0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
48 visualizzazioni24 pagine
The CASMINproject and the American dream by robert erikson and john Goldthorpe. They respond to critiques of their work under the auspices of th e CASMIN project.
The CASMINproject and the American dream by robert erikson and john Goldthorpe. They respond to critiques of their work under the auspices of th e CASMIN project.
The CASMINproject and the American dream by robert erikson and john Goldthorpe. They respond to critiques of their work under the auspices of th e CASMIN project.
Source: European Sociological Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, Special Edition on Social Stratification and Social Mobility (Dec., 1992), pp. 283-305 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/522720 . Accessed: 16/05/2013 12:28 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. . Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions European Sociological Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, December 1992 283 ?Oxford University Press 1992 T h e CASMINproject and th e American dream ROBERT ERIKSON AND JOHN H. GOLDT HORPE ABST RACT In th is paper we respond to th e critiques of our work undertaken under th e auspices of th e CASMIN project th at are presented by Hout and Hauser and by Srensen in preceding papers in th is number. We treat in turn issues concerning data comparability and th e class sch ema th at we use as th e basis for our analyses of mobility; our model of 'core social fluidity'; and empirical results relevant to th e evaluation of th e FJH-h ypoth esis. In conclusion we point to certain conceptual presuppositions and related research interests wh ich we would see as deeply rooted in th e American tradition of work in th e field of social stratification and mobility and wh ich , we suggest, th row ligh t on th e nature of th e reaction th at our work h as provoked. INT RODUCT ION We are gratified th at our work arising out of th e CASMIN (Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations) Project h as so quickly attracted attention, and we much appreciate th e efforts th at h ave been made by our critics both in th is number of th e European Sociological Review and elsewh ere. We regret only th at th e speed of th e critical reaction h as been such th at th e content of our major publication (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992) would seem not always to h ave been fully assimilated. In th is response, we do not attempt to take up every point raised in th e foregoing papers by Hout and Hauser and by S0rensen. We concentrate, rath er, on wh at would appear to be th e more crucial issues on wh ich disagreement occurs; and we seek, moreover, to place th ese issues-even ones of a seemingly tech nical nature-in th e context of certain broader considerations regarding th e comparative study of social stratification and mobility. T o th is end, it may be h elpful if at th e outset we note two concerns th at guided th e conception and th e subsequent development of th e CASMIN Project. First and foremost was a concern to improve th e quality of data used in cross-national research and, above all, in regard to comparability. By th e early 1980s it h ad become apparent in mobility research -as in oth er fields-th at dispiritingly inconsistent and confusing results would continue to be obtained from comparative analyses unless problems of data received far more serious attention (cf. Goldth orpe, 1985b). Consequently, with in th e CASMIN project a large part of our available resources were devoted to data preparation: in particular, to th e recoding of th e unit-record data of national mobility enquiries to new standardized categories th at could be applied cross-nationally in a reasonably reliable way (see furth er Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 47-53; and, for greater detail, Konig et al., 1987; Erikson et al., 1988). We derive particular satisfaction from th e fact th at th e approach and tech niques followed in th is connection by th e CASMIN team h ave influenced similar efforts at improving data quality in subsequent com- parative projects, such as th e Luxembourg Income Study, th e Development of Unionism in Europe Study, and th e International Survey on Social Justice. It is, we believe, with research th at is th us committed to taking data seriously th at th e future of comparative macro-sociology lies.' Secondly, we indicated from th e start of th e CASMIN project our intention of treating mobility with in th e context of a class structure This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM rath er th an th at of a prestige or status h ierarch y. We need not reh earse our arguments for th is conceptual ch oice since th ey are set out fully elsewh ere (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 29-35; and cf. also Goldth orpe, 1985a). It will be enough h ere to say th at we wish ed to be able to treat adequately th e effects on mobility of th e structural