The Social Class Structure of Occupational Mobility Author(s): Ronald L.

Breiger Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Nov., 1981), pp. 578-611 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778935 . Accessed: 10/10/2012 09:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

of The Social Class Structure Occupational Mobility1

Ronald L. Breiger Cornell University an Thispaperprovides analytical framework within which hypotheses to in of class structure brought bear directly the formulation are of modelsforthe occupational table. The properaggregation mobility ofrowsand columns portrayed thefundamental is as theoretical issue in mobility tableanalysis, thanas an exogenous rather "given"to be of decidedupon priorto the construction explicit models.Homogeneityof mobility withinand betweenclasses,class hierarchy, and tangible boundedness the centralthemes.These themes imare are in and appliedin theanalysis large(17plemented loglinear models of category)intergenerational mobility tables. Four such tables from the studiesof Blau and Duncan and of Featherman Hauser are and fitted about the social class acceptably.Seven falsifiable hypotheses structure occupational of are and mobility identified assessedcomwithin newframework. the paratively
A "social class" makesup the totality thoseclass situations of and generational is within whichindividual mobility easy and typical.[Weber(1922) 1978,p. 302]

the An anomalycharacterizes present stateof social mobility research. On of Goodman's(1972) articulation a general multithe one hand,following plicative modelforcross-classified someofthemostinnovative data, models and mostsophisticated data analysesof contemporary have been sociology formulated deal with the specifics the occupational to of table mobility and Hauser 1978; (Baron 1980; Clogg 1981; Duncan 1979; Featherman Goldthorpe 1980; Goodman1979c;Hauser 1979;Hope 1980b).On theother in atheoretical. Thereis a persistent hand,research thisarea remains largely researchers tendency, increasingly acknowledged mobility by themselves, forthe empirical and classicaltheoretical analysesto talk past the earlier
1 Robert M. Hauser and David L. Feathermangenerously providedthe data fromtheir study (Feathermanand Hauser 1975, 1978) on which table 1 of this paper is based. I gratefully acknowledgethe detailed and productivecommentsof Harrison C. White, JohnF. Padgett,and Michael J. Mandel on fourearlierdraftsof thispaper, and the suggestionsof JamesN. Baron, Clifford Clogg,Otis Dudley Duncan, Robert M. Hauser, C. David Karen, David A. Lax, and Lauri L. Perman.Financial supportwas providedunder grantsSER76-17502 and SES80-08658 fromthe National Science Foundation.Requests forreprints should be sent to Ronald L. Breiger, Departmentof Sociology,Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853.

??) 1981 by The University Chicago. All rightsreserved of 0002-9602/82/8703-0003$01.50

578

AJS Volume 87 Number 3

Social Class Structure statements Marx, Weber,and Sorokin(Aberg1979; Charvat,Linhart, of and Vercernik 1978; Garnier and Hazelrigg1976; Goldthorpe 1980; Horan 1974; see also Giddens 1973; Parkin 1979; Wright1979). Occasionally critics seemcontent castigate"increased to methodological sophistication, [employed] thedetriment sociological to of thought" (Bertaux1976,p. 394; Coser 1975), thereby a advancingneither activity.This paper attempts constructive reformulation. that is the Social mobility analystsdo not take social classesseriously: problem. inthelandmark As contribution Featherman Hauser(1978), of and mobility analysts have consistently "approached mobility the tablewithout strong theoretical presuppositions about affinities among occupational strata.Like Blau and Duncan, [they] have worked inductively" (Featherman and Hauser 1978,p. 140,emphasis supplied;see also Clogg[1981]and in thediscussion n. 6 below).My aim in thispaperis to developan operationalconceptualization socialclassstructure of which enablesthisconcept to be brought bear directly theformulation modelsfortheoccupato in of tionalmobility table. The explicit goal hereis a theoretically of informed concept social class structures, that is, "one [providing] a reconstructiondata" (Merton for of 1968,p. 144), and not the construction reconstruction terminology. of or of My usage ofthe term"class" is muchcloserto Weber'sconcept "social classes"(more fully elaborated below)thanto thevarious classformulations of Marx. It is not incompatible withthe latterand may well providea meansof specifying theirempirical consequences. Nonetheless, coreof the within my approachis social class as "the totality . . . class situations of which. . . generational is withclass situations mobility easy and typical," defined "typicalprobabilit[ies] . . . gaining position life" (Weber as of a in [1922]1978,p. 302) and reported occupational in mobility tables. My starting pointis the recognition "the problem the existence that of ofdistinct class'boundaries' . . is notonewhich be settled abstracto" . can in (Giddens1973,p. 110). I arguethatidentification thesocialclassboundof aries of occupational mobility requires"methodsthat focusattention in turnon varioussubsetsof the entire [mobility] table" (Goodman1968,p. 1093). The generalloglinear model of Goodman(e.g., 1968, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1979c) providesthe richestcontextfordeveloping specific models. The newframework developed hereis formally specialcase ofGoodman's a generalmodel.However,it addressesthe conceptual problem posed succinctly Vanneman(1977,p. 786): "The advancesintroduced Goodby by man . . . only increasethe importance selecting of the appropriate catein scheme thefirst gorization place. In stratification research, instance, for what categories constitute empirical do the classesof modern society, and how does the composition theseclassesshift of according institutional to or context nationalsetting?" 579

American Journal Sociology of of a The following sectionof thispaper offers formulation social class mobility tables. I point out its that specifies how to studyoccupational The new from severalacceptedviewpoints. affinities withand departures in of theses.Each thesis framework offered the form threeinterrelated is for may also be read as a criterion an acceptablemodelof the mobility takesup each thesisin turn; table. The sectionheaded "Implementation" (i.e., a modelthatmeetsthesecriteria proposed highly is for disaggregated as to large)tables.My indebtedness Hauser (1979) is made clearthere, are in In the tangible incompatibilities our approaches. the "Data Analysis" intergenerais to sectionthe new framework brought bear on 17-category tionalmobility suchtablesfrom studies Blau and Duncan the of tables;four acceptably.Seven (1967) and Featherman and Hauser (1978) are fitted of falsifiable hypothesesabout the social class structure occupational and assessedwithin thisframework. mobility identified comparatively are
THEORETICAL ISSUES

of A Statement the Problem analystshave and empirical The most crucialrespectin whichtheorists talkedpast one anothermay be stated as follows:Theredoesnotexista and number composition tablethattakestheproper modelof themobility of This lack of attentheoretical decision. as occupational categories an explicit and of the number composition social classes, tionnotwithstanding, proper of from twoclassesto "an almostendlessmultiplicity class situaranging to tions" (see Giddens1973,p. 48), is perhapsthe mostcentralproblem of be addressed any theory social class. by highly disaggrehave turned away from detailed, Empiricalresearchers of "prior" tables.The aggregation mobility data, allegedly gatedmobility of of to the construction models(and certainly priorto the construction Hauser (1979), socialmobility is among analysts. explicit models), thenorm of table (conforexample, sumsacrosstherowsand columns a 17-category version(containing 289 = 17 X 17 cells) to obtaina five-category taining to 25 cells),at which pointhe claimshe begins applyhis newmodel.But I of table to the smallerversion, for claim that the reduction the original and Hauser 1978, is whichincomplete justification provided(Featherman that"we wereunableto observation p. 29) otherthanthestraightforward tables to our satisfaction" for 17 X 17 mobility specify designmatrices whichis no less a decision, (1978, p. 181), constitutes crucialtheoretical decision.2 for important beingan implicit
2 Similarly, table Llewellyn,and Payne combinecategoriesof a 36-category Goldthorpe, efforts theirexplicitmodeling and thenconfine version, so as to producea seven-category to the smallertable (Goldthorpe1980,pp. 38-42, 94-120). They explain theirreduction

580

Social Class Structure of of Combining particular categories a variablecan lead to thedeletion parameters that would otherwise necessary(Goodman 1973; Duncan be 1975),orto theinsertion parameters wouldotherwise unnecessary, of that be or to no changein the parameters (Goodman 1979a, p. 1087; see also Allison1980). Even if a model is correctly for specified a five-category mobility table (forexample), thisfactalone carries implication the no that whichthesmaller was contablefrom modelfits(say) the 17-category one of structed, vice versa.3 or The ubiquitous proclivity empirical researchers forcombining smaller versions a giventable) of categories (i.e., producing in the absence of any consistent framework sociological of theory avoids it confronting issueand turning to advantage.Indeed,Duncan's (1979, this p. 801) recentresults"suggestthat an important limitation previous of analyses beentheuse oftoo highly has aggregated versions" themobility of of table; in particular, "substantive the plausibility" certainmodelswas enhanced whenDuncan appliedthemto an eight-category rather thanto a of version thesame table. five-category ThreeTheseson Social Class Structures of of Untilthe 1950s,sociological theories theaggregation mobility chances fromtheories social class. The attemptto pull these of wereinseparable concerns apart has faltered (Goldthorpe 1980,p. 38). It is now time to of socialclass back in to an empirical bring conceptualization occupational reorientation theory methods, of and This the mobility. taskrequires focused and the disavowal both of methodswhose elaborateaestheticsobscure withno referent existing and of theories to data. The empirical problems I of of essentials theframeworkpropose offered are belowin theform three interrelated theses. THE AGGREGATION THESIS: Withreference a mobility to table,a social
ofthegiven36 categories thederived to seven,whichtheythenterm"classes," byreference to "the available evidence" of comparability a varietyof criteria(Goldthorpe1980, on p. 39). The problemof translating theseassortedcriteria into a singlepartitionof occupationsmay be highlighted notingthat,even if the 36 categories by werefullyrankordered (a morerestrictive assumption than the one the authorsactuallyuse), thenumber ways of to partitiontheminto a seven-category versionthat preservesthe ordering would be in excess of 1.6 million. Goldthorpeand his co-workers are among the most thoughtful researchers who have considered problemsof the aggregation occupationalcategories of without, however, formulating explicitmodelsforsuch aggregation. 3 "The fact that the methodspresented in this series of articles [by Goodman] can be does notat all imply applied wheneach variablecan have any givennumberof categories that the resultsobtainedwith these methodswill be unaffected the numberof cateby goriesused with each variable" (Goodman 1979a, p. 1089, originalemphasis). A similar problem exists with respect to finitestate Markov chain models (Kemeny and Snell 1960; Bartholomew1967, p. 18) and with respectto the latent structure models of the mobility table of Clogg (1981).

