Download The Social Mobility and Status Attainment Reader

The Social Mobility and Status Attainment Reader
Prepared for the course, „Comparative Social Inequality”
From: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-mobilitysocial.html
The movement–usually of individuals but sometimes of whole groups–between different positions within
the system of social stratification in any society. It is conventional to distinguish upward and downward
mobility (that is, movement up or down a hierarchy of privilege), and intergenerational from
intragenerational or career mobility (the former referring to mobility between a family of origin and one's
own class or status position, the latter to the mobility experienced during an individual career, such as
respondent's first job compared to his or her present job).
The status-attainment programme sees the principal interest of mobility studies as being an attempt to
specify those attributes which are characteristic of individuals who end up in the more desirable rather than
the less desirable jobs. Characteristically, these studies investigate the extent to which the present
occupational status of individuals is associated with the status of their family of origin, rather than individual
achievements such as educational attainment. One virtue of this approach, as compared to earlier crosstabulations of father's occupation by son's occupation, was that it disentangled at least some of the processes
that linked the generations. For example, researchers explored the effects of father's education on son's
occupational attainment, and showed that these were distinct from the effects of father's occupation. Most
studies maintained that son's education was the crucial link between family background and occupational
success, arguing that as much as half of the association between the two was mediated via education, with
children from more privileged family backgrounds being higher educational achievers than their poorer
peers. Later researchers extended the field of interest to include data on income, with most concluding that
the impact of family background on earnings is substantial, but operates entirely indirectly through
educational and occupational attainment.
Most of these studies employed the statistical techniques of regression analysis (and in particular path
analysis). Most were also underpinned by a tacit adherence to a liberal model of industrial societies as
increasingly homogeneous, middle class, meritocratic, and open. Typically, therefore, they tended to
conclude that structural shifts in advanced industrial economies (especially the expansion of managerial,
professional, and administrative occupations) created more ‘room at the top’ and so increased the
opportunities for upward social mobility of individuals from working-class origins. This increasing social
fluidity was reinforced by a progressive shift from ascriptive to achievement criteria as the dominant factors
determining status attainment, a movement towards meritocratic selection that, together with the prevailing
high rates of social mobility, undermined the potential for class formation and class conflict in industrial
societies. Peter M. Blau and Otis D. Duncan's The American Occupational Structure (1967) is generally held
to be the paradigmatic example of a study of social mobility within the status-attainment tradition.
The Blau-Duncan model prompted an enormous number of related and derivative studies. Whatever their
differences and similarities, however, they all rested upon the assumption that occupations can be ranked
within a status hierarchy about which there is a wide degree of consensus within and between societies. In
some studies this social hierarchy was conceptualized narrowly as being one of occupational prestige most
commonly, how people rate the relative ‘general standing’ of different occupations. In others, it was
extended to include additional aspects of socio-economic status, such as income and years of schooling.
Rather than dispute the details of the occupational hierarchy, however, European class analysis came
increasingly to challenge the basic premise of the status attainment research programme; namely, that social
mobility was most appropriately viewed as a matter of hierarchical occupational attainment among
competing individuals.
The class analysis tradition starts from the rather different assumption that individuals are born into distinct
social classes, membership of which has clear consequences for life-chances, values, norms, life-styles, and
1
patterns of association. Representatives of this tradition argue that the socio-economic status scales at the
heart of the status-attainment perspective display many unresolved methodological weaknesses. Most
importantly, because these scales are a composite measure of popular judgments about the relative prestige
or social standing of the various occupations, they rank alongside each other, as having similar levels of
socio-economic status, occupations which have quite different structural locations. For example, skilled
manual workers may have the same prestige score as routine clerical workers and self-employed
shopkeepers, or office supervisors may be ranked alongside farmers and schoolteachers. In other words, the
synthetic categories of the scale typically contain occupational groupings that are subject to different
structural forces: because of sectoral and other changes in the occupational structure, some occupations will
be in expansion, others in contraction, and some will be static. Such heterogeneity merely muddies the water
of mobility: it is impossible to distinguish adequately the various structural influences on mobility from
those which originate in other factors, and impossible also therefore to isolate hierarchical effects (family
background, educational attainment, or whatever) from other effects of a non-hierarchical kind (such as
changes in the occupational division of labour, industrial or sectoral growth and decline, government
policies of protection, and so forth).
During the 1980s, and in response to criticism by proponents of the new structuralism, researchers
examining occupational outcomes within the explanatory framework of status attainment attempted to
incorporate structural limitations as well as socialization processes within their explanations. That is, they
moved away from the question of how family of origin and educational attainment affect occupational
placement, towards analysis of the impact on occupational outcomes of variation in labour-market structures
and processes. This change of emphasis was an attempt to overcome the perceived failure of statusattainment research to consider how structural effects impact upon educational and occupational attainment.
