Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European
Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Are
high
American
? New
rates
evidence
of social
on
an
mobility
old
exceptionally
issue
INTRODUCTION
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Occupational category(a)
Respondents' fathers(b)
USA 1973 ENG 1972
Respondents
USA 1973 ENG 1972
%
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Professionals, self-employed
Professionals, salaried
Managers
Salesmen, other
Proprietors
Clerks
Salesmen, retail
Craftsmen, manufacturing
Craftsmen, other
Craftsmen, construction
Operatives, manufacturing
Operatives, other
Service
Labourers, manufacturing
Labourers, other
Farmers
Farm labourers
N
1
6
6
3
5
4
2
7
7
6
9
8
6
2
4
18
5
1
3
8
2
8
4
1
13
10
6
9
14
4
2
8
5
4
2
14
12
4
3
7
2
8
8
6
11
8
6
2
4
3
1
1
10
14
2
5
6
1
14
8
7
10
9
3
1
7
2
2
21013
9438
21013
9438
USA
ENG
22
17
Notes: (a) For full details, see Blau and Duncan (1967: 26-9) and Featherman and Hauser (1978: 25-38).
(b) At respondent's age 16 (USA) or 14 (ENG).
01
HIGH?
Intergenerational Mobility Among Men Aged 20-64, 17 Occupational Categories. Outflow Percentages, Upper
Figure USA; 1973; Lower Figure ENG, 1972
TABLE 2
15
16
17
4
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
24
4
3
5
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
4
5
5
3
5
2
1
0
2
3
2
1
5
6
5
6
5
1
1
0
3
5
6
8
5
7
6
6
6
5
4
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
6
12
6
9
4
4
8
6
6
5
6
3
1
-
3
4
5
3
6
14
8
14
3
1
7
4
6
17
6
1
1
0
2
6
1
1
034
7
5
2
-
13
23
9
8
4
6
13
12
7
6
5
4
2
2
3
6
1
-
3
4
8
6
3
-
9
15
13
11
5
6
10
8
8
8
6
4
2
1
4
6
1
1
3
2
4
5
6
5
2
-
6
11
9
11
15
17
10
9
8
7
5
4
1
1
5
9
I
0
1
1
9
10
3
2
3
3
8
5
2
-
12
20
8
8
5
6
20
16
8
10
6
3
3
2
3
8
1
-
10
6
9
9
3
1
3
3
8
5
2
1
9
14
10
9
6
7
12
12
14
17
6
4
2
1
5
10
1
-
1
1
12
10
10
15
3
2
3
3
9
7
2
1
6
14
9
9
5
6
12
8
9
11
11
6
2
-
5
5
14 Labourers, manufacturing
1
0
7
4
8
7
3
0
3
4
6
6
2
0
11
16
8
10
8
6
19
17
10
11
5
5
6
4
5
10
1
I
1
1
15 Labourers, other
1
-
7
5
9
8
2
1
3
3
7
5
1
1
8
15
9
7
7
10
16
13
11
11
8
4
2
1
9
15
16 Farmers
1
2
7
5
8
8
2
2
3
5
4
1
2
0
7
7
8
5
7
4
13
7
9
8
6
3
3
2
5
7
12
23
4
10
17 Farm labourers
4
4
4
6
2
2
2
3
5
3
1
1
10
10
9
9
7
7
16
9
11
13
7
2
4
1
8
14
4
3
7
16
I Professionals, self-employed 12
17
32
27
18
26
6
1
3
5
4
2
2
0
3
5
5
3
3
1
1
6
4
1
2 Professional, salaried
4
4
34
24
15
22
4
3
1
3
7
9
3
-
5
8
6
7
3
3
6
5
3 Managers
3
4
22
16
24
30
8
3
3
6
6
9
4
1
4
7
6
6
3
2
4 Salesmen, other
4
3
21
19
20
26
12
5
2
6
7
7
3
0
4
6
6
8
5 Proprietors
3
2
17
12
20
18
8
3
8
18
6
5
3
1
6
8
6 Clerks
1
2
22
17
16
19
4
4
2
5
11
10
2
-
7 Salesmen, retail
4
0
14
9
16
11
8
0
6
10
9
9
8 Craftsmen, manufacturing
1
1
16
10
11
12
5
2
2
3
9 Craftsmen, other
1
1
15
12
1
15
4
2
10 Craftsmen, construction
1
1
11
7
12
9
11 Operatives, manufacturing
1
1
11
6
12 Operatives, other
1
-
13 Service workers
Father's occupation
19
16
17
16
17
11
-
17
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
TABLE 3
Intergenerational Mobility Among Men Aged 20-64, Five Social Strata. Outflow Percentages, Upper Figure
USA, 1973; Lower Figure ENG, 1972
Father's stratum
% of total
I Upper nonmanual
(occupational categories 1-4)
58
55
12
14
13
16
17
14
1
1
16
14
2 Lower nonmanual
(occupational categories 5-7)
44
36
17
21
16
24
21
19
1
1
12
12
3 Upper manual
(occupational categories 8-10)
30
26
12
10
27
36
29
28
1
1
21
29
4 Lower manual
(occupational categories 11-15)
22
17
12
9
24
32
41
41
1
1
30
36
5 Farm