581

of American Journal Sociology is of simulclassstructurea single partition occupational categories imposed on taneously origins (rowsofthetable) and destinations (columns). from THESIS: to THE INTERNAL HOMOGENEITY Mobility any occupation the any otheris explained the social class structure. by Specifically: deon pendenceof destination origin(the associationof rowsand columns) the in is alwayszerowithinthe subtableformed crossing occupations by any class A and thosein any class B (whereA and B may also indexthe sameclass). with to respect typical THE CLASS HIERARCHY THESIS: Classesareordered is chances.Interclassmobility governed a small numberof mobility by the of on parameters stating dependence class ofdestination classoforigin. thesis serveswellto indicate present the beThe aggregation disjunction and methods. theories class of tweentheory Many otherwise incompatible of of have as a goal the provision claimsabout the aggregation definite for of Weber'spostulation foursocial classes, social collectivities, example, of one of which-the propertyless intelligentsia-is composed technicians, and civilservants, "variouskindsofwhite-collar employees" (Weber[1922] no modelsof the mobility table existat 1978,p. 305). However, loglinear of for indexed thetable's present theaggregation thesocialcollectivities by of rowsand columns. contributions logInstead,manyof the distinctive linear models to sociologicalanalysis (e.g., Goodman 1965, 1968, 1969, and Holland 1975, 1972, 1979b;Hauser 1979; see also Bishop,Fienberg, from identification pp. 206-10,320-24;Pullum1975;White1963)result the to sets and ofvarioushomogeneous of cellsinterior the cross-classification, on of effects the assignment cells to such of the conditioning "structural" stand in As regions. Baron (1980, p. 817) pointsout, thesecontributions of sharp contrastto the usual treatment the table as a conceptualand withtherowand column the whole(by equating structural statistical efects searchto identify Giventhe extensive regions, marginals). "homogeneous" that no loglinear modelhas been formulated for it is remarkable mobility of of theaggregates cellsinduced a simultaneous by partition therowsand of columns a table.4 on to In markedcontrast this lack of attention the part of empirical form aggregation that is mostrelevantto this of it analysts, is precisely
4 These brief morefullyby the readerin conjunction willbe understood withthe remarks discussionof models (1) and (2) presentedin the "Implementation"sectionbelow. Outof side the framework loglinearmodels,various analysts have investigatedcertainconpartitionsof a table's rows and columns; however,see n. 5 sequences of simultaneous below and relateddiscussionin the text. Robert Hauser has pointed out to me that the of unpublished dissertation Beland (1978) anticipatesmuchthe same idea as the aggregain below. With refertion thesisof thispaper, as implemented model (1) to be presented (a ence to Beland, Hauser employsthis criterion single partitionof categoriesapplied lost simultaneously a table's rowsand columns)to "measure the information in aggreto gatingthe data" (Hauser 1979,p. 450; Feathermanand Hauser 1978,pp. 180-84).

582

Social Class Structure To Sorokin ([1927] 1959, pp. 439-40), for theorists social mobility. of are not example, appeared"naturalthatthere cleavages so muchbetween it occupational groupsin the narrow sense of the word,as betweenbigger and 'non-affine' social subdivisions goingon along the linesof the 'affine' by occupational subdivisions.... These differences, reinforced differbeing whatis styled encesin theeconomic statusofsuchclasses,createa basisfor with as the presentclass-differentiation, its satellitesin the formof .. and class antagonism class friction." of The "affine" occupational subdivisions Sorokin the"social classes" are of Max Weber ([1922] 1978,pp. 302-7, 926-39). Besides his well-known differentiation "class" from"status" and "party," Weber also disof "social classes" from criteria. classesbased on purelyeconomic tinguished Social class is a distinctive conceptforWeberbecausesuch classescan be defined onlyon thebasisofan analytical aggregation mobility of chances. A socialclass,in Weber's sense, formed a cluster classsituations is of of are of involve common which linked together virtue thefactthatthey by mobility chances, either within career individuals acrossthegenthe of or erations.... As Weber of himself points thenotion 'socialclass'comes out, of muchcloser thatof 'statusgroup'thandoes the conception purely to as individuals who economic class(although with class economic situations, are in thesamesocialclassare notnecessarily conscious thefact).The of to notion social of classis important because . [without it is possible dis. it] an class" endless ofclasssituations. a "social But tinguish almost multiplicity in exists these classsituations onlywhen cluster together sucha wayas to create common a nexus socialinterchange . [Giddens of .. 1973, 48] p. The thesis internal of homogeneity.-The amgibuity the last sentence of quotedabove revealstheinsufficiencytheaggregation of thesis, it is unif the coupledfrom othertwo theses,to accountforsocial mobility. Certain rowsand columns mobility of analystshave partitioned tables,eitherby ad hoc procedures by theuse ofclustering or algorithms (Blau and Duncan 1967,pp. 58-67; Hope 1972;Vanneman 1977).Laumann(1966,pp. 89-104; Laumann and Guttman1966) has defined social class as "a subsetof a a determined partitioning. . according such associational by to population . relationships . . . kinship, as friendship, common and residence," and has identified occupational clusters the basis of coordinates on resulting from smallest-space analyses.However, theseprocedures all "avoid thequestion of how many classes exist in a society" (Vanneman1977,p. 788).5 The
5 In the same vein, none of these analysts addressesthe question of the statisticalfitof his partition modelto the data, whichis a persistent concernofthepresent paper. Johnson (1980, pp. 67-70) providesa usefuldiscussionof Hope's "contingency hierarchies" model in this regard.The goodness-of-fit criterion applied in Laumann's (1966, 1973) smallestspace analyses does not pertainto the aggregation occupationalcategoriesinto larger of units.

583

of American Journal Sociology problemis that, "while theremay be an indefinite multiplicity crossof cutting interests createdby differential market capacities,thereare only, in anygiven society, limited a number classes"(Giddens1973, 105-6). of pp. What is the theoretical of thatallowsthe property a social class structure relatively unambiguous identification "a limited of number classes"? of It is in his answerto thiscrucialquestionthattherecent theory Gidof dens(1973) arrives, circuitously, at theposition Blau and Duncan. back of After discussing position, indicatewhyI abandonit in favorof the this I thesisof internal homogeneity. "A consistent patternof disproportionately movements low between occupational groupsis all that is meantby a class boundary here" (Blau and Duncan 1967,p. 60). Likewise, Giddens(1973,p. 107): for By the . . . term ["mediate structuration"] I refer thefactors to which intervene the of between existence certain given market capacities the and formation classesas identifiable of socialgroupings, is to say which that as operate "overall" links the on connecting between market theonehand and structured of on . systems classrelations the other. . The mediate ofclassrelationships structuration is governed aboveall by thedistribution ofmobility chances a . which the pertain within given society . . In general, of greater degree "closure" mobility of chances-both intergenerationally andwithin career theindividual-the the of this more facilitates formathe of tion identifiable classes. In brief, approach Giddens, thatofBlau and Duncan,proposes of the like of definition socialclasses,not a concept class structure of onlyan internal orofa globalmobility classesare essentially For socioregime. thesewriters, on metric so chances(either average,or in "cliques" defined thatmobility withexpected of comparison valuesundera hypothesis "perfect mobility") are higher within cliquesthanbetween the them. The approachesof Blau and Duncan (1967, pp. 58-67) and Giddens (1973, pp. 99-117) cannot be called "explanations"of mobility among Blau and Duncanare clearaboutit.An explanation occupational categories; data on detailedmobility wouldlead to the reproduction the observed of betweeneach pair of occupations.Such an explanation"remainsto be and givenby the analystwho can providethe information, workout the out of a typicalmobility variablesmay be partialled techniques, whereby on constraints [occupational] table to the point whereintergenerational have been eliminated" is destination (Hope 1980a,p. 10). My contention is thatan explanation provided theconditional of by independence occupationalorigins withineach class and withineach pair of and destinations out" are the marginal classes.The "variables[which should]be partialled of social class structure, defined distributions an explicitly as hypothesized in thethesison aggregation.6
6 Compare this criterion internalhomogeneity of thesis (which assumes the aggregation of this paper) with the criterion conditionalindependence of applied in models of latent

584

Social Class Structure the Statedpositively, self-consistent relation socialclassesand occupaof tionalmobility takesthefollowing form, according theinternal to homogeneitythesis.Occupationaldestination dependson originonlywhen the partition occupational of intoclassesis ignored. categories This is thesense in which occupational mobility maybe said to be "explained by" thesocial class structure. the Or, statednegatively, unitsof analysisforoccupational are mobility social classes.The researcher ignores who theseunitsconfronts richand a variegatedtableau in which occupationalmobility(and inheritance) is with stronger respect certain to pairsofoccupations In thanothers. general, thelarger tablethemoredifficult is to visualizethismosaicas a whole the it and to interpret structured its pattern of mobility(and inheritance). Analysisof the mosaicmay thengive way to conventions routineart of thus: "It mustbe emphasized appreciation; that thereis certainly never anything even approaching complete closure"of mobility chancesin advancedcapitalist societies (Giddens1973,p. 107). The proper of partition occupational categories intosocial classes,then, is one whichsatisfies globalcriterion internal the of If homogeneity. there is no suchpartition a giventable of mobility for chances,the approachof thispaper clearlyfails.If thereis morethan one such partition, thisapto proachdegenerates the extentthat the variouspartitions mutually are inconsistent n. 9 below). (see The class hierarchy thesis.-The discussion farhas emphasized exso an tremely strong definition social class whichgoes beyonda partition of of occupational categories require to thatthepartition inducea globalmobility Stillmissing any stipulation an ordering regime. is of amongthe classesin their provision mobility of chances, that"the picture. . . whichemerges so ... is one marked by a hierarchy broadoccupational out of categories each
structure. Boudon (1973, 1975) and othershave proposed,and Clogg (1981) has formulated and implemented, latent structure models of the occupational mobilitytable. In Clogg's models,"class" is the termgiven to each of the t latent componenttables (each of size R X R, given R occupational categories)into which the originalR X R table is decomposed.Then the hypothesis that "withinthe tthlatent class the manifest is variables . . . are mutuallyindependent"(Goodman 1974,p. 215). In contrast, thispaper in "class" refers a tangiblegrouping occupationalcategories-not to an arrayof latent to of R X R tables of imputedmobility counts.The approach of Clogg (1979, 1981) and that of the presentpaper each yield substantiveinsightsnot obtainable by use of the other approach.The class conceptof thispaper, in contrastto the class conceptof latentstructuremodels,has the relativeadvantages of (a) capturing usage ofSorokinand Weber, the (b) allowingthe propernumberand composition occupationalcategoriesto be taken of as an explicit and falsifiable theoretical decision,(c) leadingto modelsthatfit largemobility tables, (d) avoidingtheidentification problems discussedin Clogg (1981), and (e) avoiding recourseto a substantivesociologicalconceptualizationin which classes are viewed as relevantforsociologicalanalysisonlyas "inherently unobservable"entities(Clogg 1981). The benefits Clogg's (1981) approachfollowfrom provisionof explicit of his modelswhich generalizeand resolvethe classic mover-stayer distinction mobility of table analysis.