development of national economies; and furth er to make our analyses of mobility as relevant as possible to th e work of oth er sociologists-and of social h istorians- primarily interested in questions of class formation and decomposition, th e linkages between class structures and educational systems and th e class bases of political beliefs, values, and action. T h ese two concerns, with data quality and a class-structural perspective, are of immediate relevance to th ose arguments of our critics th at we address in th e following section, regarding th e degree of aggregation of th e class categories th at we use in our comparative mobility analyses and th e range of nations th at is covered. T h ence, we proceed to a series of issues pertaining to our model of 'core social fluidity' and, in turn, to issues of a more substantive nature arising from attempts at th e empirical testing of th e 'FJH h ypoth esis'. T o end with , we point to certain conceptual pre- suppositions and related research interests wh ich are, we believe, deeply rooted in th e American tradition of work in th e field of social stratifica- tion and mobility, and wh ich h elp make more intelligible-to us at least-th e oth erwise often puzzling nature of th e reaction th at our work h as provoked. DAT A AND T HE CASMIN CLASS SCHEMA It is one of th e main complaints of Hout and Hauser th at th e class categories used in our comparative analyses of mobility (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1987a, 1987b, 1992) are of a too aggregated kind and th at, in consequence, a good deal of mobility both with in and between th ese categories is concealed. T h ey th erefore proceed to re-analyse our data-or, rath er, a subset th ereof-using th e full 12 classes of th e sch ema to wh ich our data are coded in th e CASMIN IMS Superfile instead of th e collapsed seven-category version th at we ourselves adopt. S0rensen, in contrast, is content to operate with only a six-category version of th e sch ema; but h e objects th at our model of core fluidity is applicable, if at all, only to th e small number of nations th at we consider and seeks to demonstrate th is th rough an analysis of mobility in 23 nations, drawing on th e data-set constituted by Ganzeboom et al. (1989). We would, first of all, wish to assure our critics (th ough we find it odd th at th is sh ould be necessary) th at we would indeed h ave preferred to work with more refined class categories and with a larger number of national cases. T h e reason wh y we did not sh ould be evident enough : it was not possible to do so with out compromising th e standards of data quality, and specifically of data comparability, th at we would regard as minimally necessary for effective comparative research and th at we h ad expressly set out to establish and maintain. Correspondingly, we can only regard our critics as th emselves sh owing a lack of concern for data quality th at is retrograde and th at vitiates th eir efforts from th e very start. In our recoding exercise, we did indeed use th e full version of th e class sch ema. But, in th e course of th is exercise, it became apparent th at a satisfactory standard of cross-national comparability could not be ach ieved at th is level. In some instances, essential information was simply not available in th e original studies: for example, to enable th e distinction to be made between small proprietors with employees (Class IVa)2 or with out (Class IVb) or to make any consistent differentiation among farmers, wh eth er in terms of employees (wh ich Hout and Hauser erroneously suppose to h ave been th e case) or of indicators of farm size. In oth er instances, wh ile we could in principle implement th e sch ema for all our nations, we could not in practice do th is in th e same way from one nation to anoth er: most obviously, in drawing th e line between manual supervisory and lower tech nical grades (Class V) and skilled manual workers (Class VI) and also between th e h igh er and lower grades of th e service class (Classes Iand II). T o obviate such difficulties, resort to th e collapsed seven-class version of th e sch ema 284 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW was-unfortunately-necessary (for furth er details, see Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 50-2).3 In placing our data in th e public domain, it seemed only sensible to retain th e more detailed form, since some potential users migh t h ave an interest in particular nations rath er th an in comparative analysis. But in working papers, conference presentations, and personal com- munications, as well as in th e major report on our work (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 52), we h ave emph asized th at only at th e seven-class level of th e sch ema can an acceptable degree of data comparability be claimed: th at is, in th e sense th at no major defects are evident and th at if, on th is basis, statistically significant cross- national differences in mobility are revealed, it