Trends in Occupational Mobility in Canada and the United States: A Comparison

McRoberts, Hugh A.; Selbee, Kevin

doi:10.2307/2095261

Cited by 35 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This hypothesis, labelled the FJH revision by Erikson et al, leads to the prediction that mobility chances are invariant once variations in origin and destination distributions have been controlled. Although the FJH revision has been supported by pairwise or three-way comparisons (Erikson et al, 1982;McRoberts and Selbee, 1981;Hope, 1982;Portocarero, 1983;Hauser, 1983), research with a larger sample of countries has tended to emphasize cross-national variability (Tyree et al, 1979;Hazelrigg and Garnier, 1976;McClendon, 1980a).2 There is also some disagreement about the degree to which "structural influences," reflected in the margins of the mobility table, can account for national differences in observed mobility rates. The FJH revision implies that variation in observed mobility must be attributed to marginal differences, yet McClendon (1980b) has recently reported a contrary finding among industrialized nations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Models of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Countries

Grusky¹,

Hauser²

1984

American Sociological Review

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Models of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Countries

Grusky¹,

Hauser²

1984

American Sociological Review

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…_ The model fits the three, collapsed mobility tables fairly well, thus providing further support for the Featherman-Jones-Hauser (1975) hypothesis that among the industnal nations, once persistent differences in class distnbutions have been con-trolled, there is substantial uniformity in relative chances of mobility and immobility (also, see Enkson, Goldthorpe & Portocarero 1979, 1983, Grusky & Hauser 1984, McRoberts & Selbee 1981). While the numbers in the table merely index the cells with common levels of mobility or immobility, those indexes have been assigned inversely to the observed density.…”

mentioning

confidence: 56%

Vertical Class Mobility in England, France, and Sweden

Hauser

1984

Acta Sociologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents new findings about English, French, and Swedish mobility tables from the early 1970s that were previously analyzed by Enkson, Goldthorpe & Portocarero and by Hope. The former analysis focused on nonvertical aspects of mobility, while the latter gave priority to vertical mobility. The reanalysis shows that the vertical dimension of mobility is stronger and more autonomous than one would conclude from earlier analyses. At the same time, it is necessary to introduce several parameters for class inheritance in order to fit the data, and these parameters account for more of the association between class origins and destinations than does the vertical aspect of class mobility Educational attainment accounts for part of the vertical aspect of mobility, but income and occupational prestige do not help to explain it. The new models provide direct evidence of a gradient in immobility across the three nations The present findings suggest complementarities between vertical and nonvertical models of class mobility. This paper reanalyzes intergenerational mobility classifications for samples of men in three Western European nations in the early 1970s. The data for England and Wales (N = 9 434), France (N = 4 770), and Sweden (N = 2 096) were rendered com-

show abstract

“…They find that absolute mobility rates differ across nations, relative mobility rates (e.g., the underlying mobility regime) show a basic similarity in all societies with market economies and nuclear family systems. This revised version, known as the Featherman-Jones-Hauser hypothesis, has been supported by Erikson et al (1982), McRoberts and Selbee (1981), Hope (1982), Portocarero (1983), Häuser (1983), Grusky and Hauser (1984), 4 Erikson and Goldthorpe (1987a, 1987b, 1988a, and Jones and Davis (1986). The findings of these researchers 5 seem to suggest a large 3 For a discussion of the 'Six competing laws of motion' see Kerr (1983) and Lipset and Zetterberg (1966).…”

Section: Cross-national Research On Mobility Patternsmentioning

confidence: 94%