(occupational categories 16-17)
16
14
9
6
23
21
37
33
15
27
23
9
31
27
12
11
22
29
32
30
4
3
% oftotal
10
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
TABLE
Results of Testing Log-Linear Models Against American and English Intergenerational Mobility Data
Mobility by 17 occupational categories
Model
G2
df
7487.5
512
0.00
B. NO ND OD
(common social fluidity)
385-2
255
0.00
C. NO ND OD
with diagonal cells for
categories 5 and 16 fitted
(17 categories) or strata
2 and 5 fitted (5 strata)
349.6
253
D. NO ND OD
with all diagonal cells
fitted
337.4
35.6
12.2
A. NO ND
(independence)
B-C
C-D
11
REVIEW
reduction
in G2
reduction
in G2
G2
df
17.6
5363.6
32
0-00
94.9
3-3
84-2
16
0.00
98.4
1.7
0.00
95.3
1.3
43.3
14
0.00
99.2
0.5
238
0.00
95.4
0-2
37.7
11
0.00
99.3
0.2
2
15
0.00
>0.50
40-9
5.6
2
3
0.00
0.13
15.2
N = Nation
O = Origin-father's category or stratum
D = Destination-respondents category or stratum
12
Birth cohort(a)
G2
df
1 1908-9 to 1922-3
33.6
16
0.006
1.8
2 1923-4 to 1937-8
41.7
16
0.000
2.0
3 1938-9 to 1952-3
30.0
16
0-018
1.6
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
13
REVIEW
TABLE
% found (1972-3) in
upper nonmanual
occupations
(stratum 1)
% found (1972-3) in
upper and lower
nonmanual
occupations
(strata 1 and 2)
1908-9 to 1922-3
USA
ENG
16
13
28
23
1923 to 1937-8
USA
ENG
15
15
25
23
1938-9 to 1952-3
USA
ENG
10
12
18
17
All
USA
ENG
13
13
23
21
Birth cohort
14
HIGH?
Results of Testing Log-Linear Models Against American and English Three-Way Mobility Data, Five
Social Strata
TABLE 7
G2
df
% reduction
in G2
21,762.1
224
0.00
32-9
B. NO NE ND OED
(common social fluidity)
432.4
112
0.00
98.0
4.0
132-6
80
0-00
99-4
2.1
278.8
80
0-00
98.7
3-2
124.6
80
0.00
99-4
2.0
189.2
128
0.00
99-1
2.3
70.0
64
0-28
99-7
1.4
62.6
208-7
54-6
119-3
16
16
16
64
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
Model
A. NO NE ND
(independence)
=
=
=
=
Nation
Origin-father's stratum
Entry-stratum of respondent's first occupation
Destination-stratum of respondent's occupation at time of inquiry
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
15
EXCEPTIONALLY
AREAMERICANRATESOFSOCIALMOBILITY
HIGH?
16
TABLE
Class(a)
USA
Class origins
ENG
SWE
Class destinations
USA
ENG
SWE
%
I+II
service class; professionals, administrators,managers
14
13
11
28
25
24
11
IVa+b
petty bourgeoisie
12
10
11
IVc
farmers
19
26
19
39
24
24
33
30
23
23
20
26
22
22
III
routine nonmanual employees
V/VI
lower technicians, supervisors of manual workers, skilled
manual workers
VIIa
semi- and unskilled manual workers
VIIb
agriculturalworkers
Dissimilarity indices (A) origins/destinations:
USA
25
ENG
SWE
14
27
Note: (a) The numberingof classes here used preserves that of the original version of the schema in Goldthorpe ( 1980).
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
TABLE
17
REVIEW
Father's class
I+II
Vla
VIIb
I+II
ENG
SWE
USA
59
56
53
12
12
13
6
6
5
1
0
1
15
17
14
7
8
13
1
1
1242
225
2918
III
ENG
SWE
USA
34
38
37
13
14
18
7
10
6
0
-
28
22
18
16
15
20
1
1
-
694
73
1695
IVa+b
ENG
SWE
USA
28
30
35
9
5
11
21
17
12
1
2
2
25
27
21
16
18
18
1
1
902
233
2505
IVc
ENG
SWE
USA
15
13
16
6
8
8
7
7
8
23
17
13
20
24
23
20
27
29
9
4
3
427
543
4030
V/VI
ENG
SWE
USA
20
25
27
8
8
12
7
6
5
1
1
41
38
30
23
21
24
1
1
1
3676
495
3931
VIIa
ENG
SWE
USA
15
19
21
9
7
11
6
7
5
1
1
37
38
27
32
26
36
1
1
1
2150
416
4862
VIIb
ENG
SWE
USA
8
14
9
5
3
6
7
5
7
3
3
3
28
30
25
33
38
42
16
7
8
343
110
807
18
G2
df
USA-ENG
179-7
36
0-00
2.4
ENG-SWE
70-4
36
0.00
1.8
USA-SWE
42.2
36
0-22
0-9
HIGH?