would for th e most part be a reasonable presumption th at th ey are real rath er th an artefactual. It is not apparent wh y Hout and Hauser sh ould ch oose to disregard th is repeated message (th ough we do subsequently suggest a reason). However, th e consequences are inevitably damaging. As th ey accept, th ey simply h ave to discard th e th eoretically interesting cases of Hungary and Poland-and, h ad th ey worked with th e full CASMIN data-set, th ey would h ave been forced to discard Australia and th e USA as well.4 But furth er, and more seriously, in all th e analyses of mobility th at th ey undertake th ey will of necessity introduce some non-negligible amount of cross-national 'variation' th at is of an entirely spurious kind. T h e problem of data th at arises with S0rensen's contribution is similar, but still more severe. T h e Ganzeboom, Luijkx, and T reiman (GLT ) data-set to wh ich h e resorts is one constructed following an approach to th e problem of data comparability quite different from th at of th e CASMIN Project. Briefly, th e GLT strategy is to accumulate multiple mobility tables for a large number of nations by relaxing standards of data comparability (and also by accepting data from very small samples), but th en to regard each table as a 'data-point', subject to error. In all analyses based on th e data-set it is th erefore necessary to ch eck on possible effects due to error, at th e same time as substantive issues are addressed (Ganzeboom et al., 1989). We h ave serious doubts about th e viability of th is approach , at least as so far implemented (see Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 53, n. 27, 100-1). But wh at we would wish to emph asize h ere is th at S0rensen sh ows no awareness of its essential logic. In effect, h e treats th e mobility tables th at h e takes over from th e GLT data- set as if th ey were on a par with th ose produced with in th e CASMIN Project and carries out no 'quality controls' wh atever. His only concession to th e problem of data comparability is to reject tables th at score 0 and 1 on th e six-point GLT quality grading. T h is is, h owever, entirely inadequate. Only tables scoring 5 are directly comparable to CASMIN tables (Ganzeboom et al., 1989: 21); and it can be sh own th at even tables produced in th e manner th at will give a quality score of 4 (by mimicking th e class sch ema via ISCO occupational codes) are likely to create quite serious problems of com- parability.5 Furth ermore, examination of S0rensen's T able IIin th e ligh t of th e docu- mentation of th e GLT data reveals th at th e subset th at h e h as extracted is especially patch y: th us, for nine of h is 23 nations h e can muster in total, only th ree tables (out of 35) th at attain a quality score of 4, th e remainder scoring only 3 or 2. We do not th erefore find it at all surprising th at in analysing th ese data S0rensen sh ould sh ow a degree of cross-national variation in relative rates of social mobility th at is quite incompatible with th e FJH-h ypoth esis. T h ere is no reason to suppose th at any oth er outcome would h ave been possible. T h at is to say, th e FJH-h ypoth esis, in any version, will necessarily be rejected on th e basis of th ese data, simply on account of th e lack of cross-national comparability inh erent in th em. Even in using th e CASMIN data-set, we would argue, some 'ch arity' is due to th e h ypoth esis in virtue of th e residual non-comparability th at is still present and th at will th erefore count-unfairly-against it (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 174). But S0rensen appears quite h appy to exploit th e deficiencies of h is data to th e advantage of h is own case. As against both Hout and Hauser and S0rensen, we would th en wish to maintain th at th e first requirement of any worth wh ile 285 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM sociological analysis is th at th e limitations of th e available data sh ould be respected. Hout and Hauser are kind enough to say th at th e CASMIN project 'h as produced a wealth of new information on comparative class mobility' (p. 239). We are sorry th at we could not produce more. But noth ing-but trouble-will be gained by proceeding as if th e data we use are more detailed or more extensive th an is in fact th e case. T o conclude th is section, we append one furth er comment relating to Hout and Hauser's argument for wish ing to work with th e full version of th e class sch ema: namely, th at th e classes of th e collapsed version are too h etero- geneous in th e prestige or status scores of th eir constituent elements (pp. 240-41). T o repeat, we too would h ave liked to utilize th e full sch ema, h ad requirements of data quality allowed-but not, we sh ould say, for th e reason th at Hout and Hauser h ere advance. T o judge th e validity of any class sch ema by reference to prestige or status makes little th eoretical sense, unless one supposes, as we would not, th at classes are just more