effects of the ascribed variables on the youths’ occupational destination are of similar strength. Nonetheless, the most important difference is that, those who migrate from their localities of origin demonstrate considerably higher overall effects from their education on their occupational attainment, which refers to a greater equality in opportunity. It is likely that moving to mainly urban localities, with a lower level of marginalization and with likely more dynamic labor markets, allows migrants to effectively apply the education they have received and, thus, obtain occupations of higher status, which represents upward mobility and access to better life opportunities.

The described results show an overview of the contrasts present in the youths’ group studied. Half were able to ascend with respect to their occupation of origin (and, therefore, the other half did not), but even then, their occupational insertion is not favorable, they have strong occupational inheritance and barriers to social upward mobility. This experience is not homogeneous; women and migrants presented greater equality in their labor opportunities. The evidence points to the importance of education, first occupation and the youths’ cognitive abilities (in that order) as mediating factors that may mitigate the weight of social origins on their occupational destinations. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the characteristics of the contexts of labor insertion are important. In this sense, public policy should reinforce these areas. As indicated in previous studies, it is necessary to encourage the cognitive development of children, extend their schooling trajectories, improve the quality of the educational institutions they attend and promote greater learning. Also, strategies to delay the age of youths’ first employment and improve the status of their first occupation are required, as well as to link their spheres of education and labor. Additionally, it is essential to promote the development of rural localities, as well as the regions they belong to.

These findings described are similar to those reported in studies on intergenerational occupational mobility performed after 10 years of intervention of the program in rural areas (see Yaschine, 2015). The main difference is that, while in the medium-term, no effect from the program on the inequality of labor opportunities was identified, in this study the findings suggest a possible effect from receiving a higher intensity of PROSPERA’s treatment. Nonetheless, the samples from both studies are not strictly comparable and the current results are not conclusive, consequently, they must be taken with a grain of salt. The comparison we carried out suggests that a higher treatment intensity may generate a greater probability for youths to have occupations related to better socioeconomic levels, through a greater inheritance of NM positions and a lesser inheritance of the agricultural stratum. However, in the backdrop of this distinction are the high intergenerational inheritance rates for both groups, which describes a less encouraging picture.

Due to the limitations of the sample, we consider that the results of this study are valid only for the subpopulation analyzed, although they may be considered as indicative for the beneficiary population of PROSPERA in rural areas. Furthermore, the estimated effects of PROSPERA reflect a reduced difference in treatment intensity and should not be taken as the overall effect that the program may have after 20 years. Additionally, the estimated effects may be underestimated for two reasons. First, ENCEL 2017 did not collect information on all migrants 55