Class Structure, Labor Market Heterogeneity, and Living Conditions in Latin America

Abstract

We analyze class structures in Latin America from a sociological perspective, defining social classes as labor market positions. We propose an adaptation of the Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero (EGP) class schema, which has become a standard in advanced industrialized countries but presents some limitations in accounting for labor relations in Latin America. Then, we use recent survey data for nine Latin American countries to delineate a map of current class structures and explore the association between social class and social/economic conditions. Our results indicate that class structures differ significantly not only between Latin America and advanced industrialized nations but also among Latin American countries. There is also a close association between class membership and socioeconomic conditions, including social protection and the risk of poverty. These results suggest that a sociological approach to social class is still pertinent to understanding the relationships among productive structures, labor markets, and living conditions in Latin America.

Social Inequalities in Argentina and Chile: A Comparative Analysis of Welfare Models, Labour Policies, and Occupational Trajectories from a Biographical Perspective

“…The key difference is that some positions are regulated by a contract and others by a "service" relationship. Thus, although the EGP model was originally devised to apply to industrialised countries, where structural heterogeneity differs from that found in Latin America, research has proven its usefulness for international comparisons of macro-classes in the region (Solís et al, 2019).…”

Repensando la estructura de clases en formato comparativo en el marco de los procesos de heterogeneidad del mercado laboral en América Latina y Europa

“…Es en esta última clase en la que existe una mayor heterogeneidad ocupacional, ya que integra desde trabajadores calificados y semi-calificados (no profesionales) que ofrecen sus servicios de manera independiente, hasta los ya mencionados trabajadores informales, que suelen desempeñarse en ocupaciones de baja calificación, bajo condiciones laborales muy precarias, y, fundamentalmente, en los servicios personales y el comercio. En una propuesta previa de ajuste del modelo EGP a América Latina hemos sugerido separar a los trabajadores no calificados por cuenta propia y ubicarlos junto con la clase de asalariados manuales no calificados (VIIa) (Solís, P., Chávez Molina y Cobos D. (2019). No obstante, dado que el tipo de relación laboral que establecen es distinto al de los asalariados, parecería más apropiado mantenerlos en la clase de trabajadores por cuenta propia, pero distinguiéndolos de los trabajadores independientes de mayor calificación.…”

Contribution to a Historical-Structuralist Understanding of Latin American Democracy

“…This requires historical-structuralist inquiries into regional and national histories of democracy and democratization as contentious national internal processes fought within social structures of class and race and particular histories of configuration of political institutions and international relations.For that, internal differences in Latin American economic development between countries have to be taken into account, and that means going beyond an analysis of only the most industrialized countries in the region such as that of Collier and Chambers-Ju (2012). Both Di Tella (1973: 52–82) and Solís et al (2019: 860) agree on seeing that regional development, industrialization levels, and class structures between countries can be classified in three groups going from more industrialized to less: Southern Cone countries (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay); Brazil and Mexico; and Central American and Andean countries. These differences can account for the higher importance in general national and popular party politics of labor unions in Southern Cone countries and lesser in Central American and Andean countries where workplace informality is more widespread, with Brazil and Mexico in intermediate situations between those extremes.…”