or less arbitrary slices of a prestige or status continuum. So far at least as our sch ema is concerned, th e appropriate criteria are th ose considered by Evans, in h is paper in th is number; th at is, ones pertaining to th e different aspects of employment relations in terms of wh ich th e th eoretical rationale of th e sch ema is expressed (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 35-47). Evans' results indicate th at, as we h ave always supposed, we do indeed lose someth ing in collapsing th e sch ema (and especially Classes V and VI); but prestige or status gradations are not th e relevant consideration. It would not surprise us if th e latter could always explain someth ing more of mobility rates and patterns over and above wh at can be explained in terms of class-alth ough , we would argue, th e reverse is more obviously true, in particular with regard to structural effects. But, in any event, as we noted earlier, our own concern h as from th e beginning been with class mobility; and th ose wh ose interest centres, rath er, on mobility in terms of prestige or status surely h ave th e option of dispensing with class categories altogeth er in favour of some appropriate scale. T HE CASMIN MODEL Our critics are dissatisfied with th is model on a variety of counts, wh ich we sh all consider in turn. T ailoring Both Hout and Hauser (p. 255) and S0rensen (pp. 268, 278) contend th at our model of core social fluidity is tailored to fit th e mobility data to wh ich it is applied, and in particular, th ey believe, th rough th e 'affinity' terms th at it includes. As it stands, h owever, th is ch arge is simply incorrect. T h e model is tailored, as we h ave described in some detail (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1987a, 1992: ch . 4), in order to fit th e empirical representation of 'core' fluidity th at we derive from our data for England and France (th e two nations wh ich emerged from a MDSCAL analysis of data for nine European nations as th ose most central to th e 'space' with in wh ich cross-national variation in fluidity occurs). But, beyond th is, no tailoring is undertaken, and such fit as th e core model may ach ieve to mobility data for oth er nations cannot be devalued on th is account.6 It ough t, moreover, to be recognized-and more clearly th an our critics accept-just wh at th e purpose of th e above-mentioned procedure was: th at is, to provide an adequate test of th e FJH h ypoth esis, taken in its actual verbal formulation as claiming only a 'basic' (not total) similarity in cross-national fluidity patterns. T o th is end, it would not h ave been appropriate simply to postulate a model of such basic, or core, fluidity a priori, and th en to deem th e h ypoth esis to h ave been refuted if th is model did not fit th e data well. Some attempt h ad to be made to identify empirically th e best 'candidate' for such a core pattern. S0rensen writes at one point (p. 268): 'T h e danger is th at a model such as th at proposed by Erikson and Goldth orpe, wh ile coming close to fitting adequately in all nations, none th e less may not provide a true representation of th e pattern of relative mobility in a given nation.' But a model of th is kind is just wh at one h as to look for in th e interests of testing th e FJH-h ypoth esis not only as rigorously as possible but also fairly- someth ing with wh ich , as we h ave already 286 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW observed, S0rensen h imself seems rath er little concerned. Symmetry Hout and Hauser dislike our model of core social fluidity because it is asymmetrical. T h ey are forced to acknowledge th at in a majority of th e nations th ey consider asymmetries in relative mobility rates, or, th at is, in th e pattern of social fluidity, do in fact exist; but th ey still contend th at a symmetrical model sh ould be favoured on grounds of parsimony and interpretability. On th e issues of parsimony, as against fit, wh at would seem ultimately to be involved are differing preferences th at cannot perh aps be usefully debated. But on th e issue of inter- pretability, th e main argument th at Hout and Hauser advance is one th at we must regard as at best misleading and at worst just wrong. T h eir claim (p. 249) is th at 'Intrinsic asymmetry [i.e. asymmetry in fluidity patterns] is incompatible with th e analysis of structural mobility'. T h is statement needs, h owever, to be glossed as follows: 'accepting asymmetry in fluidity patterns is incompatible with making th e distinction between structural and exch ange mobility, according to th e model proposed by Sobel et al. (1985).' T o wh ich we would th en reply: so much th e worse for th e model. It h as th e evidently unsatisfactory property th at its applicability depends upon a purely contingent fact: i.e. th at fluidity is symmetrical; and, in any event, we would regard th e distinction between structural and exch ange mobility as by now outmoded and unnecessary (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 