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSIONS
REVIEW
19
20
HIGH?
NOTES
1. 'Among aristocratic people, families remain for centuries in
the same condition and often in the same place . . . Since
classes are highly differentiated and immobile, each
becomes for its members a kind of little homeland . . .'
'Among democratic peoples, new families continually
spring from nowhere while others disappear to nowhere,
and all the rest change their complexion ... As every class
comes more to resemble the others, and to merge with
them, their members grow indistinguishable from, and
unrecognizableto each other.' (Authors' translation).
2. For the sources of the above quotations and more general
discussion of the views of Marx and Engels on social
mobility in the USA and elsewhere, see Lipset (1977) and
Goldthorpe (1980).
3. But as an interesting forerunner,see Lipset and Zetterberg
(1956).
4. Thernstrom's argument here turns on the possibility of
differences in men's rates of upward worklife mobility
before the birth of their children. If more men in the USA
were thus mobile than elsewhere, then, he maintains, a
finding of similar rates of upward and downward
intergenerationalmobility could be quite misleading, given
that the baseline from which such rates are normally
computed is the occupational level of fathers at some point
subsequent to the birth of their children. For, in the
circumstances hypothesized, 'A larger fraction of the sons
of American white-collar workers should have been
downwardly mobile, because fewer of their fathers were
solidly established in the white-collar world for their full
careers. Conversely, we would expect to find less upward
intergenerational mobility on the part of the sons of
American workers, because many of the more ambitious
and intelligent workers would have been removed from the
working class and drawn up into the middle class, leaving a
diminished pool of talent at the working class level.'
(1974:550).
5. The recoding of the English data was undertaken, with
remarkable assiduity, by Wolfgang Konig. However, the
authors accept responsibility for checking his work and
hence for any errors that may be involved.
6. What we here refer to as the 'English' inquiry in fact
covered England and Wales. For full details see
Goldthorpe (1980).
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL
7. This is brought out in Kerckhoff, Campbell and
Winfield-Laird(1985)-a study which, it should be noted,
covers some of the same ground as the present one with
generally similar results.
Doubt about the classification of proprietorsgenerally in
the USA is occasioned by the fact that since 1970 the
Bureau of the Census has adopted the practice of asking
individuals who describe themselves as being self-employed
whether their businesses are incorporated and, if so, has
then treated them in the 'class of worker' coding as private
employees-i.e. as employees of their own businesses. As
well as reducing the number of those counted as
self-employed, this procedure may well then also affect the
composition of this category by tending to filter out larger
proprietors.
We had therefore various grounds for suspecting that
mobility patterns associated with proprietorship would be
more likely than others to reveal cross-national differences
in advance of this being shown up by our empirical
analyses.
8. Such inflation may be expected most confidently in the case
of mobility into the higher non-manual stratum; so far as
mobility into the lower non-manual stratum is concerned,
offsetting tendencies can of course also be supposed in that
this stratum is more narrowly defined.
9. The Swedish data derive from the national Level of Living
Survey of 1974. For details see Erikson, Goldthorpe and
Portocarero (1979) and the furthersources cited therein.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are indebted to Wolfgang K6nig for extensive research
assistance; to Leif Andersson for additional help with
computing problems and to Bob Hauser, Jan Hoem, Carl
Gunnar Janson and Walter Korpi for information, advice and
helpful commentary.
This paper results from work undertaken as part of the
research project, Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in
Industrial Nations (CASMIN), which is based in the Institut
fur Sozialwissenschaften, University of Mannheim, and
supported by grants of the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk,
Hanover.
REFERENCES
Bertaux D. (1974): 'Mobilite sociale biographique:une critique
de l'approche transversale'. Revuefranfaise de sociologie,
15.
Blau P M, Duncan 0 D. (1967): The American Occupational
Structure. New York: Wiley.
Chinoy E. (1955): 'Social Mobility Trends in the United
States'. American Sociological Review, 20.
Erikson R, Goldthorpe J H, Portocarero L. (1979):
'Intergenerational Class Mobility in Three Western
European Societies'. British Journal of Sociology, 30.
(1982): 'Social Fluidity in Industrial
Nations'. British Journal of Sociology, 33.
REVIEW
21
22
HIGH?
AUTHORS' ADDRESSES
Robert Erikson, Swedish Institute for Social Research,
University of Stockholm, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
John H Goldthorpe, Nuffield College, Oxford OX INF, UK.
Manuscriptreceived: 18 September, 1984.