As Torsten Bell doesn’t quite say, we should be more like the US

We assume that this is not mentioned out of embarrassment for Torsten is of course far too bright not to have noted it.

If talent and opportunity were equally distributed, the average winner would come from a middle income background. The reality? The average laureate grew up in a household just below the top 10%. More than 50% come from the top 5%. Dads of laureates are likely to be business owners, doctors or engineers (not politicians, sorry kids).

So either talent is hugely unequally distributed, concentrated among richer families, or opportunity is. It’s the latter. Reinforcing the case that a more equal sharing of opportunity would mean more scientific progress, the authors show that cities that have more intergenerational mobility produce more laureates.

Seems a reasonable explanation to us. We can imagine that the leisure to ponder the world was something in short supply when all hours had to be worked just to survive. But that sorting mechanism, is there a way to do it so that it is the brains and talent of this generation - not the hangover of the last - which determines? From the paper:

Access to opportunity doubled from 1901–2023, but remains highly unequal. Barriers are higher for women, but lower for Americans.

So, the problem being complained of is a smaller problem in the United States. Therefore, in order to make the problem smaller we should become more like the United States. Say, government at 28% of the economy not 45%, that might leave more room for talent to rise without bureaucratic stifling? We say that as just one of the differences. But it is still true - we are told this is a problem, we are also told of the place that has done more than others to solve it. Therefore, obviously, we must all become more like the US in order to keep solving the problem.

Tim Worstall