high school students but not middle school age children. This could reflect differences in participation rates in general between younger and older children or represent differences in access and costs related to extracurricular sports (school and community based) for children at different ages.

For high school students, students from families with medium and high affluence were twice and thrice as likely, respectively, to have ever participated in sports compared to children from low-affluence families. Of note, children from families where no English is spoken at home had significantly lower odds of ever having participated in organized sports across all grades and even when family affluence was accounted for in the models. For immigrant youth, participation in extracurricular activities may be particularly beneficial in terms of strengthening connections with their school and community [ 29 ], and the reasons for non-participation may be complex [ 30 ]. These findings point to notable inequities in access to opportunities for children who may already be marginalized in our current system due to coming from families with fewer resources and/or those that face language barriers.

Youth-reported barriers to physical activity can help us understand these inequities [ 14 ], While concerns about time, skills, and interest in sports were common across youth from all affluence levels, certain additional barriers were more likely to be reported by youth from less affluent families. Approximately one third of children from low-affluence families endorsed worries about getting hurt, not feeling welcome on teams, and/or that sports are too expensive. Fewer than 17% of children from medium- and high-affluence families reported that any of these were concerns for them. Sports organizations at recreational and competitive levels, including those that are school-based, need to be aware of these reported barriers and consider strategies to help mitigate them. This includes ensuring that all youth are not only able to access opportunities for sport and physical activity to allow for developmentally appropriate sport sampling, but that they feel safe and welcome in these spaces. Feeling welcome can mean many things; some youth may feel less-qualified for school sports teams. No-cut school sports teams can continue to be vehicles for all youth to participate in a team experience, engage in physical activity, and strive for personal achievement. Others may not feel welcome due to their individual differences from the majority group. Coach training focused on how to lead equitably while recognizing and mitigating unconscious bias is imperative. Further, supporting people of color, women, LGBTQ, and people of all abilities to be coaches can diversify youth physical activity leadership and in turn can help youth feel more welcome on teams. Eighteen percent of children from low-affluence families also reported transportation barriers, which were rare for the other groups of children. This is another modifiable barrier with potential solutions including free access to public transportation for youth, considering access to parks and community centers in long-term transportation planning, increasing safety measures on public transit, and creating more safe walking and biking routes to parks and playfields.

This study has several limitations that should be considered. Although we had a large sample with a high proportion of youth from non-white and non-English speaking families, it was from one county in Washington State, which limits its generalizability. Self-report data are also subject to recall and social desirability biases. In addition, there may be some misclassification of family affluence given that it was collected by report from children. We did use validated and reliable scales, when possible, to try to mitigate some of these concerns.

In conclusion, socioeconomic status, operationalized as child-reported family affluence in our study, was inversely associated with outcomes related to physical activity and sports participation. In addition, children from families where English is not spoken at home were also less likely to have ever participated in sports. The barriers to sports participation reported by children, particularly those disproportionately endorsed by children from lower affluence families, are modifiable. Targeted solutions can support access for these marginalized groups, including collaborations between community-based organizations that serve immigrant youth, public agencies, educational institutions, and private-sector organizations. Collaborations of this sort require public and private organizations to prioritize increased youth physical activity as an important individual and community health outcome. Funding, policy support, and multisectoral collaboration are necessary to develop an intentional set of community-based strategies that eliminate barriers related to cost, transportation, and language, which could go a long way to increasing equitable access to sports for more children.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the many enthusiastic, inspiring youth who took the time to participate in this study, and the many parents, coaches, and leaders in Greater Seattle and King County working each day to make physical activity and organized sport more equitable and accessible to youth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S.T., E.K. and J.M.; methodology, P.S.T., E.K., P.Q. and J.M.; formal analysis, P.Q.; investigation, K.O., J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, K.O., K.G. and P.S.T.; writing—review and editing, E.K., K.O., K.G., P.Q. and J.M.; project administration, K.O., J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This survey was conducted as part of State of Play: Seattle-King County, a landscape analysis of youth sport and physical activity participation conducted in partnership with the Aspen Institute’s Sport & Society Program. The broader study was generously funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Youth Engagement in Sport (YES) Initiative (ASTWH190078), King County Parks, Seattle Mariners, Bezos Family Foundation, YMCA of Greater Seattle, Kaiser Permanente, Seattle Children’s Hospital, evo, and the University of Washington, with in-kind contributions from Amazon.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Washington (IRB ID: STUDY00006226, 18 December 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Socioeconomic Status and Child Development Essay