The result was something of a hybrid between the status-attainment and class analysis traditions
From: http://www.sv.uio.no/forskerskole/Breen%202005%20ARS.pdf
Research in social stratification is a very lively area within sociology, being so near the heart of the
discipline itself. A common distinction within this area is between inequality of opportunity and inequality
of condition. The former has its origin in the liberal goal that a person’s chances to get ahead (attain an
education, get a good job) should be unrelated to ascribed characteristics such as race, sex, or class (or
socioeconomic) origin. The latter, inequality of condition, is concerned with the distribution of differential
rewards and living conditions, either in the simple form of distributions of scarce goods or in relation to
different inputs (such as effort and time) or rights (such as citizenship or employment). Of course, the
distinction between inequality of opportunity and of condition is not clear cut, but it is a useful tool for
organizing a review of the literature.
In the social sciences, studies of inequality of opportunity typically are about attainments of educational
qualifications and social positions (occupations, social class, etc.) and how these attainments are associated
with ascribed characteristics. Studies of inequality of condition, in contrast, are concerned with income
differences or differential rewards in the labor market or in the larger distributional system, including the
welfare state.
Much research shows that characteristics of the family of origin (such as parental socioeconomic status and
education, cultural assets, social networks, and parental motivation) are associated with educational
outcomes (e.g., de Graaf et al. 2000, Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 1997, Gamoran 2001). These resource
differences have their effects both via socialization and educational choice, and one of the most significant
trends in the study of inequalities in educational attainment in the past decade has been the resurgence of
rational choice models focusing on educational decision making (Breen & Goldthorpe 1997; Erikson &
Jonsson 1996a; Esser 1999; Morgan 1998, 2002; for earlier work of this kind, see Boudon 1974 and
Gambetta 1987).
2
The topic of contextual effects on educational attainment attracted growing attention during the 1990s. One
important context is the school: Studies not only focus on characteristics of schools such as efficacy in
instruction and resource differences, but also examine endogenous social interaction effects that influence
school climate, norms, and educational aspirations (see reviews by Mortimer 1997, Sampson et al. 2002,
Small & Newman 2001). Studies support the view that there are additional effects of social context on
educational attainment, beyond the school, such as growing up in a poor neighborhood, thus boosting the
influence of social origin (Erikson 1994, Garner & Raudenbush 1991, contributions to Brooks- Gunn et al.
1997, Mayer 2002). Studies of contextual effects are plagued with problems of endogeneity, or population
sorting: Much of what looks like effects of an individual environment may be due to a selection of people
with certain characteristics into certain neighborhoods and schools (e.g., Manski 2000). For example, this
would be the case if parents who are very motivated and best able to support their children’s schooling also
actively choose neighborhoods and schools where the socioeconomic context is more privileged. However,
even studies that have attempted to solve the endogeneity problem have concluded that the socioeconomic
environment has an impact on children’s educational success (Erikson 1994, Hanushek et al. 2003, Harding
2003). But environmental effects are probably of a rather modest magnitude: Between 80% and 90% of the
variation in school achievement, for example, appears to be between families within schools or
neighborhoods (Entwisle et al. 1997, Erikson 1994, Garner & Raudenbush 1991, Mortimer 1997; compare
also Solon et al. (2000) for an equally low estimate comparing neighborhood and sibling resemblance in
earnings).
From: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep450.pdf
The concept of social mobility
Social mobility can be thought of in absolute and relative terms. The former refers to processes of
adjustment in the income or occupational structure of the economy. The latter, sometimes called social
fluidity, is associated with an individual’s opportunities for progression within the social hierarchy. Social
mobility can also be thought of as intra-generational (chances for social progression within an individual’s
own life time) and inter-generational (a comparison of achieved social position with that of one’s parents).
Further, the study of social mobility can be differentiated into two distinct traditions: a sociological tradition
and an economic tradition. The sociological tradition is based on an understanding of the structure of society
defined by an occupational hierarchy, while the economic tradition tends to focus on income groups. Both of
these approaches have significant merits for the study of social mobility. However, in terms of informing the
development of policy responses within the remit of the DWP, an alternative social structure is suggested,
based upon the quality of participation in the labour market (Section 3.4).
There is some debate about the importance of social mobility and its relationship with inequality and
economic growth. On the one hand, high levels of inequality might be thought to constrain the potential for
movement within the social hierarchy, leading to a double-bind of high inequality and low mobility. On the
other, high levels of inequality and mobility might be thought to be good bedfellows, suggesting that
sufficient incentives are built into the social structure to allow the economy to make the best use of its
resources, allocating talented labour to high value jobs. To the extent that it is available, the evidence
appears to favour the former argument, with those countries with higher levels of mobility also having lower
inequality. There is also some evidence of causal linkages between inequality and low levels of mobility.
