Life Course Risks, Mobility Regimes, and Mobility Consequences: A Comparison of Sweden, Germany, and the U.S.

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIntragenerational mobility has been a central concern in sociology, especially in the latter half of the 20 th century. Most of this analysis has proceeded using measures of social position that are functions of an individual's occupation. This approach has been based on two primary justifications. First, occupational mobility is a key attribute of labor market structure, and the labor market, along with the educational system, is the principal institution responsible for a country's structure of inequality. Second, occupation is an income producing asset that provides an approximate measure of "permanent income" and standard of living. Occupation-based models of social mobility, however, have limitations that arguably have grown during the recent past. Meta-analysis of available evidence for Sweden, western Germany, and the United States concerning occupational mobility, household income mobility, job displacement, union dissolution, and poverty dynamics shows the limitations of the individual-level occupation-based careertrajectory approach to life course mobility. An alternative formulation at the household rather than the individual level is developed that focuses on cross-national variation in the extent to which institutions influence the rate of class-altering events, and the extent to which they mitigate the consequences of these events. The combination of these two institutional processes produces the distinctive characteristics of the mobility regimes of these three countries.2

Economic Penalties and Rewards of Family Formation, Gender and Education in the Low‐income Sector in Germany1

“…This approach builds on research on family formation and the assumption that concentrating on individual wages overlooks the influence of household changes on the standard of living (see e.g. DiPrete 2002; DiPrete and McManus 2000; Duncan, Gustafsson, Hauser, Schmauss and Mesinger 1993).…”

“…This dichotomy, however makes little sense when we recognize that families are composed of individuals who themselves carry different levels of human capital and who therefore enter and exit households with different bundles of (positive and negative) chances for welfare attainment. This distinction becomes especially problematic when considering individuals at risk of poverty, whose chances of economic stability or upward mobility are much more uncertain than those at the higher end of the income spectrum (DiPrete 2002). And, this vulnerability is even more pronounced for women than for men, especially for those women who choose to live in non‐traditional family structures.…”

Welfare states and social inequality: Key issues in contemporary cross-national research on social stratification and mobility

“…the basic model of stratification does not include a notion of a market; rather, destinations seem to be established as a (magical) result only of individuals' educational attainment and their family of origin. The basic model of stratification is an inter-generational model based on the family institution, addressing differences across generations; whereas if we are to understand the market, we often need to address intra-generational issues, such as career paths over a life-course (DiPrete, 2002). Nevertheless, despite the fact that the basic model of stratification has no notion of the existence of a labor market, when reading literature on social stratification and mobility, it is often the case that the interpretation of the analyses includes assumptions about the employers' behaviors and rationale.…”

Intergenerational class mobility and the convergence thesis: reflections 25 years later

“…Some nations – prototypically Sweden – pursue a politics that alters the distribution of class advantage and power by arraying welfare state institutions against market forces. Others – prototypically the USA – pursue a different politics that abets market forces (Esping Anderson 1990; DiPrete 2002).…”

“…Social democratic welfare states promote the equal outcomes and smooth over economic dislocations better than states that expose workers to market forces (Hout and DiPrete 2004). They achieve this in part by facilitating continuity in women's careers (DiPrete 2002), but they also buffer the personal impact of disruptions like unemployment and retirement (e.g., Gangl 2006).…”