1

159



Beck, Horan, and Tolbert 1978; Kalleberg and Srensen
1979 )
: 235-258
1995 ; KerckhotT 1995; Rosenfeld 1992; Kalleberg, Reskin, and Hodson
2000; Reskin and McBrier 2000 )
and Bian 1991; Kalleberg and Lincoln 1988; Sakamoto
and Chen 1991 ; Sakamoto and Powers 1995; Cheng and Kalleberg 1997 )

1980; Smith 1990;
Sorensen 1990 )

















Horan, and Tolbert 1978;
Averitt 1968; Bl uestone 1973; Hodson and Kaufman J 982:728-729
1986 : 238-240 )







intemallabor






161


and 1982:729-730; 8eck, Horan, and Tolbert
1978; Tolbert, Horan, and 8eck 1980 ' 1994
236-241 )






segmented labor market )
( Hodson and Kaufman 1982:729-732; Tolbert 1982; Rosenfeld 1992 )


and Kalleberg and Srensen
1979 )
( 1 1983 )











and
Kaufman



Granovetter and Bridges 1988; Kalleberg
and Buren




and Bridges 1988; Kalleberg and Buren 1996; Petersen and Morgan 1995 )
Kalleberg and
Lincol n 1988; Sakamoto and Chen 1991; Sakamoto and Powers 1995; Cher>g
and Kalleberg 1997)
Kal leberg and Lincoln 1988; Sakamoto and Chen 1991 :298 )
and Bian



( Blau and Duncan

163


and Bian 1991






1975;
Sakamoto and Powers 1995; Jacobs and Powers
( 1995
(







(
:






























165








: 301 )



1993 )



1
( 2



et al
1988





Horan, and 8eck 1980
















( 1


; Lin and
Bian 1991
1987 )

167











1989

and Biggart 1988
1994 )





1999 )























1988 and Bian 1991 )





169




















( 1
J






















( 1

l5U

15.3
30.8


12 5

171





: 184 )
( 3




:
Horan, and
Tolben ( 1978 ) 'Tolbert, Horan, and Beck (




Hodson, and Fligsten ( 1981






and Chen
1991 ; Cheng and Kalleberg 1997:1236-1237 :
Kalleberg, Reski , and Hodson 2000 )



Wright and Perrone


: 181





( 1













173




( 1989 ) 1995 )





( 1982 ( 1983




( 1983














( 1982 and
Hauser 1978, Snipp 1985; Stier and Grusky 1990 )




Western and Wright ( 1994:615-6 19




ln Rij


ln





175
P<.05 ) J


Design Matrix





















and Wright 1994 )



r cj:l










Guest,
and Mccann 1989:364; Beannan and Deane 1992:43

ln




177













( 1

( 83.2%)
















11- 100 I I
l 2 7 l 2
]
30
20

4 7 l 5 6 8 4 4 3
42

28

11 -100
6 4
25 9 21 10 11 7
101

6 7

5 2 9 46 32 19 7 21
151

100

2 5

297 8 12 4 11
357
238

6 3 12 11 80 67 34 11 16
240

160

1l-l00 4
5 7 16 49 33 76 14 19
223
148

3 3 4 12 27 11 16 37 10
123
82

6 3
4 27 8
7 165
236
157

59

72 113 546 156 182 91 254 1503
3.9 2.0 4.8 75 36.3 10.4 12.1 6.1 16.9 1000

Y L\



t

11 100 I
33 33 6. 7 233 3.3 6 7 3.3

25.4 33 14 18 1.3 6 1.1 4 I 2.0

95 16.7 24 11 .9 143 190 95 95 7 1 42
I!'J

68 23.3 14 4.4 11 5.1 2.2 4.4 1.2 2.8

: I
59 4.0 24 .8 89 20.8 99 109 69 7.9 101
I PI

102 133 34.7 8.0 38 64 6.0 7.7 31 6 7

33 1 3 60 30.5 212 66 126 46 13.9 151

8.5 6 7 125 40.7 5.9 6.4 104 7.7 83

28 6 14 22 832 22 3.4 11 3 1 357
169 6 7 6.9 7.1 54.4 51
4.4 4 3 238


25 1.3 4.6 33.3 279 142 4.6 6.7 240
10.2 10.0 16 7 9.7 14.7 429 187 121 6.3 16.0

L
18 22 31 72 220 14.8 34 1 63 8.5 223

6.8 16 7 97 142 90 212 418 15.4 75 14.8

24 24 33 9.8 220 8.9 130 30 1 8.1 123
51 10.0 56 10.6 7.1 88 40 7 3.9 8.2

25 13 3.4 1.7 114 34 34 30

236
111 35 49 51 44 7 7 15.7


30 72 113 546 156 182 91 254 1503

20 48 7.5 36.3 12.1 6.1 16.9 1000
179




(= 3.3%+21.2%)



