Social mobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Jump to: navigation, search

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.

Definition and typology[edit]

Social mobility is defined as movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between layers or tiers in an open system of social stratification. Open stratification systems are those in which at least some value is given to achieved status characteristics in a society. The movement can be in a downward or upward direction. Absolute social mobility occurs when there is even small movement such that the movement may seem to be horizontal within a given layer of stratification. Relative social mobility occurs when there is vertical movement between one or more layers of stratification. The availability of at least some social mobility can be important in providing pathways to greater equality in societies with high social inequality.

Mobility is most often quantitatively measured in terms of change in economic mobility such as changes in income or wealth. Occupation is another measure used in researching mobility, which usually involves both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data. Yet other studies may concentrate on social class.[1] Mobility may be intragenerational, within the same generation, or intergenerational, between one or more generations..[2] Intragenerational mobility is less frequent, representing "rags to riches" cases in terms of of upward mobility. Intergenerational upward mobility is more common, where children or grandchildren are in economic circumstances better than those of their parents or grandparents. In the U.S.A, this type of mobility has been a fundamental feature of the "American Dream."

Social status and social class[edit]

Social mobility is highly dependent on the overall structure of social statuses and occupations in a given society.[3] The extent of differing social positions and the manner in which they fit together or overlap provides the overall social structure of such positions. Add to this the differing dimensions of status, such as Max Weber's delineation[4] of economic stature, prestige, and power and we see the potential for complexity in a given social stratification system. Such dimensions within a given society can be seen as independent variables that can explain differences in social mobility at different times and places in different stratification systems. In addition, the same variables that contribute as intervening variables to the valuation of income or wealth and that also effect social status, social class, and social inequality do affect social mobility. These include sex or gender, race or ethnicity, and age.[5] Structural mobility is a type of forced mobility that results from a change in the distribution of all or many of the statuses within a society. While structural mobility can be upward mobility, it more often involves downward mobility.

Class cultures and social networks[edit]

These differing dimensions of social mobility can be classified in terms of differing types of capital that contribute to changes in mobility. Cultural capital, a term first coined by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is the process of distinguishing between the economic aspects of class and powerful cultural assets. Bourdieu described three types of capital that place a person in a certain social category: economic capital; social capital; and cultural capital. Economic capital includes economic resources such as cash, credit, and other material assets. Social capital includes resources one achieves based on group membership, networks of influence, relationships and support from other people. Cultural capital is any advantage a person has that gives them a higher status in society, such as education, skills, or any other form of knowledge. Usually, people with all three types of capital have a high status in society. Bourdieu found that the culture of the upper social class is oriented more toward formal reasoning and abstract thought. The lower social class is geared more towards matters of facts and the necessities of life. He also found that the environment in which person develops has a large effect on the cultural resources that a person will have.[6]


Patterns of mobility[edit]

While it is generally accepted that some level of mobility in society is desirable, there is no consensus agreement upon "how much" social mobility is "good" or "bad" for a society. Certainly too much social mobility would mean a constant social flux with no chance to build traditions and social institutions. Too little mobility leads to social stagnation with little opportunity for innovation and, often, to entire classes of persons who feel disenfranchised from the benefit of social participation. Thus, there is no international "benchmark" of social mobility, though one can compare measures of mobility across regions or countries or within a given area over time.[7] While cross-cultural studies comparing differing types of economies are possible, comparing economies of similar type usually yields more comparable data. Such comparisons typically look at intergenerational mobility, examining the extent to which children born into different families have different life chances and outcomes.

Social mobility is lower in more unequal countries. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009).

In a study for which the results were first published in 2009, Wilkinson and Pickett conduct an exhaustive analysis of social mobility in developed countries.[8] In addition to other correlations with negative social outcomes for societies having high inequality, they found a relationship between high social inequality and low social mobility. Of the eight counties studied—Canada,Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK and the USA, the USA had both the highest economic inequality and lowest economic mobility. In this and other studies, in fact, the USA has very low mobility at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, with mobility increasing slightly as one goes up the ladder. At the top rung of the ladder, however, mobility again decreases.[9]

One study comparing social mobility between developed countries[10][11][12] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children.[11]

Intergenerational mobility graph-1.jpg

Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[13] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility. There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in the U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does. Researchers know less about the long-term mobility of the top 1 percent, but all indications are that people in this group usually don’t drop very far down the ladder.[14]

While cross-country comparisons of relative mobility rely on data and methodologies that are far from perfect, a growing number of economic studies have found that the United States stands out as having less, not more, intergenerational mobility than do Canada and several European countries. American children are more likely than other children to end up in the same place on the income distribution as their parents. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that mobility is particularly low for Americans born into families at the bottom of the earnings or income distribution.[9]

Studies have also found "a clear negative relationship" between income inequality and intergenerational mobility.[15] Countries with low levels of inequality such as Denmark, Norway and Finland had some of the greatest mobility, while the two countries with the high level of inequality -- Chile and Brazil—had some of the lowest mobility.

In Britain, much debate on social mobility has been generated by comparisons of the 1958 National Child Development Study NCDS. and the 1970 Birth Cohort Study BCS70.[16] compare intergenerational mobility in earnings between the 1958 and the 1970 UK cohorts, and claim that intergenerational mobility decreased substantially in this 12-year period. These findings have been controversial, partly due to conflicting findings on social class mobility using the same datasets[17] and partly due to questions regarding the analytical sample and the treatment of missing data.[18] UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has famously said that trends in social mobility "are not as we would have liked".[19]

Along with the aforementioned “Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?" study The Economist also stated that "evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much `stickier` than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining."[20] A German study corroborates these results.[21] In spite of this low mobility Americans have had the highest belief in meritocracy among middle- and high-income countries.[22]

Piketty (2014) finds that wealth-income ratios, today, seem to be returning to very high levels in low economic growth countries, similar to what he calls the "classic patrimonial" wealth-based societies of the 19th century wherein a minority lives off its wealth while the rest of the population works for subsistence living. While noting that relative intergenerational mobility has declined in the US over the last several decades, he concludes that this decline is in contrast to a very unique period in US history that saw high relative upward social mobilty during a period of rapid economic expansion and growth [23] In brief, the mobility present in the US economy today is what one would expect it to be given its current economic performance.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Grusky, David B. and Erin Cumberworth (February 2010). "A National Protocol for Measuring Intergenerational Mobility". Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science. Retrieved 15 July 2014. 
  2. ^ Lopreato, Joseph and Hazelrigg, Lawrence E. (December 1970). "Intragenerational versus Intergenerational Mobility in Relation to Sociopolitical Attitudes". Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press) 49 (2): 200–210. doi:10.2307/2576520. JSTOR 2576520. 
  3. ^ Grusky, David B and Robert M. Hauser (February 1984). "Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Models of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Countries". American Sociological Review 49 (1): 19–38. 
  4. ^ Weber, Max. 1946. “Class, Status, Party.” pp. 180–95 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Girth and C. Wright Mills (eds.). New York: Oxford University.
  5. ^ Collins, Patricia Hill (1998). "Toward a new vision: race, class and gender as categories of analysis and connection" in Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical Debates. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 231–247. 
  6. ^ Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:: Routledge. ISBN 0415567882. Retrieved 15 February 2013. 
  7. ^ Causa, Orsetta and Åsa Johansson (2011). "Intergenerational Social Mobility in OECD Countries". Economic Studies 2010 (1). doi:10.1787/eco_studies-2010-5km33scz5rjj. 
  8. ^ Wilkinson, Richard and Kate Pickett (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1608190362. 
  9. ^ a b Isaacs, Julia B. (2008). International Comparisons of Economic Mobility. Brookings Institution. 
  10. ^ CAP: Understanding Mobility in America - April 26, 2006
  11. ^ a b Corak, Miles. 2006. "Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility." Research on Economic Inequality, 13 no. 1: 143-188.
  12. ^ Economic Mobility Project
  13. ^ Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). (2006). Institute for Social Science Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  14. ^ Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob S. Hacker, Paul Pierson, 2011.
  15. ^ The Great Gatsby Curve Paul Krugman| 15 January 2012
  16. ^ Blanden, J., S. Machin, A. Goodman, and P. Gregg. 2004. "Changes in intergenerational mobility in Britain", in (M. Corak, ed.), Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  17. ^ Goldthorpe, J. and Jackson, M. (2007) Intergenerational class mobility in contemporary Britain: political concerns and empirical findings, British Journal of Sociology 58(4): 525-546
  18. ^ Gorard, S. (2008) A reconsideration of rates of ‘social mobility’ in Britain: or why research impact is not always a good thing, British Journal of Sociology of Education. 29(3): 317-324
  19. ^ Clark, Tom (10 March 2010). "Is social mobility dead?". The Guardian (London). 
  20. ^ "Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend". The Economist. December 29, 2004. Retrieved 2013-02-15. 
  21. ^ Jäntti, Markus, Brent Bratsberg, Knut Roed, Oddbjörn Rauum et al. 2006. "American Exceptionalism in a New Light: A Comparison of Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the Nordic Countries, the United Kingdom and the United States." IZA Discussion Paper No. 1938. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
  22. ^ Isaacs, Julia; Sawhill, Isabel (2008). "Reaching for the Prize: The Limits On Economic Mobility". The Brookings Institution. Retrieved 15 February 2013. 
  23. ^ Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0674430006. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]