Vertical Class Mobility in England, France, and Sweden

Abstract

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-

A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status

“…A third reason to favor continuous measures draws upon the first and second reasons and stems from prior analyses of intergenerational occupational mobility tables (Hauser, 1984;Luijkx and Ganzeboom, 1989;Ganzeboom et al, 1989). These analyses show that the multitude of potentially important parameters in loglinear analysis of mobility tables can be reduced effectively to as few as one or two parameters that vary across tables, if one introduces the concept of distance-in-mobility between classes and restricts the parameters to be estimated likewise.…”

Models for Describing the Underlying Structure of Sex Segregation

“…This model differs from our baseline specification in equation (3) because Tj, refers to a priori values rather than freely estimated ones.30 We thus end up with a hybrid specification that stands somewhere between the association models of Haberman (1974) and those of Hout (1984). As indicated in equation (14), the row categories in our data are scaled with the standard unit scores of a linear-by-linear interaction model (see Haberman 1974;Duncan 1979;Goodman 1979a), whereas the column categories are scaled with external scores of the kind deployed by Hout (1984Hout ( , 1988, Hauser (1984), and others (Hout and Jackson 1986;SzelCnyi 1988).…”

A new international measure of social stratification

“…10 This resulted in a 193 × 193 table of occupational titles, which was the input of the RC-II Goodman's association model (Goodman 1979;Clogg 1982;Hauser, 1984) through which the scale scores were estimated.…”