( 3





























( Sobel et al. 1985; Goldthorpe et al
1980










BIC ( Bayesian Information
Criterion ) BIC=
181
G2 ( d f. ) log ( N )
( Mare 1991

' P=.OOO






' df=8 ' P<
05 )



19.67 '










)


































G
2

164.36
67.92
4825

61.51
6002
df P Brc-
64 000 685
63 000 297
55 113 334
544 318
53 557 337
54 225 333

267 334



167
217* 423
1.66* 472

290
114* 242

332
851* 186
179
243




183


(P<.05)

(P<.05)


















(1983)


















( 1


'BIC




'



'
185


)

H-1333 Et-
--
-
346
365

P
000
000
201
129
727
745
485

57
60
61
G'
28296
1ll .85
6353
7473
50 18
52. 17
60.75
-355 346 61 69.41


107




112
209
442*
1.987*


277*





'





.442 )
-.439
















187
































and Bian 1991

















189



( 1983




1997)



1989 )

and Powers ( 1995








1 9 0



J '

191







11-100
01+S, Prop+S Prop+5< Prop+5<

Prop Prop ProD Prop

ProD+S, o,+S,+S s, s, Prop
S,

11- 1

S,
DJ+Sc+Sl L ProD

S,




ProD+S, 5 5< D ProD

S,

D Prop Prop PrOD Prop+S, Prop

PrOD 3

Proo+S( o,+S,+S s, s,

ProD

S,

S,
DI+So+S, 5

Prop

S,
3 5 Da+S +$:;

ProD



[),




7;1:



t




l 2 2 1 1
17
1-6

4 3 l 5 6 B 4 4
37
2 136


11-100 85

6 4 11 9 19 10 11 7 B
8-2

5 2 B 20 31 10 19 7 21
123

119

10 2 5

89 8 12 4 11
149
14.4

6 3 12 11 69 36 31 11 16
195

188

184

11- 100 4 5 7 16 47 32 42 14 17
17.7

101

3 3 4 12 25 11 16 17 10
9. 7

6 3 B 4 26 8

7 76
146
14.1

46 26 57 87 319 124 145 71 162 1037
4 4 25 55 84 120 140 6_8
156 100




1979


1989



1992 0

1989


1995
182

1997



1996

193

1999 0
35: 1

1986

1994


1995



1988 0


1993 0

1994


1999
0

1997

2001 0


1998


1992 0

1995



1994


1989 0
2(2): 1

1982 > 0
53:
1992


1995


195

1996 0 24(2):273-
311 0

1968 The Dua1 Economy. New York: Horton
Bearman, P. S. and G. Deane

6
Beck, E. M. Horan and Charles Tolbert
1978 "Stratification in a Dual Economy: A Sectoral Model of Eamings
Determination." American Socio1ogica1 43:704-720
M. and O. D. Duncan
1967 The American Structure. New York: Wil ey
Bluestonc, B
1973 "The Tripartite Economy: Labor Markets and the Working Poor."
Poverty and Human Resourccs 1 S-S35
Chang , Chi n-Fen, T. L. Parcel, and C. W. Mueller
1988 "Economic Segmentation in Taiwan: A Comparative Study with
Uni ted States." Focus 21(4) :249-369
M. M. and A. N. Kalleberg
1997 "Labor Market Structure in Japan: An Analysis of Organizational and
Occupational Mobili ty Pattems . " Socia1 74(4): 1235-1260
Featherman, David L. and Robert M. Hauser
1978 Opportunity New York: Academic Press
Gates, Hill
1987 Chincse Lives. Ithaca: Comell Uni versity Press


J. H. , Catriona L1eweJJyn, and Clive Payne
1980 Mobility Structure in Modern Oxford
CJarendon Press
Mark
1984 "SmaJJ is BountifuJ: Labor Markets and
Review 49:323-334
Guest, A. M. , N. S. and 1. C. Mccann
1989 "IntergenerationaJ OccupationaJ Mobility in the Late 19th Century
United States." Forres 68(2):351-378
HamiJton, G and N. Biggart
1988 "Market, CuJture and Authority. " American Journal of Sociology 94
(supp.):S52-S94
Hauser, R. M
1980 "On Stratification in a DuaJ Economy: A Comment on Beck, Horan,
and 1978." American Sociological Review 45:702-71 2
Hodson, R. and R. L. Kaufman
1982 "Economic Dualism: A CriticaJ Review." American
Review 47:727-739
Hodson, R
1978 "Labor in the MonopoJy, and State Sectors of Production."
Politics and society 8:429-480
Jacobs , J
1983 "IndustriaJ Sector and Career Mobility Reconsidered." American
Sociological
A. L. and A. B.
1979 "The SocioJogy of Labor Markets." Annual Review of Sociology
197
5:351-379
Kalleberg, A. L. and 1. R. Lincoln
1988 "The Structure of Eamings Inequality in the Uni ted States and Japan."
American Jouma1 of 94(supp.):S 121 -S 1 53
A. L. and M. E. Van Buren
1996 "Is Bigger Better ? Explaining the Relationship between Organization
Size and Job Rewards." American Sociologica1
A. L., B. F. Reskin, and K. Hodson
Jobs in America: Standard and Nonstandard Employment
Relations and Job Quali ty in the United States." Amenean Sociologica1
65:256-278
Kaufman, R., R. Hodson and N. D. Fligstein
1981 "Defrocking Dualism: A New Approach to Defining Industrial
Sectors." Science Research 10:
Kerckhoff, A. C
1995 "Institutional Arrangements and Stratificati on Processes in Industrial
Societies." Annua1 Review of Sociology 15:323-347
Lin, Nan and Yan-Jie Bian
Ahead in Urban China." American Jouma1 of Sociology 97(3)
657-688
Mare, R. D
1991 "Five Decades of Educati onal Assortati ve Mating." Amencan
Sociologica1 Review 56: 1 5-32
Petersen, T. and L. A. Morgan
1995 "Separate and Unequal: Occupation-Establishment Sex Segregati on and
the Gender Wage Gap. " American Jouma1 ofSociology 101:329-365.

Reski n, B. F. and D. B. McBrier
2000 "Why Not Ascripti on? Organizations' Employment of Male and
Female Managers." American Sociologica1 ReYew 65:210-233
Rosenfeld, R. A
1992 "Job Mobility and Career Processes." Annua1 ReYew of Sociology
18:39-61
Sakamoto, A. and M. Chen
1991 "Inequality and Attainment in Dual Labor Market."
ReYew 56:295-308
Sakamoto, A and D. A. Powers
1995 "Education and Dual Labor Market for Japanese Men. " American
60:224-246
Smith, M.R
1990 "What is New "New Structuralist" Analyses of Eamings ? " American

Snipp. C. M
1985 "Occupational Mobility and Social Class: Insights from Men's Career
Mobility." American Review 50: 475-492
Sobel, M. E., M. .Hout and O. D. Duncan
1985 "Exchange, Structure and Symmetry in Occupational Mobility."
American Jouma1 of Sociology 91 :359-372
Sorensen, A. B
1990 "Throwing Out? (A Reply to Smith.)" American

St H. and D. B. Grusky
1990 "A Overlapping Persistence Model of Mobility." American
Sociologica1 Review 55:736-756

199
1975 "Occupations, Labor Markets and the Process ofWage Attainment."
Review 40:645-665

1982 "Industrial Segmentation and Men Career Mobili ty." American
Sociologica1 Review 47:457-477
P. M. Horan,and E. M. Beck
1980 "The Structure of Economic Segmentation: A Dual Economy
Approach." American Jouma1 ofSociology 85(5): 1095-1116
Wayne 1. and Will iam P. Bridges
Bigger is Better: Differences in the Effect of
Firm and Establishment size ." American Sociologica1 Review 53:237
-255
Westem, Mark and E. O. Wright
1994 "The Permeability of Class Boundaries to Intemational Mobility among
Men in The Uni ted States, Canada, Norway and Sweden. " Amencan
Sociologica1 59:606-629
Wright, E. O. and L. Perrone
1977 "Marxist Class Categories and Income Inequali ty." American
42:32-55
200
Exploring Taiwan's Labor Market Segmentation:
The Analysis ofthe Mobility Tables
Yih-Jyh Hwang
Abstract
Using the 1992 Taiwan Social Change Survey data (stratification
section), we confront the following questions from a New Structuralism
perspectlve. (1) In Taiwan, are there clear-cut dual or multiple labor markets
with a low inter-sector mobility rate? (2) How and to what extent is the labor
market segmented in Taiwan? The empirical results indicate that segmented
labor markets do exist in Taiwan, and that the barriers are quite significant
This is especially true between the public and private sectors. Although there
are mobility barriers between core and periphery industries, and between
employers and employees, these are not as crucial as those between the public
and private sectors. Further, we find that the size of a firm does not affect its
reflection of Taiwan's labor market segmentation. Workers flow through big
and small firrns alike. In sum, this paper, which corresponds with the New
Structuralism perspective, emphasizes the importance of structural features of
the labor market. We believe that this approach should be able to supplement
the social stratification research based on the traditional status attainment
model in Taiwan
Keywords : New Structuralism, Labor Market Segmentation, Public and
Private Sector