585

of Journal Sociology American representing different a positionin the scale of materialand nonmaterial benefits" (Parkin1971,p. 24). This Such a stipulation providedby the thesison class hierarchy. is to table relatesexpressly a reduced-form havingone rowand column thesis is homogeneity foreach class. Thus, a necessary precondition thatinternal of of homogeneity inactuallyprevails.Satisfaction the criterion internal withmobility among suresthatmobility amongclasses is not confounded belowin the subsection occupations.This precondition (further elaborated the tables I headed "Combining Categories")distinguishes reduced-form studyfrom reduced-form the tables of others(see n. 2 above and related in discussion the text). to Models have beenproposedand implemented exploitthe assumption of ordinality the rowsand/orcolumns a table (Clogg 1980; Duncan of for 1979; Goodman1972, 1979b;Levine 1972; Simon1974); thesemodelsare table contains fundamentally interrelated (Goodman1979c).If a mobility a largenumber occupational of however, assumption an the of categories, both conceptually ordering rowsand/orcolumns of becomesproblematic, of mobility" [Blau and (because of the increasing prevalence "horizontal are Duncan 1967,p. 117]) and practically (sincethere R! possibleorderings I For thesereasons, arguethat the apamongR occupational categories). is of domainof applicability modelsfororderedcategories not propriate the occupational categoriesbut the classes of such categoriesidentified above. within framework the presented the threethesespostulatea dual structure Duality.-Taken together, of table.What is soughtis a singlepartition forthe occupational mobility to occupational categories, applied simultaneously the rowsand columns the of a mobility table. Internally, rows and columnsof each subtable of withno dependence destinaare from partition unordered, this resulting withrespectto typical the tion on origin.Externally, classesare ordered on differentially class of mobility chances,class of destination depending origin.
IMPLEMENTATION

Criterion sectionI have consistently A modelshouldfitits data. In the preceding of "explanation"the abilityof a model to identified one component as betweeneach pair of reproduce observedcountsof detailedmobility the is This criterion not widelyacceptedby empirical analystsof occupations. 1980,pp. 104-8;Hauser mobility tables.7 Withrareexceptions (Goldthorpe
7 For a briefbut cogent discussionof "why a high level of fitshould be demanded of processes,"see Hope (1976, p. 728). mathematical models of mobility

586

Social Class Structure lack 1979,pp. 445-47) their modelsproducesignificant of fitto thehighly tableson which as aggregated theyset to work.I viewthisproblem arising such as the one proposed from lack of a framework aggregation for the in lack of the previoussection,and the corresponding of applicability the modelsto largetables.Seeking modelthatmaintains a existing to fidelity I to thedetailedcell frequencies, nowdescribe each procedures implement of thethree thesesin turn. Notation an counts Consider R X R tableofobserved fij(i = 1, . . ., R; j = 1, . . of R) and fitted countsFij undera specified model;R is the number occUAs pationalcategories. in theprevious we section, supposeforsubstantive reasonsthatthetableis highly is disaggregated large).This supposition (R not,however, required the purelyformal for As development. usual, the rowsrepresent occupational origins(e.g., "father's occupation")and the columns first destinations represent (e.g., "respondent's job"). Models
The aggregation of thesis.-This calls fora partition the R occupational intoc classes.Simultaneous categories of to application thispartition rows and columns thetableresults a partition thecells(thefi,) intorectof in of angularsubtables (k = 1, . .. , c2). Sk Thethesis internal of associahomogeneity.-This positsthattheobserved tion of origins and destinations spurious;absenceof association(quasi is independence) specified is between origins and destinations withineach of therectangular subtables (compare Sk Goodman1972,p. 689; Hauser 1979, p. 419). Consider simplest the loglinear modelsatisfying thesis: this Fij-=
a3iYjk

for

(i, j)

Sk

(1)

subjectto theusual normalization parameters of (Hauser 1979,p. 417). Formally, model(1) is a specialcase bothofHauser's (1979) model(see also Goodman1972, 1979b,p. 810) and of the new model (2) presented below.Neither the lattermodels(Hauser's modeland model[2] of this of paper) however, implies other. the Comparison model(1) withthelatter of twomodelswilltherefore serveto highlight distinctive the features implemented thenewapproach. in Hauser (1979) partitions cellsofa tableinto"levels,"but he imposes the no further restriction (eitherin theoryor in practice;see Hauser 1978, and Hauser 1978; Baron 1980; Goldthorpe 1979; Featherman 1980) that thelevelsmustconstitute rectangular of subtables formed application a by to singlepartition the rowsand columns the table. In Hauser's model, of 587

of Journal Sociology American the cells groupedtogether into any subset ("level") may in principle be in drawnfrom anywhere the table. Hauser (1979,pp. 416-17) emphasizes the of that,"for[his]modelto be informative, allocation interaction levels a acrosscellsof thetablemustform meaningful pattern.... I have found it difficult interpret to modelswhere number interaction the of parameters in is largerelative the number categories the occupational to of classificaan of tion."In practice, specifying informative definition "meaningful patand tern"maylead to "a bootstrapoperation" (Featherman Hauser 1978, p. 145). and The aim ofHauser (Featherman Hauser 1978,p. 140) is nota model social classes; that is the goal of the presentpaper. Since incorporating of the of concern aggregation categories and theories social class typically structure thanthe aggregatheir relational (Wright 1979,pp. 3-18) rather tionof cellsinterior the mobility to of table,a modelforthe aggregation is categories desirable. a Model (1) is formally restricted special case cf Hauser's model,the of the restriction beingthat thepartition cellssatisfies aggregation thesis. This criterion requiresthe analyst to postulatean assignment each of in in are category the table to a social class (R assignments required all), of of insteadof requiring postulation an assignment each cell in the table in are to a higher level of aggregation assignments required Hauser's (R2 is model).As in Hauser'smoregeneral model,each expected frequency the of effect product an overalleffect a roweffect (a), (,3i),a column (,yj),and is The overalleffect the average of the fitted an interaction effect (6k). and roweffects reflect features counts(their geometric mean). The column of and of the overalldistributions respondents theirfathers (respectively) conditioned into occupationalcategories, upon the model's interaction effects for The specification. interaction (therebeingone such effect each where theseaggregates of aggregate cellsidentified theresearcher, by partito tion the table's cells) correspond the "relativedensities"of mobility within each respective aggregate (Hauser 1979;Baron 1980,p. 818). tablesis (essentially) the of Clearly, fit model(1) to largemobility always muchworsethan the fitof Hauser's moregeneralmodel.This is because afforded analystof drawing the cellsfrom the general flexibility anywhere curtailed theaggregation in thetableinto"levels"is sharply thesis. The by is of corollary the general flexibility, however, the dangerof a haphazard of and uninterpretable aggregation cellsthatHauserwarnsagainst. or of that some crucialgeneralization loosening model (1) is It follows of desirable-a looseningthat avoids potentially arbitrary aggregations cells. of I willnowarguefora different the generalization model(1) from one the provided Hauser. The new model (2) exploits simplevirtueof the by 588

Social Class Structure to to aggregation subthesis:"levels"continue be restricted therectangular from partition occupations. a of Each suchsubtablehas tables(Sk) formed A of its own rowand columneffects. systematic incorporation thesesubof table effects, whileretaining partition theR occupational the categories intoc classes,is consistent withthe themeof thispaper thatsocialclasses of are thesourceof"meaningful chances. patterns" mobility Thus,consider themodel (2) Fij = a#iyjYkBikrjk for (i, j) e Sk X of subjectto thenormalizations model(1) and, in addition,
HifiBik = Hyjrjik
= 1

the overall i (all j) in thekthsubtable.These newparameters insure fitof the rowand columnmarginals each respective of subtable,thusreflecting of that to features theorigin and destination distributions are specific each social class. Model (2) is thus the hypothesis simplerow-column of independence withineach subtable. For any particularsubtable,the expectedvalues (Fij) producedby model (2) are identicalto the expectedvalues (F*ij) from to resulting fitting simplerow-column independence thatsubtable:

F*ij = a*f*iey*j for

of The equivalence (2) and (2') is givenby:
a* = i3i
= Xak
i3iBik

(i, j) ( Sk

(2') (3a)

for

i e Sk

(3b) (3c)

y*i = Yjijk

for j e Sk .

Thus, a* is the average (geometric values in the kth mean) of the fitted a subtable, is theaverage(geometric mean) of the fitted values in thefull (R X R) table, and ak iS theirratio. Similarly, is the effect row i of f*i within kthsubtable, is the effect rowi in the full(R X R) table, the of pi and B,k is their ratio.Further in A. discussion provided Appendix is Formally, model (2) is clearlyless parsimonious than model (1): conof siderably moredegrees freedom required fittheadditional are to parametersBik and Fjk (see App. A). This relativelack of parsimony the in formal modelis countered the adherence model (2) to the central by of themesof thispaper. The aggregation criterion satisfied model (2), is by as is the criterion internal of homogeneity (i.e., model [2] mandatesthat all oddsratioswithin subtable have thevalue ofunity).It is unlikely any Sk that model(1) can be appliedsuccessfully largetables; model(2) is its to naturalgeneralization withinthe conceptualframework portrayed here. Moreover, degrees freedom the of expended fitting in model(2) are associ589

of American Journal Sociology ated withobserved countsof mobility and/or to from social classes;these countsmay themselves modeledexplicitly reduced-form be in mobility tables(see table4 and relateddiscussion below). Analystsof mobility tables oftendistinguish mobility (the set of cells fij, i 5? j) from"immobility" (the set of cellsfii on the table's principal diagonal),confining their modelsto theformer of cells.Within explicit set the general loglinear model,it is straightforward (Goodman1965; Bishop et al. 1975) to buildthisadditional restriction model(2), and I assume into it in the applications reported below (see App. A forfurther details on obtaining fitted values). on The thesis class hierarchy.-Given partition theR categories a of into c classes that satisfies internal the homogeneity criterion, may then one of examine pattern mobility the amongthe classes. (Further discussion is providedbelowin the subsection headed "Combining Categories.")Such examination calls forrepresentation theR X R table by a reduced-form of c X c table containing rowand column each class. one for The hierarchy criterion thattheclassescomposing reducedmandates this form tableare ordered thatthedependence destination and of classon class is oforigin governed a smallnumber parameters of by this reflecting ordering. I will implement criterion means of the uniform this by association modelofDuncan (1979; Goodman 1979b, 811-12)and "Formulation pp. A" of Simon(1974; Duncan 1979; Goodman1979b, 810-11). pp.
TESTING HYPOTHESES OF CLASS STRUCTURE: DATA ANALYSIS

an Mobilitytable analysisrequires explicit and falsifiable commitment as of to thepartition occupational intotangible socialclasses.This categories of is theparadigmatic implication model framework Heretofore (2). untested commitments aboundas to thesocialclassstructure occupational of mobility,sincenon-Marxist theories (Horan 1978)as wellas "Marxisttheory . . . for [have] directimplications the relationship betweenoccupationsand within social structure" classesas positions the (Wright 1979,p. 117; see also Vanneman of [1977]on the recasting social class hypotheses partias tionsofoccupational categories). in The data analysispresented this sectionis nonstandard several in whichare anticipated here.First,highly respects disaggregated (17-catetablesare employed, foursuch tablesfrom studies and gory)mobility the of Blau and Duncan (1967) and Featherman Hauser (1978) are fitted and acceptablyby a particular hypothesis, applied under model (2) of the section. sevenfalsifiable previous Second,and mostimportant, hypotheses about the social class structure occupational of are and mobility identified assessedwithin thisframework. comparatively Third,an aggregated eight590

