Socio-Economic Determinants of Student Mobility and Inequality of Access to Higher Education in Italy

  • Umut TürkEmail author


This paper introduces a modified version of the Hansen-gravity model as a framework to estimate the accessibility of higher education (HE) institutions in Italy from equal opportunities perspective. The fundamental assumption underlying gravity models is that accessibility decreases with spatial distance from opportunities. The paper extends the gravity equation to include socio-economic factors influencing the access to HE. The findings reveal differences in response to quality and other institutional characteristics by parental background and gender. Finally, decomposition of overall inequality into spatial and aspatial components reveals both the physical and social distance between groups of students seeking higher education opportunities in the country.


Spatial interaction Higher education accessibility Gravity model Equality of opportunity 



  1. Alesina A, Giuliano P (2010) The power of the family. J Econ Growth 15 (2):93–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alm J, Winters JV (2009) Distance and intrastate college student migration. Econ Educ Rev 28(6):728–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter M (1982) Similarities in methods of estimating spatial interaction models. Geogr Anal 14(3):267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bratti M, Checchi D, De Blasio G (2008) Does the expansion of higher education increase the equality of educational opportunities? Evidence from Italy. Labour 22(s1):53–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunori P, Peragine V, Serlenga L (2012) Fairness in education: the italian university before and after the reform. Econ Educ Rev 31(5):764–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buonanno P, Montolio D, Vanin P (2009) Does social capital reduce crime? J Law Econ 52(1):145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checchi D, Flabbi L (2007) Intergenerational mobility and schooling decisions in germany and Italy: the impact of secondary school tracksGoogle Scholar
  8. Checchi D, Peragine V (2005) Regional disparities and inequality of opportunity: the case of ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Checchi D, Peragine V (2010) Inequality of opportunity in Italy. J Econ Inequal 8(4):429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Checchi D, et al. (2003) The italian educational system: family background and social stratification. In: ISAE conference on monitoring ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooke TJ, Boyle P (2011) The migration of high school graduates to college. Educ Evavl Policy Anal 33(2):202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dardanoni V, Fields GS, Roemer JE, Puerta MLS (2006) How demanding should equality of opportunity be, and how much have we achieved? Mobility and inequality: frontiers of research from sociology and economics pp 59–82Google Scholar
  13. De Vries JJ, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2009) Exponential or power distance-decay for commuting? An alternative specification. Environ Plan A 41(2):461–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennett A (2012) Estimating flows between geographical locations:’get me started in’spatial interaction modelling. Tech. rep., CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  15. DiPrete TA, Buchmann C (2006) Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging gender gap in college completion. Demography 43(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dotti NF, Fratesi U, Lenzi C, Percoco M (2013) Local labour markets and the interregional mobility of italian university students. Spat Econ Anal 8(4):443–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira FH, Gignoux J (2011) The measurement of inequality of opportunity: theory and an application to latin america. Rev Income Wealth 57(4):622–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleurbaey M (2008) Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleurbaey M, Peragine V (2013) Ex ante versus ex post equality of opportunity. Economica 80(317):118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flowerdew R, Aitkin M (1982) A method of fitting the gravity model based on the poisson distribution. J Reg Sci 22(2):191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foster JE, Shneyerov AA (2000) Path independent inequality measures. J Econ Theory 91(2):199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fotheringham A, O’Kelly ME (1989) Spatial Interaction Models: Formulations and Applications, vol 5. Kluwer Academic Pub., DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Fotheringham AS, Webber MJ (1980) Spatial structure and the parameters of spatial interaction models. Geogr Anal 12(1):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frenette M (2003) Access to college and university: does distance matter? Statistics Canada, Catalogue (11F0019MIE2003201)Google Scholar
  25. Garcia CSHF, Macário MdRMR, Menezes EDdAG, Loureiro CFG (2018) Strategic assessment of lisbon’s accessibility and mobility problems from an equity perspective. Networks and Spatial Economics pp 1–25Google Scholar
  26. Gibbons S, Vignoles A (2009) Access, choice and participation in higher educationGoogle Scholar
  27. Gitlesen JP, Thorsen I (2000) A competing destinations approach to modeling commuting flows: a theoretical interpretation and an empirical application of the model. Environ Plan A 32(11):2057–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25 (2):73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haynes KE, Fotheringham AS (1984) Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, vol 2. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowe JM, Sen A (1996) Gravity model applications in health planning: analysis of an urban hospital market. J Reg Sci 36(3):437–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lupi C, Ordine P (2009) Family income and students’ mobility. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia pp 1–23Google Scholar
  32. Mayhew L, Gibberd R, Hall H (1986) Predicting patient flows and hospital case-mix. Environ Plan A 18(5):619–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McArthur DP, Kleppe G, Thorsen I (2011) The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows. J Transp Geogr 19(4):596–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MIUR (1997) Verifica dei piani di sviluppo dell’universita 1986-90 e 1991-93, doc. 4/97. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Universita e della RicercaGoogle Scholar
  35. Modica M, Reggiani A (2015) Spatial economic resilience: overview and perspectives. Networks and Spatial Economics 15(2):211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ordovensky JF (1995) Effects of institutional attributes on enrollment choice: implications for postsecondary vocational education. Econ Educ Rev 14(4):335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Östh J (2011) Introducing a method for the computation of doubly constrained accessibility models in larger datasets. Networks and Spatial Economics 11(4):581–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Östh J, Dolciotti M, Reggiani A, Nijkamp P (2018) Social capital, resilience and accessibility in urban systems: a study on sweden. Networks and Spatial Economics 18(2):313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pigini C, Staffolani S, et al. (2013) Enrollment Costs, University Quality and Higher Education Choices in Italy. Tech. rep., University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  40. Putnam R (2001) Social capital: measurement and consequences. Can J Policy Res 2(1):41–51Google Scholar
  41. Reggiani A, De Graaff T, Nijkamp P (2002) Resilience: an evolutionary approach to spatial economic systems. Networks and Spatial Economics 2(2):211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reggiani A, Bucci P, Russo G (2011) Accessibility and network structures in the german commuting. Networks and Spatial Economics 11(4):621–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roemer JE (1998) Theories of Distributive Justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Sa C, Florax RJ, Rietveld P (2004) Determinants of the regional demand for higher education in the netherlands: a gravity model approach. Reg Stud 38(4):375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen A, Smith T (2012) Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  46. Singleton AD, Wilson A, O’Brien O (2012) Geodemographics and spatial interaction: an integrated model for higher education. J Geogr Syst 14(2):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith TE (1987) Poisson gravity models of spatial flows. J Reg Sci 27(3):315–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suhonen T (2014) Field-of-study choice in higher education: does distance matter? Spat Econ Anal 9(4):355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Talen E, Anselin L (1998) Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environ Plan A 30(4):595–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Triventi M, Trivellato P (2009) Participation, performance and inequality in italian higher education in the 20th century. High Educ 57(6):681–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson AG (1971) A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environ Plan A 3(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson RM, Gibberd R (1990) Allocating resources between health care regions: catchment populations and allocating for equity. Eur J Oper Res 49(3):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yun S, Sen A (1994) Computation of maximum likelihood estimates of gravity model parameters. J Reg Sci 34(2):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAbdullah Gül UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations