**<u>Table 1: Estimates of earning inequality and inequality of opportunity</u>**

||_Overall earnings_|_Tranches_|_approach_|_Types a_|_pproach_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||_inequality_|_Opportunity_<br>_inequality_|_Opportunity_<br>_share_|_Opportunity_<br>_inequality_|_Opportunity_<br>_share_|
||_(1)_|_(2)_|_(3)_|_(4)_|_(5)_|
|Full sample||||||
|All|0.635<sup>***</sup>|0.0901<sup>***</sup>|0.142<sup>***</sup>|0.0911<sup>***</sup>|0.144<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.014)|(0.002)|(0.003)|(0.001)|(0.004)|
|Male|0.618<sup>***</sup>|0.0954<sup>***</sup>|0.154<sup>***</sup>|0.0932<sup>***</sup>|0.151<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.019)<br>|(0.002)<br>|(0.005)<br>|(0.002)<br>|(0.006)<br>|
|Female|0.567<sup>***</sup>|0.0828<sup>***</sup>|0.146<sup>***</sup>|0.0881<sup>***</sup>|0.155<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.022)|(0.002)|(0.005)|(0.002)|(0.007)|
|Urban sample<br>All|0.618<sup>***</sup>|0.0900<sup>***</sup>|0.146<sup>***</sup>|0.0560<sup>***</sup>|0.0907<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.016)<br>|(0.003)<br>|(0.004)<br>|(0.001)<br>|(0.004)<br>|
|Male|0.556<sup>***</sup>|0.0938<sup>***</sup>|0.169<sup>***</sup>|0.0561<sup>***</sup>|0.101<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.021)<br>|(0.005)<br>|(0.007)<br>|(0.002)<br>|(0.006)<br>|
|Female|0.581<sup>***</sup>|0.0838<sup>***</sup>|0.144<sup>***</sup>|0.0551<sup>***</sup>|0.0948<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.029)|(0.003)|(0.006)|(0.002)|(0.005)|
|Rural sample<br>All|0.393<sup>***</sup>|0.0641<sup>***</sup>|0.163<sup>***</sup>|0.00721<sup>***</sup>|0.0184<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.009)|(0.001)|(0.005)|(0.000)|(0.001)|
|Male|0.386<sup>***</sup>|0.0669<sup>***</sup>|0.173<sup>***</sup>|0.00731<sup>***</sup>|0.0189<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.011)|(0.002)|(0.007)|(0.000)|(0.001)|
|Female|0.333<sup>***</sup>|0.0603<sup>***</sup>|0.181<sup>***</sup>|0.00703<sup>***</sup>|0.0211<sup>***</sup>|
||(0.012)|(0.002)|(0.008)|(0.000)|(0.001)|

_Note:_ Bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses based on 99 replications.<sup>*</sup> _p_ < .10<sup>**</sup> _p_ < .05<sup>***</sup> _p_ < .001 Table 1 also shows that earnings inequality is greater in urban areas (61.8 percent) than in rural areas (39.3 percent). In urban areas, according to both the tranche and types approaches, inequality of opportunity as a share of overall earnings inequality ranges from 9.5 percent (table 1, column 5) to 16.9 percent (table 1, column 3) across the gender spectrum; the averages across gender in urban areas are 9.1 percent (table 1, column 5) and 14.6 percent (table 1, column 3). The difference in inequality of opportunity between men and women in urban areas is highly significant at the 1 percent level. In rural areas, however, the contribution of unequal opportunity to earnings inequality is greater among women according to the tranche approach. The nonparametric tranche approach yields relatively larger shares of inequality of opportunity than the nonparametric types approach. This might derive from the large sampling variance and the small cells (Ferreira and Gignoux 2008; Hassine 2012). Independently of the decomposition employed, the results should be treated as lower-bound estimates (Ferreira and Peragine 2015, Hassine 2012).

# **b) Parametric Results**

The second part of the analysis revolves around the parametric estimates. First, to obtain the overall opportunity share of earnings, the reduced form equation (10) has been estimated. Table 2 reports the results of the reduced form for all. Overall, the circumstance variables have the expected effects on earnings. Here again, the social background of fathers matters, especially for individuals with 17