Social Class Structure category an mobility table is fittedacceptablyby a model postulating ordering classesin theirprovision interclass of of mobility chances.These threetopicsare treatedin the subsections below,whichtake up (in turn) in thethreetheses propounded thispaper. The primary focusof the data analysisreported here is a 17-category table based on the Occupational intergenerational mobility Changesin a to Generation (OCG-II) supplement the March 1973 Current Population of Survey,under the direction Feathermanand Hauser (1975, 1978). Table 1 (a moredetailedversionof table E.1 in Featherman and Hauser [1978,p. 531],which was kindly provided theauthors) by reports mobility from father's to full-time The occupation son's first occupation.8 fitofeach additional hypothesis also be assessedwithrespect three will to 17-category tablesofmobility from and data arising Featherman Hauser's (1978) study and from "OCG-I" (Blau and Duncan 1967). The Aggregation Thesis and Here I briefly reviewsix hypotheses indicatesourcesforeach in the literature occupational on mobility. Then I developmy own hypothesis. (The detailsof each hypothesis-that of each hypothesized of is, partition in occupational categories-are provided App. B). triad Theconventional (H1).-Blau and Duncan (1967,p. 59) suggest the existence threeclasses"partitioned two semipermeable of class boundby aries that limitdownward between as mobility generations well as within lifetime careers, though theypermit upwardmobility." These classesare the conventional triad:whitecollar,blue collar,and farm.This partition of the 17 OCG categories (Blau and Duncan 1967,p. 58) is repeatedin B. Appendix The Blau-Duncanhypothesis arosefrom exploratory analysis ofthree of mobility tables.Within framework model(2), I willascertain the its goodness fitto thedetailedmobility of data. The proletarianization hypothesis (H2).-Arguing thatlowerwhite-collar workers coming are to manualworkers withrespect increasingly resemble to their mobility a chances, Vanneman(1977,pp. 793-98) suggests threeclasspartition differing Blau and Duncan's in thatclerical from workers are inside working grouped the class,notwithwhite-collar occupations. According to Vanneman(1977, p. 804): "The patternof resultsis convincing.
father's(or otherfamilyhead's) occupationat son's sixteenth birthday, the sons being Americanmen aged 20-64 in March 1973. The reported frequencies based on a comare plex samplingdesignand have been weightedto estimatepopulationcountswhile compensatingforcertaintypesof nonresponse, detailedin Feathermanand Hauser (1978, as p. 150, and App. B). The weighteddata of table 1 have been roundedto integervalues fromthe unrounded data (kindlyprovidedby Feathermanand Hauser) that I analyzed.
8 More precisely:table 1 is a classification son's first of full-time civilian occupationby

591

I-.'~~~~~~O )o

Sdivuen -

i---O'v-4 lq t--'-"~~~~~~~~-4

c A>-

V-oO t

\01

00004-4t-C

OClO\e#2

H
O2

l SoOofU O (:N
C

) 0q m d-to O

oo

mChenuDvOComoO+O>O8td--4

H mOHU >:> o^%n \0 ON p:;~~~~~ H

Z1
U))

O X m b

U)

~~oto

in
n t-~cC

CN m ds t> -4 t>o o a )u
Ch

to
0 CN '-4 "t 'O

- 'I -0

'-4

'-

O C)

0
P

\ X X +

CO + o

, em

m c o

'_e

X (n b dsoCSdri ch 00 s

to t

\ r\0

Ch

no>osencsuroncwoco

V-

~~
N

'-40'*)

0)

C)

E *XmSSenN
'-4Cf)(U)'-4'-4Cl
: z b%b0bermmSSS0eNO4.1.

)
Cl
'

Cli'-C'-U'-~~~~~ ~~4'-4

Cl)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
4

1-~4
d

~ ?~~~* 4.
.) O

..4..0

H
U) C)

) C7d
C

.)

4. . U;-m
0 -d

n > u *~~~~~~~~~~~~0
. .w4 . . m
d

0>-

Z
V

c U) nUUc . > .................. P )U4

--~~~ .0
0O 4; t>
nPqU

n0 \? tz 0C
*4 of)0 .

4-

tn \ct i
-4 -

Qc,0 ....

o-z

Social Class Structure of two two different definitions similarity, different Utilizing operational two different statistical measuresof association, categorization schemes, a conand twodifferent has geographic bases,theanalysis supported single with the working clusion.The lower-white collar [workers] clustered are Like mostof the class as predicted the proletarianization by hypothesis." the of otherwriters considered here,Vannemandid not explore goodness to fitofhis hypothesis data. The occupational elitehypothesis (H3).-Hope (1972, pp. 173-79) promodification theBlau-Duncanpartition. of posesa different Hope's "overall pictureis one of a three-class societytoppedby an elite" (1972, p. 178). fromthe other Specifically, Hope separatesself-employed professionals class. Blau and Duncan occupationsin Blau and Duncan's white-collar (1967, p. 72) had previously acknowledged that "the self-employed proas a fessionals a wholeconstitute distinct economic elitein oursociety...." The difference betweenBlau and Duncan's partition (hypothesis and 1) in Hope's (hypothesis arose fromdifferences theirexploratory 3) datafit analytic procedures; confirmatory analysis thestatistical ofeither of partition was notundertaken. strata(H4, H5, H6).-Several mobility table Hypotheses occupational of of combine tablesto producesmaller tables analysts categories 17-category to and as a prelude theirexplicit modeling efforts, notdue to an overtconarises cernwithsocial class structure. Nonetheless, questionnaturally the as to whether the subtables (Sk) identified these partitions exhibit by This questionwvill addressedhere withinthe be homogeneity internally. of of framework model(2). I consider five-category the partition Featherman and Hauser (1978,p. 28; designated H4 hereand in App. B); the nineas category partition Pullum (1975, p. 116; designated of H5); and the 12of and category partition Featherman Hauser(1978,p. 181;designated H6). The class-autonomy hypothesis (H7).-I now proposea modification of I Hope's partition (H3). The additional distinctions imposewithin two of the classeshe identified in reflect hypothesized variations the occupational autonomy accordedto workers thebasis oftheiremployment. on Thereis a broadconsensus theinsufficiencytheconventional on of whitecollar and blue-collarcategoriesto account for mobility patterns.The necessary criterion distinguishing for patterns mobility of internal these to is segments referred variously theentrepreneurial/nonentrepreneurial to as distinction (Carlsson1958,pp. 144-46),the bureaucratic/nonbureaucratic of jobs and the attendant setting and "possibilities self-direction selffor employment" (Featherman Hauser 1978,p. 32; Laumann1973,p. 81), and the degreeof role circumscription to "rationalprinciples due explicitly formulated" (Blau and Duncan 1967,p. 73), and the relative control over the labor processexercised workers variousclass locations(Wright by in 593

Journal Sociology of American modelofclassboundis pp. 1978, 64-67). Whathas beenmissing an explicit in to may be brought bear directly autonomy ariesby whichoccupational flows. of an explanation detailedmobility of as Withthiscriterion the goal, I proposea subdivision Hope's whitethree classes classes(II, III, IV), and I distinguish into collarsegment three hypothesized The resulting segment. (V, VI, VII) withinhis blue-collar of refer the categories to in is partition as follows(numbers parentheses table 1): (1) professionals I. Proprietary class(2, 3, 4) middle II. Salaried (5) III. Smallemployers (6, workers 7) white-collar IV. Routinized craftsmen 10) (9, V. Semi-autonomous workers 13,14) (8, VI. Manufacturing class working (11,12,15) VII. Archaic class VIII. Agricultural (16, 17) are professionals deemedto (H3), self-employed As in Hope's hypothesis (classVIII). occupations class (I), as areall agricultural a constitute distinct Withinthe white-collar postulatedby Hope (H3), I insiston segment In salariedemployment. of proprietorship a businessfrom distinguishing (class in nationalsamplessuch as thoseconsidered thispaper,proprietors (Blau and III) forthe mostpart own the typesof modestestablishment pettybourDuncan 1967,p. 72) oftenassociatedwiththe "traditional" salariedwhite-collar occupations 1978,p. 39). I subdivide geoisie(Wright incumbents. exercised their by of to typically according thedegree autonomy healthadThe salariedmiddleclass (II) includesoccupations(engineer, and ministrator, insuranceagent provide examples)whose incumbents, of controlover the conditions exerciseconsiderable althoughemployees, in (compareWright theirworkand the manner whichit is accomplished white-collar (class IV) such employees routinized 1978,p. 81). In contrast, and have such a smalldegreeof mail carriers, sales clerks as bank tellers, theirinas (by control over theirworksituations to prohibit hypothesis) workers Vanneman1977). white-collar (compare clusionwithother bureauthe progressive blue-collar segment, Withinthe conventional of industry (Featherman cratization manual workin the manufacturing and forms and Hauser 1978,p. 32) and thehighratesofunionization other to industries there(Wright 1978,p. 172) relative other ofclass organization (craft, (in lead me to grouptogether class VI) all jobs in manufacturing themfrom and laborer)and to distinguish cognateoccupations operative, in otherindustries (compareTolbert,Horan, and Beck 1980). The craft television typesetters, in theseotherindustries (e.g., carpenters, workers and "have at least a settings nonbureaucratic sharerelatively mechanics) 594

Social Class Structure of in labourprocess"(Wright limited form autonomy their immediate 1978, the p. 81). I distinguish manual them(classV) from class (VII) oflow-level in occupations existing largepart priorto the riseof industrial capitalism and still largelyoutsideits immediate scope (e.g., meat cutters, except manufacturing; grounds keepers; practical nurses). The Thesison Internal Homogeneity Each of the sevenhypotheses appliedto the data of table 1 by fitting was model(2) ofthesection headed"Implementation," each employing hypothesis in turnto inducethe requisite The questionposed here,for partition. an each hypothesis, the degreeto whichit identifies exhaustive of is set within tablein sucha manner a regions the thateach region forms unified I fieldinternally. the next subsection will assess the claim that the (In in classesare ordered their provision interclass of mobility chances.) Resultsappearin thefirst column table2, which of the reports likelihood ratiogoodness-of-fit statistic for of (G2) eachofthesevenapplications model (2) to thedata of table 1. The readershouldbear in mindthat each of the sevenhypotheses was by formulated a researcher a research (or team) with considerable prior knowledge thedetailedinteraction of structure themobility of tableunder study.In threecases (Hi, H2, H3) the hypotheses resultedfromfairly mechanical In exploratory searchprocedures. the case of H7, I had extensive priorknowledge the detailedinteractions table 1. The reader of of is therefore encouraged view the findings the first to of columnof table 2 as indicesof fit,rather than as formal testsof goodness fit(see Bishop of
TABLE 2
TEST STATISTICS FOR SEVEN HYPOTHESES ON FOUR 17-CATEGORY INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY TABLES First Job 1973 (1) First Job 1962 (2) Current Job Current Job 1973 1962 (3) (4)

Hypothesis

df

Hi ...................... H2 ...................... H3 ...................... H4 ...................... H5 ...................... H6 ....19..... ... H7 ......................

