Great Gatsby and the Global SouthBy DidingSakri, AndySumner, Arief AnshoryYusuf, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2023. 75 pp. $22.00 (paperback). ISBN 9781009382724
本书探讨代际流动性、收入不平等与发展之间的关系，聚焦全球南方国家，并基于印尼数据提供新估计，适合政策制定者和发展研究者阅读。
Great Gatsby and the Global South explores the themes of intergenerational mobility, income inequality, and development, which are closely tied to the concept of meritocracy. As in F. Scott Fitzgerald's monumental novel The Great Gatsby (1925), the story suggests that anyone, regardless of their background, can achieve a better life. Gatsby's story inspired Alan Krueger (2012) to create Great Gatsby Curve, which illustrates the relationship between income inequality and income elasticity across generations. The discussion in this book is both fascinating and challenging, revealing what is happening around us—perhaps even to ourselves—but it has not been widely explored, particularly in the Global South region, which includes countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Cambridge University Press published this book as part of the Cambridge Elements in Development Economics series. Diding Sakri, one of the authors, previously addressed this issue in his doctoral thesis Intergenerational Income Mobility in Indonesia, 1993–2014 (2020). The two other authors were his supervisors at King's College London. Although brief, the introduction gives the reader a clear overview of the book's content. The introduction is followed by Sections 2 and 3 which discuss the survey of the field of mobility studies and the concept of measuring mobility. Section 4 discusses empirical studies on intergenerational mobility in developed countries while developing countries in Section 5. There are also new estimates for Indonesia. The Great Gatsby Curve and the theoretical framework based on empirical studies are respectively covered in Sections 6 and 7. The earliest documented interest in intergenerational mobility can be traced to Ibn Khaldun's famous work, Muqaddimah (1377). In this pioneering text, Khaldun explored the rise and fall of civilizations and highlighted the transmission of social and economic status across generations. His observations laid an early foundation for what we now refer to as intergenerational mobility—the extent to which individuals' economic and social positions can differ from those of their parents. In modern studies of mobility, a distinction is made between absolute and relative mobility. Absolute mobility refers to the comparison of economic outcomes between generations, typically measuring whether children achieve more, less, or the same level of wealth or income as their parents. This form of mobility is closely tied to economic growth and broader societal changes. For instance, if an economy experiences growth, a larger proportion of the population might experience upward absolute mobility, as children may surpass their parents' income or living standards. Relative mobility, on the other hand, is concerned with the economic standing of individuals within their generation, independent of their parents' income or status. It measures the degree to which a person's financial position among their peers' changes compared to their parents' ranking in their generation. This concept is crucial for understanding inequality and the fairness of opportunities within a society. High relative mobility suggests that economic success is less tied to family background and more influenced by individual effort or merit, while low relative mobility indicates persistent inequality. Both absolute and relative mobility are essential for international comparisons, as they help researchers understand the dynamics of economic progress and inequality across different societies. These measures reveal not only the overall economic progress but also the degree to which opportunities for advancement are accessible to all, regardless of familial wealth or status. According to Section 2, there are more countries with estimated relative mobility than absolute mobility. Relative mobility can be interpreted as origin independence, meaning the personal characteristics of children (such as talent or education level) rather than their parental background (occupation, social status, or income position) determine economic outcomes (Roemer, 1998). This is based on the meritocratic idea which believes that an individual's life chances should depend on their abilities and effort rather than on their parent's status in society. Mobility is a multifaceted and multidimensional concept, which makes research often conceptually or methodologically imprecise. Nevertheless, Section 3 tries to explain that the Great Gatsby Curve shows higher income inequality tends to limit mobility. Irrespective of the methodology, international comparisons of intergenerational income mobility are complicated for at least two reasons. First, most mobility measurements are highly sensitive to exact data definitions and data collection procedures. Thus, patterns emerging from cross-country comparisons can reflect differences in data structures, measurement, and statistical approaches instead of genuine differences in intergenerational mobility. Second, no single objective summary measure of intergenerational mobility exists. In particular, Section 4 examines earlier studies on intergenerational mobility in developed countries. Corak (2006) and Grawe (2004) studies compared the relative mobility of nine countries, Blanden (2009) used 12 countries as the subjects, Jäntti et al. (2006) took their sample from six developed countries, and Narayan et al. (2018) compared the mobility of 76 developed and developing countries. Due to a lack of representative longitudinal data, as Section 5 highlights, fewer studies have examined the dynamics of mobility in developing countries. Studying intergenerational mobility in the context of developing countries is therefore particularly challenging. This was worsened by the difficulty in estimating incomes in areas with a high prevalence of agrarian and informal employment. The authors attempted to add new estimates (Indonesia) in this section by using longitudinal data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS), a socioeconomic and health survey based on a household sample, representing approximately 83% of the population. The Great Gatsby Curve, as defined in Section 6, depicts the relationship between relative mobility in income elasticity and intergenerational inequality. There are positive and normative reasons to retain a focus on inequality of outcome (Kanbur, 2021). First, inequality of outcome may itself be a determinant of intergenerational mobility. Second, objectives such as the equality of educational outcomes are related to mobility. Iversen, Krishna, and Sen (2021) argued that developing countries may be different from developed countries in terms of the Great Gatsby Curve because of shifts in the patterns of structural transformation from the earlier pathway of agriculture to manufacturing. The theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between mobility, inequality, and development is reviewed in the last section. Contemporary theoretical framework based on the empirical studies in high-income and developing countries show that the overlapping main determinants of intergenerational income mobility are generally inequality-related with a cross-cutting theme of economic dualism in terms of structural transformation. In general, developed countries exhibit higher mobility and less inequality, than developing countries. Furthermore, at any given level of income inequality, the intergenerational elasticity of income is likely to be higher and thus worsen mobility in a developing country. To achieve a more just society, the book's conclusions suggest that developing countries reduce inequality through more substantial redistribution. This book enriches the body of knowledge and is highly recommended for policymakers and those with a strong interest in development. This book is hoped to contribute more to inclusive development policies that address fundamental societal issues. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to express gratitude to Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) for supporting the publication of this article.