Trends in social mobility
Sociologists suggest that the social structure of the population did alter between the 1970s and the 1990s in
relation to economic and industrial change as what had previously been described as middle-class
occupations expanded and working class occupations contracted. However, the majority of work in the
sociological tradition suggests that relative social mobility did not increase during that period despite
significant expansions in the state education system. On this point, studies in the economic tradition largely
3
concur and even suggest that levels of relative social mobility may have fallen for those in the lowest
income groups. Additionally, international comparisons suggest that the UK compares unfavourably with
several other European countries and Canada in terms of social mobility, and while the United States (US)
has similar levels of social mobility to the UK, the UK’s position relative to the US has declined over recent
decades.
Caution needs to be exercised when interpreting these trends. There is a significant time lag in the data, due
to reliance on data for people who have achieved a final position in the social hierarchy. It is, therefore,
inappropriate to draw firm causal conclusions about the impact of policy trends over the last decade on these
longer-term social trends.
Factors influencing social mobility
The review suggests that social mobility is a complex and multi-faceted concept. Exploration of the range of
factors influencing social mobility reveals some important themes, but the complex relationship between
these means that it is inappropriate to make firm judgments about the relative importance of one or another
of them. In reality, they work in overlapping ways and in different combinations for different individuals.
The factors involved are:
• Social capital – there is some evidence that traditional working class social capital has declined, which
may have weakened its assumed negative effects on social mobility, while other ‘negative’ forms of social
capital have emerged such as cultures of worklessness, anti-social behaviour and drug abuse. A lack of
positive role models, peer pressure, poverty of ambition and risk aversion may serve as barriers to social
mobility. By contrast middle-class families tend to have access to a wider range of social networks that are
more advantageous from the point of view of enabling upward mobility and protecting against downward
mobility.
• Cultural capital – can also help middle-class families to confer social advantages on their children,
increasing their potential to move upwards and protecting them from downwards movement in the social
hierarchy.
• Early years influences – are seen as key to influencing later life chances. Convincing evidence shows that
early experiences such as the quality of the home environment, family structure, pre-school care and
relationships with caring adults produce a pattern of development in later life that is hard to reverse even
through schooling.
• Education – appears to be one of the most important factors influencing social mobility. However, there is
considerable evidence that the introduction and expansion of universal education systems in the UK and
Western Europe have not led to increasing levels of relative social mobility. This is due to a range of factors
including the ability of middle-class families to take advantage of educational opportunities.
• Employment and labour market experiences – recent decades have seen the emergence of important labour
market trends with implications for social mobility. First, substantial levels of worklessness and long-term
economic inactivity have emerged in some areas and/or among specific population groups. Second, research
has identified the emergence of a prominent ‘low-pay – no-pay’ cycle for some groups. There is also
evidence that specific groups face particular disadvantages in the labour market and that women who take
career breaks often have difficulty re-entering the labour market in the same position and therefore,
frequently experience downward social mobility after having children.
• Health and wellbeing – ill-health results from social and environmental factors identified with lower socioeconomic status, and ill-health and caring responsibilities can lead to declining socio-economic status.
4
• Area-based influences – localised environmental problems appear to combine with socio-economic
disadvantage to produce negative area-based influences on potential for social mobility. For example,
inequalities in access to private transport combined with poorer quality provision in some important public
services in deprived areas may mean that lower socio-economic classes are unable to exercise effective
choices over access to these services.
From: http://www.sv.uio.no/forskerskole/Breen%202005%20ARS.pdf
A fundamental question for understanding macrolevel variation in inequality of opportunity, or societal
openness, is which countries should be classified as most open and which most rigid. Many scholars have
assumed that persistent egalitarian policies should make for greater openness, for example, but, equally,
scholars have long thought that the United States is an exceptional case, showing less rigidity than European
countries.
Aranking of countries according to degree of openness must be approached cautiously because of data
incomparability, conceptual problems, and measurement error. Furthermore, to the extent that countries
differ in their patterns of fluidity, ranking them in any unidimensional way is unrealistic. Nevertheless, some
characteristics appear to stand out in the reviewed literature. According to Breen & Luijkx (2004a,b),
Germany, France, and Italy tend to represent the rigid pole in such a ranking.7 The Scandinavian countries
(particularly Sweden and Norway) together with Hungary and Poland appear to be consistently among the
most open countries, as does Israel, whereas the Netherlands has become considerably more open over the
past quarter century. England, on the other hand, has, over the same period, gone from being among one of
the more open to one of the less open countries because, as noted above, it does not seem to have shared in
the widespread trend toward greater fluidity.
An interesting issue is the ranking of the United States. In an attempt to make a comparison with European
societies, Erikson & Goldthorpe (1992) concluded that the United States is fairly similar to them; the
somewhat higher degree of fluidity they found was attributed to problems of comparability, stemming from
lack of precision in the American occupational codings.8 In a direct comparison between educational
inequality in the United States and Sweden (one of the most equal countries in the existing literature), Hout
& Dohan (1996) found the two to be very similar.
5