180 180 154 128 55 19 69

407.8 405.8 361.5 279.7 158.4 127.2 76.9

336.7 358.6 300.9 244.9 146.4 97.9 81.7

371.1 329.7 327.3 238.6 116.8 58.8 87.6

323.0 321.1 282.3 207.3 86.2 47.7 80.5

I SOURCES.-Col. is table1 ofthispaper;col.3 adaptedfrom Featherman Hauser(1978,p. 535),cols.2 and and 4 adaptedfrom Blau and Duncan (1967,pp. 496 and 497). NOTE.-Each hypothesis fitted was undermodel(2). Reported of hereare the degrees freedom and (df) likelihood ratiogoodness-of-fit statistics (G2) resulting from testofeach hypothesis each 17-category the on table.

595

Journal Sociology of American et al. [1975,p. 311] foran elaboration thisdistinction; the "extreme of on of rarity" formal hypothesis testsin thesocialsciences, Leamer[1978]). see The fitofhypothesis to thedata of table 1 is acceptableby convenH7 tional standards.Under the convenient myththat the hypothesis was of formulated no prior with knowledge thedata, theprobability associated witha goodness-of-fit statistic (G2)of 76.9 on 69 df is .24. By way of comfits parison, noneof the otherhypotheses the data even at the .001 level. The twohypotheses andH6) with (H5 fewerthan69 dfdo notfit appreciably better thanthefirst four(Hl through H4). Neither Vanneman's Hope's nor proposedmodification (H2 and H3, respectively) the Blau-Duncan of hypothesis in (Hi) results a substantially improved to the data within fit theframework model(2).9 of Fittedvalues to table 1, underhypothesis appliedvia model(2), are H7 in reported table3.10 Because of the dangerthat hypothesis fitsidiosyncratic H7 of features table1,I tested fit(as wellas thefit thesixother its of on hypotheses) three additional17-category tablesof intergenerational data obtained mobility: in 1962 on mobility first (Blau and Duncan 1967,table J2.2) and to job data obtainedin 1973 and 1962 on mobilityto respondent's "current occupation"(Featherman and Hauser 1978,table E.5; Blau and Duncan 1967, table J2.1). Both the Blau-Duncan and the Featherman-Hauser studiesemployed identical17-category divisions."Resultsof occupational and fourth columns table 2. of thesetestsappearin thesecond,third,
9 Anypartition(Ha) contains anotherpartition(Hb) if (Ha) n (Hb) = (Hb); that is, if all in the class boundariesof (Ha) are preserved (Hb). For example,Hope's partition(H3) is of containedin Blau and Duncan's (Hi), differing only in its refinement Blau and Duncan's "white collar" into self-employed professionals and others (see App. B). Hope's refinement the Blau-Duncan hypothesis of leads to a reduction G2 of 46.3 (=407.8 in columnof table 2), whichis a 361.5) at the expenseof 26 (= 180 - 154) df (see the first in for marginally significant improvement fit. Similar assessmentsmay be constructed all otherpairs ofhypotheses relatedin such a way that one hypothesis containsthe other. This statement arisesfrom observation the thatmodel (2) under partition includesthe Hb parameters model (2) underpartitionHa if Ha containsHb; therefore, of these loglinear modelsare hierarchical the sense of Goodman (1970). in 10Cells in rows 1 and 5 and cols. 1 and 5; cells [6,7],[9,10],[16,17]and theirtransposes; and diagonal cells 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are fitted exactlyunderhypothesis H7; see App. A. The otherdiagonalcellsreport "impliedor imputed diagonalcounts" (see Duncan cells are here fitted with 69 df (G2 = 1979,p. 800; Goodman 1972). The 204 remaining 76.9; see table 2). These 204 cells contain 13,892of the 19,913cases. 11Priorto analysis,reported countsin table J2.1 (Blau and Duncan 1967,p. 496) were cell so weighted a constant as to yieldan adjusted tablesumof 10,533(whichis theadjusted by for sum reported this table in Feathermanand Hauser [1978,p. 534]). A similaradjustmentwas applied to table J2.2 (Blau and Duncan 1967, p. 497). See Feathermanand and samplingvariabilityas apHauser (1978, pp. 511-14) fora discussionof weighting of plied to the OCG-I and OCG-II studies.On the comparability the definitions "first of job" employedin the two studies,see Feathermanand Hauser (1978, pp. 23-24).

596

t_
'4

eroo

00

ooO ) o'0 dzin

chUr0rcr cq

C4 N9000 O\41)0 to
-00)e t wm

0O cq C\

It
Ceo -1

C m e1e)-4
cf

00oOr+ff)

O Lm--0

CN

-o'-4 XVI m0 C-

NO

C 0 j40f)\Oa\

ON

roo

t-

Od

\00 ON0

O0-4'O

\O

Cl

0\

ONXi Cl

'-4 '-~

ONO-O 4Cl u-t o~.-0004~)tf)\O t~-00e#)0O

ON00 fO4 Clt~tr)t.-00 \ Oo- -c -m N

NO NO 00

C\Od) 00 N N\)O'clNI>

U tf \00 m
u'-N hONon0C

ON
NOONNotoo

00
o

0Cl

-4~~~

4))

NOONO) 0")"_

00~~~~1-O L C"l Iq-00O000 m ) C4 m

\0
) 00eOinOc)
oo e o

j4J>4

NO \) 00

--)0 0' 0)t- ONO

cM
? _

00
oo

ur 0')

00NO

\)
o

NO
) d9D

\0 O

00oOl e 00

') C'

oN

CQ v
4)4

o 00

00

-N04

4o-\0 00")
)')OC

ClC')If)ONON U)0Cl \0-

00'\? 4).-

inONO!)

