‘We all support equal opportunities, but disagree on how to achieve them’
Rotterdam is an extreme example of inequality in the Netherlands. There are huge health and life expectancy differences between neighborhoods. Good access to healthcare and education Isn’t a cure-all, say inequality economists Lieke Beekers and Hans van Kippersluis
Leiden-Delft-Erasmus white paper
This article is in the new Leiden-Delft-Erasmus Universities (LDE) white paper: ‘The Economy of South-Holland’. The white paper will be available for download from the LDE website from 15 December 2025, and will be presented on that day to Meindert Stolk from the Province at the launch in The Hague. Register to attend.
From high-tech companies to household poverty. What does the South Holland economy look like for the people themselves?
Hans van Kippersluis: ‘In terms of inequality, Rotterdam, along with The Hague, is the most extreme example in the Netherlands, with huge health differences by neighbourhood and socioeconomic background. I’m always shocked when I see the numbers. The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment's Neighbourhood Atlas shows that in the new Zestienhoven neighbourhood, 80 per cent of adults are in good health, whereas that is only 50 per cent, in the Afrikaanderwijk neighborhood. The difference in healthy life expectancy between the 20 per cent least and the 20 per cent most prosperous members of the Dutch population is as much as 23 years. And in South Holland, there are significant differences in prosperity between the major cities and surrounding municipalities.’
Lieke Beekers: ‘The online Opportunity Map shows that the average annual income in the Municipality of Lansingerland is around €50,000 whereas in Rotterdam it’s around €39,000. My students, who conduct research in poorer neighbourhoods in The Hague say that the situations they see there often have a profound impact on them.’
It’s becoming increasingly clear that GDP is an insufficient measure of how well the economy is performing. How do you measure it then?
Van Kippersluis: ‘Statistics Netherlands considers broad prosperity to be the quality of life and also examines the extent to which our broad prosperity here and now comes at the expense of that in the future or elsewhere in the world. It uses 41 indicators to measure that prosperity, from disposable income and life expectancy to satisfaction with leisure time and the amount of particulate matter in the air.
‘What is missing is the extent to which people experience poverty. Officially, poverty has decreased over the past 30 years. Fewer people live below the subsistence level, but if the rest of us are making more progress and can afford that expensive phone for our child, many people above the official minimum also feel poor.’
Beekers: ‘Perceived inequality can be a valuable indicator of well-being, because it provides insight into how people perceive their own position and that of others in society.’
What is the most pressing distributional issue?
Beekers: ‘The health gap. Johannes Spinnewijn used Statistics Netherlands data to determine that there’s an eight- to twelve-year difference in life expectancy between Dutch men with the lowest and highest incomes. People with the lowest incomes start developing chronic diseases as early as thirty, so that's where you see that gap already emerging.’
Van Kippersluis: ‘The health disparities are not only extreme, but they’re also important from an economic perspective. First, because health is necessary for productivity and happiness. And second, because you can’t redistribute health the way you can with income disparities, through tax measures like healthcare or housing benefits.’
Health disparities seem to bey linked to poverty. What can South-Holland do about it?
Beekers: ‘Socioeconomic differences and geographical factors, such as which municipality you live in and the amount of particulate matter in the air, appear to be more important than biological factors like heredity and unhealthy behaviour. In a country like the Netherlands, where health insurance is accessible to everyone, the possibilities for achieving significant improvements in this area are limited.’
Van Kippersluis: ‘If you reduce socioeconomic disparities, health disparities also reduce. However, I don’t believe they stem solely from a poverty problem. For example, if people receive a basic income or win a substantial sum of money in the lottery every month, this has little effect on health. But there are indications that a higher, more stable income improves children’s health outcomes. So it takes time. Low-hanging fruit, such as making smoking more expensive and promoting healthy eating, has an effect. The same goes for renovating mouldy rental properties. The latter requires a lot of money and political will, but it’s worth it because of the illnesses it prevents.’
Do we need greener residential areas without particulate matter?
Beekers: ‘In the American study Moving To Opportunity, people from social housing in poor neighbourhoods received a voucher to move to a better neighbourhood. This did result in improved health, but in America, you also go to a better school in a better neighbourhood, and other differences are also greater. This makes it difficult to translate these results to the Netherlands.’
Van Kippersluis: ‘For about ten years, we’ve been looking more at the correlation between environmental and genetic factors. This is possible with datasets that contain both socioeconomic and biological information. After all, every outcome is a mix of nature and nurture. We’re now looking at English data to see how much of the relationship between parents and children’s educational attainment stems from genetic and environmental factors. It appears that the genetic influence amounts to around 25 to 35 per cent. For height and IQ, this is probably somewhat higher, but for someone’s financial wealth, it’s much lower. This aligns with findings from twin and adoption studies. This type of research is still in its infancy within economics. Also promising is research into the role of chronic stress, by measuring stress hormones in hair.’
You inherit both your genes and your upbringing from your parents. What can schools do for equal opportunities?
Van Kippersluis: ‘There is some evidence that sending children to school at a young age can reduce differences between children, and that children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families, in particular, benefit more from childcare and preschool. We also know that test scores correlate more strongly with parental background at a younger age than later in life. So, later selection could be beneficial for children with socioeconomic disadvantage.’
Beekers: ‘That’s not a clear-cut advantage, because research also shows that being taught at your own level can be a major advantage. I think certain people’s preferences also play a role: what do they want, what are their ambitions? You can’t expect everyone to strive for a higher education or a higher income.’
Should something also be done about wealth inequality to promote equal opportunities?
Beekers: ‘Statistics Netherlands data shows that the richest 10 per cent of households owned approximately 54 per cent of the total wealth in 2022, not including pension assets. Socialist Party leader Jimmy Dijk argued for a significant increase in inheritance tax for larger inheritances. Such an intervention would generate enormous debate.’
Van Kippersluis: ‘Increasing that tax is good for wealth inequality, but it does indeed generate enormous resistance. What I find interesting is that all political parties are in favour of equal opportunities, but what they intend to do about it is unclear. That’s also difficult to determine as long as it’s unclear what exactly inequality of opportunity is and what it stems from.’
Beekers: ‘According to philosopher John Rawls, equality of opportunity means that people with the same talents and motivation should also have equal opportunities for success, regardless of their socioeconomic background or birth position.’
Van Kippersluis: ‘I sometimes get the feeling that the concept of equality of opportunity is a kind of new buzzword that everyone supports. But it's a false consensus that distracts from important questions like: how much income and wealth inequality do we consider justified in the Netherlands?’
What about differences between generations? Is the next generation better off than the previous one?
Van Kippersluis: ‘For people born between 1960 and 1980, the Netherlands led the world in intergenerational income growth, adjusted for inflation. Before those birth years, about 80 per cent of children earned more than their parents. This increased family income was primarily driven by the rising labour force participation of women. But since then, this percentage has stagnated and is now steadily declining. The message of capitalism is that each generation should be better off. That is now eroding. Not only in terms of upward mobility, but also in terms of healthy lifespans, political stability, and climate and environmental issues. It is no longer self-evident that each generation is better off than the previous one. This is causing social unrest.’
Lieke Beekers is an assistant professor at the Department of Economics at Leiden University. She studies socioeconomic inequality, the economics of education, health economics, and applied micro-econometrics. She evaluates economic policy using administrative data and surveys.
Hans van Kippersluis is a professor of applied economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He uses econometric tools to investigate inequality in human capital, such as health and education, and how we can stimulate investments in areas such as healthy behaviour, education and labour supply.