In the article on socioeconomic status and child development, the concept of emotional behavior disorders is obvious. Adjustment disorders, which relate to the difficulty in being accustomed to new environments, and anxiety disorders are categories of emotional behavior disorders. The disorder also may incorporate school phobia, obsessive or compulsive, post-traumatic stress disorder, and panic attacks. Letourneau, Duffet-Leger, Levac, & Young-Morris (2011) assert that lower socioeconomic status is widely recognized to have damaging effects on the development and well-being of children and adolescents. Literacy levels show emotional behavior disorders of the children. The authors explain Emotional Behavioral Disorders as a comprehensive category. The disorder presents itself in educational settings as perceived complications in children and adolescents modes of behavior.

In her summary, Letourneau et al. (2011) assert that emotional behavior disorders take various forms. The disorder displays itself differently depending on one’s social status. Children of upper socioeconomic status are more superior as compared to their counterparts from lower socioeconomic status. Their easy access to money tends to give them perceived boasting rights. The boasting habit makes them force their ideologies on the inferior. On the other hand, children of lower socioeconomic status develop an inferiority complex and other related behaviors. Abject withdrawal and self-internalization are some of the habits that lower economic class children depict. Most are quiet and are normally seen contemplating their lack of necessities.

The level of acceptance in the environment of mixed socioeconomic statuses determines the level of self-esteem among the youths. The author further expounds that emotional behavior disorder to the children of low socioeconomic status originates right from their homes. More often than not, low-income parents struggle to meet the day-to-day needs of their families (Letourneau et al. , 2013). In comparison with middle-income children, low socioeconomic status children are exposed to higher levels of family violence, disturbance, and separation.

Low-income earners issue harsh demands and inflict physical punishment such as hard spanking of their children, thus raising their levels of stress and depression. Long-term exposure to strenuous activities or experiences results in emotional behavior disorders. The disorder is responsible for the many behavioral issues among school-going children. Additionally, emotional disorders explain why there are theft cases, truancy, bullish harassment, rudeness, and other cases of indiscipline in schools. Research indicates that emotional behavior disorders are responsible for major emotional complications at a later age. In addition, people who suffer from an emotional behavior disorder tend to inflict the same torture on their children once they mature up (Letourneau et al. , 2013). This trend results in a vicious circle making emotional disorder a dangerous condition in life. The condition is a major issue in the medical profession.

The article presents critical and ideal information for both the medics and the education advisors. Understanding the cause of the problem makes it easier to deal with emotional behavior disorders at home and in school. Parents and teachers must take the initiative to embrace new parenting and teaching techniques. Emotional disorders result from poor parenting skills (Letourneau et al. , 2013). Teachers and educational advisors spent more time with children; for this reason, they are responsible for the emotional behaviors of students. Additionally, parents should avoid letting their economic struggles get to their children for an emotional behavior disorder-free society.

Letourneau, L., duffet-Leger, L., Levac, L. & Young-Morris, C. (2013). Socioeconomic status and child development: a meta-analysis. Journal of emotional and behavioral disorders, 21 (3), 211-224.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 24). Socioeconomic Status and Child Development. https://ivypanda.com/essays/socioeconomic-status-and-child-development/

"Socioeconomic Status and Child Development." IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/socioeconomic-status-and-child-development/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Socioeconomic Status and Child Development'. 24 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Socioeconomic Status and Child Development." January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/socioeconomic-status-and-child-development/.

1. IvyPanda . "Socioeconomic Status and Child Development." January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/socioeconomic-status-and-child-development/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Socioeconomic Status and Child Development." January 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/socioeconomic-status-and-child-development/.

• R. G. LeTourneau: A Life of an Inventor
• Students’ Perceptions of Academic Advisors at Historically Black Colleges
• The Significance of Sound Advisors
• Effects of Augmentin Maternal Income on Child Development
• Impact of Conflicts in a Group
• Human vs. Divine Ego: What Is the Difference?
• Financial Advisors and Planning
• Foreigners Depicted in Neo-Assyrian and Persian Palaces
• Beowulf Character in Historical and Cultural Contexts
• Non-Profit Organizations and Public Administration
• Rethinking Schools and Reconstruction Approach
• Phenomenon of the Mobile Education
• Beginning Literacy Learner Study
• Belonging to a Group Overview
• Leading Theories for Special Education with a Synopsis and a Comparative Analysis