.-

0
E-

ft4

t0
-400

ClC'0Cl
0f) t )NO tO Nt'

~~~~~~~~~~~qC1
-

OC4)$l

f)V)t-mt

l4)O~)N
0ninOoo4\coo O e C14 0 O)iOf OC\C 00 C\lt

'--4 _qC

H
'

00

-4 00clCl_)i tCNt 0 \14 to)-0 lO

00

4 C\

in t-NOo
'-4

NO~~t40ClCl'i4 ~~NO'-400NO
00 0C0 oC 0 OOOC-4'l1t() -(')~\ \

-C-t4 \C O 00tt-) ON \0 inO 0 )00n00 040N00 O 0 00 C -44i)

.

0 H w
u

t-

~)O N
C->0)

ONUC t')0 -ior \0 )

e Cl

C4 QC Cho-0N00 " 04)')NO'-4t, '

n
_

O
0

O>

PC
r1f)
000

it 4-0Id > oo -It-'in 4\tOCl n 0NCl00

c r > Ooo) 0~ oo \'t oo oo

l00 00

"to'

\C

) m'C4

c 0

s v\e 04--0 0 o 'OC4)000

1-0

0 dClOO4 m

00 N

4') tf4dtf

1-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Ctf

00b
0 .l44)to

ON-tt t*.

J\0O\0001f) 4 .

ON
.. 4-4)4.) .

m l
4.) ....

W! 5
0P -

00 -{

.0

0 Ci 6

) 01

to

t-, 06 0, cq, 00 do,

h 14t

- 0\

40 40U

b + 0\
en

b, mor z e

cq
40) *

In
*

to menc-,

~
.

....~~~~~~Cd

4-

....

of American Journal Sociology tables.On 69 df, Hypothesis is seento fiteach ofthefour17-category H7 ratiovalues of 76.9,81.7,87.6, associatedwithlikelihood theprobabilities that These findings suggest and 80.5 are .24, .14, .06, and .16,respectively. its of features table 1, but theydemonstrate (H7) does fitidiosyncratic noneof the acceptablefitto each of the othertables as well.In contrast, six a fit tables.12 provides satisfactory to these17-category other hypotheses table musteliminate influthe modelof the mobility Interpretation.-A on distributions the observedpatternof ence of originand destination of in conceptualization thistask. mobility. Models differ their The standard baseline model of statistical independence("perfect and destination distributions for identifies origin the mobility"), example, of R marginals theentire X R table.Supposethis withtherowand column of the modelhad fitthedata oftable 1. Among implications sucha finding insteadofa laborer wouldbe thatthe odds ofbecoming (say) a proprietor in category, originating each occupational were identicalforrespondents marginal distributions. net oftheabovementioned as The perfect model may be interpreted the special case of mobility model (2) in whichthe analystsupposesthat thereare no social classes of as (c = 1; see App. A). Classes are conceptualized thosefeatures the whichallow the perfect social structure mobility model to obtain simulfrom partition occupational a of within each subtableresulting taneously elaborate modelsofassociation Ratherthanemploy increasingly categories. so socialstructure that forthetableas a whole, goal hereis to elaborate the actuallyholds. "perfect mobility" fit Giventheacceptable ofthemodeledcountsoftable3 to theobserved fit model,"3 countsof table 1, and theunacceptable of theperfect mobility of mobility patterns occupational we learnthatthelattermodelconfounds to social classes.We learnthat,net of withthe effects mobility and from within table 1 is not statisthe of the class-specific marginals, association ticallysignificant = .24). This is the sense in whichthe social class (P H7 structure postulatedby hypothesis explainsthe observedcountsof table 1. this point, I have refusedto reduce the Combining categories.-Until size. Supposethatwe nowreduce initial17 X 17 tableto a tableofsmaller into the eightclassespositedby it to size 8 X 8, by combining categories countsofmobility observed H7. hypothesis The resultis a table reporting and the within between socialclasses.This reduced-form table,constructed in from data of table 1, is provided table4 (upperpanel).14 the
12 Ofthesixother to the is by hypotheses, bestfit provided H5 applied the1962data on to mobility current df= 55,G2= 86.2,P = .005. job: of to G2 themodel independence applied tableI yields = 7,808.2. 13 On256= (17 - 1)2 df, Related comments appearin n. 15 below. 14 The unrounded for table1 is based(seen. 8 above)were data onwhich employed this purpose.

598

Social Class Structure of Giventhat we have established conditional the independence origins to anddestinations thefull(17 X 17) table,we arein a position interpret for table (table 4) in a new way. Although is a table of it the reduced-form and counts mobility of within between observed classes,it is also something of whoseinfluence removed was else. It is a matrix class-specific marginals in order fitthemodeloftable3.15(Each countin theupperpaneloftable to
TABLE 4
INTERCLASS MOBILITY TO FIRST JOB, 1973, WITH FITTED COUNTS FOR MODEL M6 AND Row EFFECTS PARAMETERS (b) FOR THREE MODELS
SON'S CLASS (First Job) I II III IV
OBSERVED

V
COUNTS

VI

VII

VIII

Father's class: I .......... 25 II .... .. 29 III. 19 9 IV ........ V ........ 13 VI .1 9. .. 19 16 VII ........ 14 VIII ........

137 1,222 308 388 488 558 460 395

3 17 33 6 11 4 14 13
FITTED

35 467 194 291 408 542 584 344

16 191 86 99 490 259 325 328

22 324 160 216 538 1,464 853 822

M6

24 368 167 229 676 739 1,283 902

3 38 26 23 84 98 163 1,832

COUNTS, MODEL

Father's class: I ........... II .. 4.... III... IV.... V .15.4 VI. ... VII .14.1 VIII .

7 31.4 12.4 14.8 18.9 12.1

129.4 762.3 311.2 378.1 468.7 566.0 480.1 400.7

1.8 13.6 5.7 7.1 10.5 12.5 12.0 9.8

48.9 458.1 199.8 250.9 440.7 516.3 565.9 451.4

15.8 186.8 84.2 107.5 244.7 259.3 323.1 252.0

PARAMETERS

23.4 19.0 348.6 357.1 162.3 171.9 210.8 226.9 524.5 672.0 596.2 752.6 844.5 1,211.7 902.9 643.8
(b,)

1.5 36.4 18.1 24.3 85.7 94.6 173.1 126.1

Row EFFECTS

Model: M2 .1.52 M5. ... M6 .1.42

SOURCE.-Table

1.43

1.27 1.11 1.12

1.13 1.09 1.09

1.10 1.07 1.07

.93 .90 .90

.89 .91 .91

.83 .82 .81

.60 .80 .82

1 of this paper.

15 A formal decomposition associationin the 17 X 17 table underlies of theseobservations; it is sketchedhereforthe interested reader.One arrayof class-specific marginalsis given by theupperpanel oftable 4; theseare thesumsofthesubtablesSk into whichthe 17 X 17 table has previously been partitioned underhypothesis H7. Under the model of independence,thismarginalarrayexhibits = (8 - 1)2 df.A secondarrayof class-specific 49 marginals is the 17 X 8 table reporting occupational originsof respondents each class; the in theseare the rowmarginals the subtablesSk. Underindependence, of thismarginalarray 112 = (17 - 1)(8 - 1) df.The finalarrayof class-specific exhibits marginals the 8 X 17 is table reporting class origins respondents each occupation the of in (also 112 df); these are

599

of Journal Sociology American 4 is, by definition, sumofone ofthe64 subtables resulting the Sk from our a eight-class hypothesis.) Therefore, modelthatfits reduced-form the (class and fit X class) table of countswill simultaneously by definition certain marginalsthat were nettedout to produce the model that adequately characterizes initiallygiven (17 X 17) table. Moreover(to place a the of the remark Keith Hope's within framework the present of paper), "we shouldalwaysbeginby fitting interactions the (productterms)and only laterfitthemainterms"(Hope 1980a,p. 9). We now turn,therefore, the reducedform X 8) table of interclass to (8 mobility. The Class Hierarchy Thesis For expository purposes discuss fit five I the of models the data of table4; to in these models theonestreated Duncan (1979). Resultsarereported five are in table5. The modelofindependence "perfect or mobility" (modelMl of table 5) is thestandard baseline.Comparing G2value (6,672.4)to theG2obtained its in testing independence thefull (17 X 17) table (see n. 13), we observe on that 85% (=6,672.4/7,808.2)of the associationamong the occupational categories table 1 is due to theassociation class oforigin of withclass of of destination relatedcomments n. 15 above). (see in Ml Comparing to the modelof "quasi-perfect mobility" (independence foroff-diagonal cells; model M3 of table 5), we observethe substantial tendency class ofdestination be thesame as class oforigin. for to Each of the remaining modelsimposesan assumption to the ordering as
TABLE 5
TEST STATISTICS FOR SIX MODELS FITTED Model TO TABLE 4 df 49 G2 6,672.4

Independence(Ml) .. ..................................... Row effects (M2) .42 ........ diagonal omitted(M3) .......... Quasi independence, Uniform association,diagonal omitted(M4) .40 Row effects, .... diagonal omitted(M5) ..................... Row effects, diagonal and threeothercells omitted*(M6) .
* The other cellsare (VIII, IV), (VIII, V), and (VIII, VI) (see text).

41 34 31

2,821.3 886.2 168.4 100.1 39.5

of thecolumn marginals thesubtablesSk. Observethat49 + (112 - 49) + (112 - 49) = 175, the degreesof freedom used up in testingmodel (2) when the diagonal cells (fi) as well cells Thereare 256 = (17 - 1)2 dfassociated as the off-diagonal (ft,)are estimated directly. for withthe modelofindependence the full(R X R) table,and 256 - 175 = 81 = (R -C)2 the numberof df leftby model (2) (see App. A; here,R = 17 and c = 8).

600

Social Class Structure ofthesocialclasses.Duncan's "uniform association" model(M4) introduces a single additional parameter, which"has an obviousconceptual b, analogy to theregression coefficient, it governs shift thedestination since the of distribution that occursforeach 'step' of the orderedoriginclassification" (Duncan 1979,p. 797; see also Goodman1979b).Model M4 therefore requiresthattherowsand columns thetablebe ordered of identically in and the "correct"way."6 This modelleads to a substantial improvement over M3 at theadditional expense just 1 df.Still,themodeldoes not characof terizethedata. ModelsM2 and M5 assumeonlythatdestinations (cols. of thetable) are ordered; rowsneednotbe. These models the require set ofparameters, a bi, one foreach row (henceDuncan's term,"row effects" models).The gaps betweenadjacent columnsare assumedequal (Simon 1974,p. 972), but thesegaps (governed thebi) are allowedto differ by between rows.Each bi is defined of the table's rowand columnmarginal net and effects, is interas pretable theconditional odds ratioofmobility any classj, relative to to classj + 1, givenorigins classi (Simon1974). Models M2 and M5 differ in for onlyin thatroweffects thelattermodelare specified for exclusively the off-diagonal cells. Model M5 (row effects, diagonalomitted)is the best-fitting model of those considered far. Moreover,examination the standardized so of cell residuals (Bishopet al. 1975,pp. 136-41)resulting from fit thismodel the of indicated thatits lack offitis due almostentirely its lack offitin three to cells,each ofwhich involves out mobilitv oftheagricultural class (i.e., row VIII). 17 In orderto confirm that the lack of fitof modelM5 resultsalmostexfrom lack of fitto thesethreecells,a roweffects clusively its modelwas fitted onceagain to the table 4 data. This timethe threecellsidentified in note 17 (as well as the cells on the main diagonal,as in modelM5) were
16 Fitted counts for model M4 were obtained by the trial-and-error search method of Duncan (1979, pp. 797-98). The estimatedvalue of b (6 = 1.070) was computedto three decimalplaces. A moregeneraldiscussionof the estimation expectedfrequencies of under this model and the othersdiscussedbelow is providedby Goodman (1979b,pp. 817-18, 1979c). In thisregardthe reader'sattention also called to the comprehensive is computer program Haberman (1979, pp. 571-85) that "can be used to computemaximumlikeliof hood estimatesforany log-linear model." 17 Specifically, the observedmobilityfromagricultural occupations to routinized whitecollar occupations(cell [VIII, IV]) was substantiallyless than that predictedby model M5, while the observedmobility agricultural of workers into semi-autonomous craftjobs (cell [VIII, V]) and into manufacturing jobs (cell [VIII, VI]) was substantiallygreater than the model's predictions. Blau and Duncan (1967, pp. 51, 79) suggest that "farm laborer"servesas an "entry"occupationforyoungworkers "most of [whom] cannotcompete effectively white-collar for positions,and [who]thus move into manual work."

601

Journal Sociology of American as zeros(Bishopet al. 1975,pp. 140-41).18 This modelis treated structural M6 of test designated hereand in table 5. Witha goodness-of-fit statistic by effects modelM6 fits data acceptably conventhe 39.5 on 31 df,therow tional standards(P = .14). Fitted countsobtainedfromthis model are in estimated from reported the secondpanel of table 4. The bi parameters to multiplicatively unity),as well as thoseresulting thismodel (normed of M2 from and M5, appearat thebottom table4. fit Interpretation.-The of modelM6 providessupportforthe model's are I that social class destinations ordered uniformly (from to assumption in The no VIII as listedin table4 and previously thetext)."9 modelimposes and of abouttheordering classorigins, it however, in thislight is assumption (the the parameters bi). The modelspeciinteresting examine roweffect to of effects table marginal fies(forexample)that,netoftherowand column is professional 1.42 timesmorelikely(bi = 4, the son of a self-employed that generally, 1.42)tohavea first inclassII thanin classIII (and,more job likely have a first in classj thanin classj + n). to job he is 1.42n times more bestowedupon sons originating the We can define mobility differential in classi, relative thosewhobeginlifein theadjacentclassi + 1, as the to mobility differential ratiobilbi+,.For themodelthatfits(M6), thelargest relativeto thoseof the professionals (class I) is forsons of self-employed = is class (classII). Thisdifferential1.27(=b1/b2 1.42/1.12; middle salaried is differentialtheone spansee thelast lineof table 4). The secondlargest = = is largest theone ningthecollarline (b4/b5 1.07/0.90 1.19). The third = = work(b6/b7 .91/.81 1.12). and between manufacturing "preindustrial" differentials betweenadjacent classes is less than Each of the remaining 1.03.
18 Fitted countsformodels M5 and M6 were obtained by use of the iterative procedure devised by Duncan (1979, p. 798). This procedureyields "implied or imputed" fitted zeros. counts (Duncan 1979,p. 800) even forcells treatedas structural 19 Correspondingly, assumption are that occupationaldestinations ordereduniformly the level) is notsustainedby these data, subject to categories(17-category forthe ungrouped (of of proportion possibleorderings whichthereare 17! = 3.56 X 1014 (a) theinfinitesimal contextof table 5. (More general and (b) the modeling by in all) investigated thiswriter, in not here,are presented Goodman [1979c]and in Clogg [1980]). frameworks, considered For example,model M5 applied to the table 1 data yieldsa G2 of 1,588.4on 223 df. With index the rowsand columnsof table 1 permutedto accord withDuncan's socioeconomic of occupations(see Feathermanand Hauser 1978,p. 28), model M5 yieldsa G2of 2,018.8 or 2,033.5 (dependingon how the tie betweencategories11 and 13 on Duncan's index is resolved), also on 223 df. For this and a related reason (the increasingprevalence of "horizontalmobility"as largertables are considered[Blau and Duncan 1967, p. 117]), I have argued that the appropriatedomain of applicabilityof models fororderedcateby categoriesbut the classes of such categoriesidentified goriesis not the occupational criteria. homogeneity and internal applicationof the aggregation

602

Social Class Structure The finding a highmobility of differential sonsof self-employed for professionals the strongest as class difference in appearing thesedata conflicts withBaron'sconclusion (1980,p. 835) that"themajorcontrast appears ... to involve tightly a woven'mental'or white-collar on sector, theone hand, and all otheroccupational situses-highly differentiated amongthemselves -on the other." Strictcomparisons unwarranted, are however.Baron's examination the correspondence of betweenRogoff's Indianapolisstudy and contemporary mobility trends thenational at a levelemployed different aggregation occupations a different of and from modeling framework those employed here, and hisaggregation notintended satisfy criterion was to the ofinternal homogeneity in developed thispaper. These data bear out the "elite" standing the sons of self-employed of professionals discussion (see above of Hope's hypothesis H3), if the reader is willing applytheterm to "elite" to a classwithan evenhigher propensity "not to fall" than wouldhave been the case if the bi parameters had increaseduniformly withclass of origin(i.e., if model M4 had provideda satisfactory see relatedcomments M4 and M5 in Duncan [1979,p. fit; on 799]).20The partition appliedhere(H7) shareswithHope's thepostulation of self-employed professionals a distinct as a class, but it specifies more highly differentiated class structure. social H7 Moreover, hypothesis satisfiesthe criterion internal of homogeneity table 2), whichis centralto (see themodeling framework in developed thispaper. This discussion roweffects has been confined parameters of (b_) to estimatedfrom model(M6) thatfits data. Thesebi parameters virthe the are tuallyidentical thoseestimated to from modelM5 (comparethe last two linesoftable4). Therefore, interpretation theb,is notaltered the our of by additionalexclusion threecells in row VIII that defines difference of the betweenthe modelthat fitsthe data (M6) and Duncan's modelof "row effects, diagonalomitted"(M5). Summary.-Themajor resultof the data analysisof this paper is the demonstration a dualitywithrespect interclass of to mobility occupaand tionalmobility. Within subtables(Sk) defined social class partition the by (H7), occupationaloriginsand destinations independent are (table 2). Mobilitybetween classes (table 4) is characterized the differential the by of dependence destination class on origin class underthe assumption that destination classes are ordered uniformly. Models that incorporate these claimsmaintain fidelity thedetailedpattern cellfrequencies. to of
20 The mobility differential betweenclass I and class II estimatedfrom model M4, which providesan unsatisfactory to the data, is 1.07 (see n. 16). Model M6 estimatesthis fit mobility differential 1.27 (see text). as

603

Journal Sociology of American

CONCLUSION

The occupationalmobility table has servedas an anvil for sociological sincethedayswhenblacksmiths socialscientists outnumbered in craftwork in of laborforce. The history sociological technique consists the American at no smalldegree implements of honedand fashioned thisanvil (see, e.g., Bibby 1975; Blau and Duncan 1967; Boudon 1973; Feathermanand paperarosefrom Hauser 1978; Goodman1969; Pullum1975). The present that the recognition sociologists have remained reluctant, throughout this the of on historical period,to forge texture the material whichtheyset to the that "changesfrom work.They have not addressed explicitly problem classification vice versa) can affect themeasures all a finer a coarser to (or of of association whichwe know" (Goodmanand Kruskal1954,p. 737). is solution theproblem thebreadth to of The clearfactthat"there no final in of of and heterogeneity categories a classification occupations" (Duncan Duncan 1975) does notlicensesociologists ignore to 1968,p. 682; compare of theequallyclearfactthat"in a class composed totally theaffine occupaand semiskilled tionalgroups,e.g., of different labor, groupsof unskilled a of . there different appearsand exists community interests. . considerably from class composedtotallyof otheraffine occupational [that]of another of mayhave a basisfor groups.... Thus farthepartisans theclass struggle and propaganda"(Sorokin1927,pp. 439-40). their activity a for cateoccupational This paper has offered framework aggregating of intoaffine has gories (social) classes.The aggregation rowsand columns hereas thefundamental theoretical issuein mobility table beenportrayed thanas an exogenous rather analysis, "given" to be decideduponpriorto of the construction explicitmodels. Internal intraclassand interclass and tangibleboundedness the central class hierarchy, are homogeneity, and thisframeprinciples elaborated, implemented, appliedto data within work. leads to thehoning existing of techI have arguedthat thisframework tables.Falsifiable modelsthatfitlargemobility commitniquesto produce of of within mentswhichaddresstheproblem the structuring occupations for within this social classesare essential the analysisof mobility tangible of into social classes is one The framework. properpartition occupations of within the each class and whichsatisfies criterion internal homogeneity way each pair of classes (see tables 1, 2, and 3). The appropriate between to is to combine occupational categories, according thisframework, to agthe within samesocialclass (see thereduced-form table gregate occupations of and 4). In thisway, the definition classesis takento be theoretically between them. methodologically to thestudyofmobility prior patterns of to features largetablescan and shouldbe exploited assess The detailed 604

Social Class Structure the goodness fitof explicit of hypotheses about aggregation. formulaThe wouldcall fortheuse ofdifferent tionofvarioushypotheses interest of sets of initialcategories thanthe 17 OCG categories employed here.The OCG categories are indicative, however, the possible directions future of for work.Consider, example, partition 55 industries "core" and for the of into sectors "periphery" recently proposed Tolbert, by Horan,and Beck (1980) to and hypothesized provideappropriate unitsof analysisforthe studyof labormarket structure (amongotherphenomena). Withinthe framework developedin thispaper,the disaggregation mobility of tablesby detailed of code wouldallow the formulation testing hypotheses a and of industry "dual" or a moreelaborate"segmented" labormarket according which to and from another one laborpools tendto be distinct insulated through the presenceof separate seniority ladders. Applicationof the framework labormarkets hereto "internal" developed (intragenerational mobility job a institution a smallsetof"related"institutions) seems or also within single promising, owingto the necessity aggregating for detailedjob titlesinto larger, internally homogeneous categories reflecting typical mobility chances (Rosenbaum 1979; Spilerman 1977).21 of Thereis no shortage hypotheses. What has been lackinghas been an operational conceptof social class structures. With such a concept,hycan be brought bear directly the formulation modelsfor to in of potheses theoccupational table. mobility
APPENDIX A: SOME PRACTICALITIES OF MODEL FITTING

treatsmodels(1) and (2) ofthe "Implementation" This Appendix section, in and presupposes notation the used there. The other models discussed this paper (see table 5) are treated extensively elsew,-here (Duncan 1979; Goodman 1972,1979c;Simon1974). FittedValues Obtaining
model (1) may therefore obtained by the procedure he outlines (1979, be pp. 418-19). Without gain or loss of information, representthe givenR X R table of observed counts as a three-dimensional array X = {Xijk} of size R X R X c2 definedas:
Xijk =

Model (1) is a specialcase of Hauser's (1979) model.Fittedvalues under

fij
o

f or

(i, j) e Sk

otherwise,

21

The framework thispaper also has relevance modelsofsocial networks; Breiger of for see (1981) and Holland and Leinhardt(1981).

605

of Journal Sociology American zero (Bishopet al. of the where4 signifies treatment a cell as a structural S occupacategory), (respondent's occupational 1975, 59). Let P (father's p. the Sk) and tionalcategory), C (the subtables represent variablesindexed, notation, whichthe in conventional respectively, i, j, and k. Following by logfitted marginal configurations undera givenhierarchical highest-order (Bishopet al. 1975,p. 66), linearmodelare listedin a seriesofparentheses configuramarginal by expected values formodel(1) are produced fitting X tions(P)(S)(C) of the three-dimensional array(compareHauser 1979, p. 419). fitting marginal Fittedvalues forthe new model (2), then,resultfrom array (PC)(SC) ofthesame three-dimensional (see eq. [2] in configurations thetext). proan Fittedvalues formodel(2) can also be obtainedfrom identical in Sk cedure(see eq. [2']). Consider turneach ofthesubtables (k = 1, .... The independence. c2). For each subtable,fit the model of row-column for fitted values and theprocedure of equivalence thisprocedure obtaining is ofthepreceding paragraph givenby eq. [3] in the text. in As in the applications reported the text,one may chooseto confine cells modelto off-diagonal (cellsfij such that i # j). In that the explicit of array to include the definition the three-dimensional case, constrain Xijk = q fori = j, and proceedas above. In the case of model (2), this modelto each the independence to procedure identical fitting row-column is not cells subtable containing on thediagonaloftheR X R table,and fitting cells ("quasi-perfect for the model of quasi independence off-diagonal somecells on the diagonalof the mobility")to each subtablecontaining R X R table. Degreesof Freedom is for of of (see, Calculation degrees freedom thetwomodels straightforward a e.g., Bishop et al. 1975,pp. 114-22). Model (1) requiresfitting main column row (R (R effect, - 1) nonredundant parameters, - 1) nonredundant of subtable The and parameters. number parameters, (c - 1)2nonredundant in of associatedwithmodel (1) will therefore generalbe degrees freedom 1 - 2(R - 1) - (c - 1)2 = (R - 1)2 - (c - 1)2; compare Hauser(1979, Rbe to will cells, p. 418). If model(1) is confined off-diagonal there in general = R(R-3)-c(c-2) degrees of -(c-1)2 (R2-R) --1-2(R-1) freedom. Sk within each of the subtables (though Model (2) positsindependence R not within full X R table).This modelrequires the the clearly necessarily for fit a maineffect theR X R table,c2- 1 nonredundant of subtable paramrow and eters, - c) nonredundant parameters, c(R - c) nonredundant c(R R2 in with - 1 column Model(2) is therefore general associated parameters. 606

Social Class Structure

- c) = (R -C))2 degrees freedom. model(2) is confined (C2 -1)-2c(R of If to off-diagonal as it is in the text,its associatednumber degrees cells, of of freedom in general(R - C)2is V, whereV equals R less the numberof classes containing fewer than threeoccupational categories. Consider, for example,the numberof degreesof freedom associatedwith the test of hypothesis (H7) on a 17-category table.The hypothesis positseight classes, of whichfivecontainfewer than threeoccupational categories. Here R = 17,c = 8, V = 17 - 5, and thenumber degrees freedom (17 - 8)2 of of is (17 - 5) = 69 (see thelast rowoftable 2). Both models(1) and (2) are generalizations row-column of independence (or ofquasi independence off-diagonal for cells),and model(2) is a generalizationofmodel(1). In thespecialcase in which analystsupposesthere the are no social classes (c = 1), one obtainsfrom both modelsthe modelof simplerow-column independence with(R - 1)2 degrees freedom, the of or modelof quasi independence off-diagonal with (R - 1)2 - R defor cells greesof freedom.
-

607

Cd

cd

U-0 cd 4. A cd

in

in
to

to

cd
Cq

cd

Cq 1-4
_q m 00

En

0
Cd

cq

>$' En
Cd

cdmz Cd

t 00
00 oo t00 oo 00

C'S

0 cd w 0

cd

Cd

cd s. Cd

Cd CD

Cd

Cd En

cd

cn
C's

cn
C's 0,0

Cd
Cd cd pq

ce

00
(:P\

;j cn
o cd

00

cd C:).C\
-

in cd 1-1too 0 oo t- cdC-4 cd -q
Cd I.. -

q
"

in,

4-)

;:: -o -.0 4-J,

W

.-

0
>

>1

0U 4 (L) cd 'n P. cd

4-J ce

00

(0\

pq

>

C's C\

C's C\ 4) 1-4

4.J

C'S

ce 4)

cn
0 Cd

Cd

ce
1-4 -4 ce ce C's 4_"

Cd

14,

cd > 00 t-

Cd (L) e-,. Uo (L) 4J

cd -,
0 -4 ce

ce -4 1-4 ce 4

4-i ce 1.4 4,

Cd

ce 4-J
C's 1.4 4-i

1-4 4-) 4)

ce

o 0 4-) ce

(L) -, 1

> -4

En ce

C)

>

$-4

Cd.4-1 Z cd.W 10 (L) Cd 0

P-4

r. P. 0 u

Social Class Structure

REFERENCES R. ActaSociologica Aberg, 1979. "Social Mobilityand Class Structuration." 22(3):247-71. Tables withoutActuallyCollapsAllison,P. D. 1980. "AnalyzingCollapsed Contingency Review45 (February):123-30. ing." American Sociological Baron, J. N. 1980. "Indianapolis and Beyond: A StructuralModel of Occupational JournalofSociology (January):815-39. 85 Mobilityacross Generations."American D. Social Processes.New York: Wiley. Bartholomew, J. 1967. Stochastic Models,for dans les tableauxde contingence: Beland, Frangois.1978. "La Reductionde categories les hypothesesd'independanceregionale." Ph.D. dissertation. Departmentof Sociology, Universit6 Laval. of Bertaux,Daniel. 1976. "An Assessment Garnierand Hazelrigg'sPaper on Intergenerational Mobilityin France." American JournalofSociology (September):388-98. 82 Bibby, J. 1975. "Methods forMeasuringMobility." Qualityand Quantity (February): 9 107-36. Bishop,Yvonne M. M., StephenE. Fienberg, and Paul W. Holland. 1975. Discrete MultivariateAnalysis: Theory and Practice.Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The AmericanOccupational Structure. New York: Wiley. Boudon, Raymond. 1973. Mathematical Structures Social Mobility. of New York: Elsevier. --. 1975. "A Model forthe Analysisof MobilityTables." Pp. 511-29 in Quantitative Sociology: on and International Perspectives Mathematical Statistical Modeling, editedby H. M. Blalock, A. Aganbegian,F. M. Borodkin,RaymondBoudon, and V. Capecchi. New York: Academic Press. Breiger,Ronald L. 1981. "Comment on Holland and Leinhardt (1981)." Journalof the American 76 Statistical A.ssociation (March): 51-53. Lund: Gleerup. and Class Structure. Carlsson,Gbsta. 1958. Social Mobility Charvat, F., J. Linhart,and J. Vercernik.1978. "Some Remarks on the Applicationof MobilityApproachin a SocialistSociety." Pp. 159-71 in Social Mobility Comparative in Perspective, editedby Wlodzimierz K. Wesolowski, M. Slomczynski, and B. W. Mach. Warsaw: Polish Academyof Sciences. C. Clogg, Clifford 1979. Measuring Underemployment: Indicatorsfor the Demographic United States.New York: Academic Press. --. 1980. "Some Models fortheAnalysisofAssociation Multi-WayCross-Classificain tions Having Ordered Categories." Paper presented at the annual meetingof the AmericanStatisticalAssociation, Houston. 1981. "Latent Structure --. Models of Mobility." American JournalofSociology 86 (January):836-68. Coser, L. A. 1975. "Presidential Address: Two Methods in Search of a Substance." American Sociological Review40 (December): 691-700. and in Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1968. "Social Stratification Mobility:Problems the Measurementof Trend." Pp. 675-719 in Indicators Social Change,edited by Eleanor Bernert of Sheldonand WilbertE. Moore. New York: Russell Sage. --. 1975. "Partitioning PolytomousVariables in Multiway Contingency Analysis." 4 Social ScienceResearch (December): 167-82. --. 1979. "How DestinationDepends on Originin the OccupationalMobilityTable." 84 American JournalofSociology (January):793-803. Featherman,David L., and Robert M. Hauser. 1975. "Design fora Replicate Study of Social Mobilityin the United States." Pp. 219-52 in Social IndicatorModels,editedby KennethC. Land and SeymourSpilerman.New York: Russell Sage. --. 1978. Opportunity Change.New York: Academic Press. and Garnier, M., and L. E. Hazelrigg.1976. "Reply to Daniel Bertaux's Assessment."American JournalofSociology (September):398-408. 82 Societies. New York: Harper Giddens,Anthony.1973. The Class Structure theAdvanced of & Row. Goldthorpe, JohnH., in collaborationwith Catriona Llewellynand Clive Payne. 1980. Social Mobility in and Class Structure ModernBritain.Oxford:Clarendon.

609

American of Journal Sociology

Goodman,L. A. 1965. "On the StatisticalAnalysisofMobilityTables." American Journal ofSociology (March): 564-85. 70 --. 1968. "The Analysisof Cross-classified Data: Independence, Quasi-Independence, and Interactions Contingency in Tables With or WithoutMissing Entries." Journalof theAmerican Statistical 63 Association (December): 1091-1131. --. 1969. "How to Ransack Social MobilityTables and OtherKinds of Cross-Classification Tables." American JournalofSociology (July): 1-39. 75 --. 1970. "The Multivariate Analysis of Qualitative Data: Interactions among Multiple Classifications." Journalof theAmericanStatisticalAssociation65 (March): 226-56. 1972. "Some MultiplicativeModels for the Analysis of Cross-classified --. Data." Pp. 649-96 in Proceedings theSixth Berkeley of Symposium Mathematical on Statistics and Probability, edited by L. Le Cam, J. Neyman, and E. L. Scott. Berkeleyand Los of Angeles:University CaliforniaPress. --. 1973. "Causal AnalysisofData from Panel Studiesand OtherKinds of Surveys." American JournalofSociology (March): 173-229. 78 1974. "ExploratoryLatent-Structure --. AnalysisUsing Both Identifiable and Unidentifiable Models." Biometrika 61(2):215-31. -. 1979a. "A BriefGuide to the Causal Analysisof Data fromSurveys." American JournalofSociology (March): 1078-95. 84 --. 1979b."MultiplicativeModels forthe Analysisof Occupational MobilityTables and Other Kinds of Cross-Classification Tables." AmericanJournal of Sociology84 (January):804-19. --. 1979c. "Simple Models for the Analysis of Associationin Cross-Classifications Having Ordered Categories."Journalof theAmericanStatisticalAssociation74 (September):537-52. Goodman,L. A., and W. H. Kruskal. 1954. "Measures of Association Cross-Classificafor tions."JournaloftheAmerican Statistical Association (March): 732-64. 49 Data. Vol. 2, New Developments. Haberman, ShelbyJ. 1979. Analysis ofQualitative New York: Academic Press. Hauser, Robert M. 1978. "A StructuralModel of the MobilityTable." Social Forces56 (March): 919-53. MethodsforModelingMobilityTables and OtherCross--. 1979. "Some Exploratory classified Data." Pp. 413-58 in Sociological Methodology 1980,editedby Karl F. Schuessler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Holland, Paul W., and S. Leinhardt.1981. "Rejoinder to Commentson 'An Exponential Family of ProbabilityDistributionsfor Directed Graphs.'" Journalof theAmerican Statistical Association76 (March): 62-65. on Constraints Social Mobility:The Latent Hierarchies Hope, Keith, 1972. "Quantifying of a Contingency Table." Pp. 121-90 in The Analysis ofSocial Mobility: Methods and edited by Keith Hope. Oxford:Clarendon. Approaches, --. 1976. Review of Pullum (1975). American Journalof Sociology (November): 82 726-31. --. 1980a. "Developments in a Populist Paradigm." Contemporary Sociology9 (January): 8-12. --. 1980b. "Vertical and Non-verticalClass Mobilityin Three Countries."Unpublishedpaper. Oxford:Nuffield College,Oxford. Horan, P. M. 1974. "The Structureof Occupational Mobility: Conceptualizationand Analysis."Social Forces53 (September):33-45. --. 1978. "Is Status AttainmentResearch Atheoretical?" American Sociological Review43 (August): 534-41. RobertAlan. 1980.ReligiousAssortive States.New York: Johnson, Marriagein theUnited Academic Press. Kemeny,JohnG., and J. Lauri Snell. 1960. Finite MarkovChains. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand. and in Laumann,Edward 0. 1966.Prestige Association an UrbanCommunity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

610

Social Class Structure

New of - . 1973. Bonds ofPluralism:The Formand Substance UrbanSocial Networks. York: Wiley. of Laumann, Edward O., and L. Guttman.1966. "The Relative AssociationalContiguity Review31 (April): 169-78. Sociological Occupationsin an Urban Setting."American withNon-experimental Searches:Ad Hoc Inference Leamer,Edward E. 1978. Specification Data. New York: Wiley. Levine, J. H. 1972. "A Two-ParameterModel of Interactionin Father-SonMobility." Science 17 (September):455-65. Behavioral Enl. ed. New York: Free Merton,Robert K. 1968. Social Theoryand Social Structure. Press. Parkin,Frank. 1971. Class Inequalityand PoliticalOrder.New York: Praeger. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory:A BourgeoisCritique.New York: Columbia --. Press. University Inheritance. New York: Elsevier. Pullum,Thomas W. 1975. MeasuringOccupational Rosenbaum, J. E. 1979. "Organizational Career Mobility: Promotion Chances in a JournalofSociology duringPeriodsof Growthand Contraction."American Corporation 85 (July): 21-48. ContingencyTable." Simon, G. 1974. "AlternativeAnalyses for the Singly-ordered Statistical Association (December): 971-76. 69 JournaloftheA merican New York: Free Press. Sorokin,PitirimA. (1927) 1959. Social Mobility. Spilerman, Seymour. 1977. "Careers, Labor Market Structure,and Socioeconomic 83 American JournalofSociology (November): 551-93. Achievement." of Tolbert,C., P. M. Horan, and E. M. Beck. 1980. "The Structure EconomicSegmenta85 JournalofSociology (March): 1095tion: A Dual Economy Approach." American 1116. of Vanneman,R. 1977. "The OccupationalComposition AmericanClasses: Results from 82 JournalofSociology (January): 783-807. ClusterAnalysis." American Weber, Max. (1922) 1978. "Status Groups and Classes." Pp. 302-7 in Economyand Roth and Claus Wittich.Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Uniedited by Guenther Society, of versity CaliforniaPress. Science 8 White,H. C. 1963. "Cause and Effectin Social MobilityTables." Behavioral (January): 14-27. Erik Olin. 1978. Class, Crisis,and theState.London: New Left Books. Wright, New York: Academic Press. and --. 1979. Class Structure IncomeDetermination.

611