58-9). At th e same time, th ough , wh at must be stressed is th at it remains entirely possible to work with an asymmetric model of fluidity, such as our core model, and still to make estimates of structural effects on (absolute) mobility rates. Indeed, we believe th at th is can most usefully be done by treating th ese effects, following Sobel, Hout, and Duncan (SHD), as reflecting ch anges between origin and destination distributions th at raise or lower th e odds of mobility to a given destination by th e same factor across all origins alike. T h is valuable suggestion is, one sh ould note, quite detach able from th e SHD model itself. All th at is required is a recognition th at h eterogeneity in th e marginal distributions of th e mobility table may derive in part from th e pattern of fluidity itself or, in oth er words, th at th e latter may not be symmetrical. It is of interest h ere to note th at in th e paper proposing th eir model, SHD do at one point sh ow some awareness th at 'greater generality' migh t be ach ieved in th e way in question: th at is, by not requiring th at marginal h eterogeneity be completely accounted for by structural effects (Sobel et al., 1985: 365, n. 2). T h ey th en dismiss th is idea on th e grounds th at if symmetry in relative rates does not h old, structural effect parameters will not be (uniquely) estimable. But th is would appear to be a misconception. At all events, with th e kind of topological model th at we develop, th e objection does not apply. Structural effects can be quite satisfactorily estimated, regardless of th e asymmetry in fluidity th at is specified.7 Finally, th en, we must point out th at wh en Hout and and Hauser write (p. 240) th at 'Erikson and Goldth orpe give almost no attention to structural mobility', th is is true only in th at 'structural mobility', like 'exch ange mobility', is not a concept th at we h ave use for. But, as readers may see for th emselves, we do discuss structural effects on mobility quite extensively (1992: ch . 6 esp. but cf. also ch s. 3, 7, 9, 10), including in th e manner th at Hout and Hauser favour. Indeed, th e findings th at th ey report in th is respect (pp. 249-51) are ones th at we h ave in all salient features anticipated (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 204-7). In sum, th e implication contained in Hout and Hauser's paper th at we are unable to treat structural aspects of mobility because our model of core fluidity is not symmetrical must be flatly rejected. Cross- Validation Hout and Hauser point to th e desirability of validating our model against fresh data, rath er th an by comparing its fit with th at of oth er models against CASMIN data. Wh ile we would not accept th at th is desirability stems from th e tailoring of th e model to th e CASMIN tables, to attempt cross-validation in th e way th at Hout and Hauser propose is still an obviously 287 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM T ABLE 1 Results of fitting th e model of core social fluidity to mobility tables for men aged 20-64 in England and Wales G2 df p G2(Sa N CASMIN (1972) 68.3 28 0.00 1.7 37 9434 BGES (1979, '83, '87) 30.2 28 0.36 2.2 29 3 012 Effect parameters HI1 HI2 IN 1 IN2 IN3 SE AF 1 AF2 CASMIN -0.16 -0.35 0.47 0.71 0.77 - 1.22 -0.76 0.44 BGESb -0.12 -0.30 0.60 0.41 1.79 -0.77 -0.22 0.48 Structural sh ift effects (Class I+ IIset at 0) III IVa + b IVc V + VI VIIa VIIb CASMIN -0.70 -1.19 -3.16 -1.25 -1.20 -2.51 BGES -0.78 -0.91 - 2.82 - 1.34 - 1.30 -2.01 Notes: aG2(S) is G2 standardized for a sample size of N= 1 991, th e smallest in th e CASMIN data-set. For furth er details of th is statistic, see Erikson and Goldth orpe (1992: 88-90). bT h e parameters for HI1 and AF1 do not attain significance. appropriate procedure. T h eir own exercise, on th e basis of mobility data for Britain taken from Marsh all et al. (1988), is, as th ey recognize, inconclusive, primarily because th e sample N is too small. Fortunately, th ough , th ere are oth er data available, somewh at more adequate to th e purpose in h and: namely, th ose from th e British General Election Surveys of 1979, 1983, and 1987. In T able 1 we sh ow th e results of fitting our model of core social fluidity to a mobility table for men aged 20-64 in England and Wales th at is derived from th e pooled data of th ese th ree studies. Results previously reported for th e corresponding CASMIN (1972) table are also given for purposes of comparison. It can be seen th at th e fit of th e model to th e 1979-87 data is very satisfactory, and th at estimates of effect parameters, including 'structural sh ift' para- meters, are for th e most part rath er close to th ose for 1972. In so far as differences do sh ow up, th ey are ones th at are scarcely implausible or indeed th at point to ch anges over time th at can be independently documented, such as a relative decline in th e industrial working class and a relative growth in th e petty bourgeoisie. In th e case of th e affinity effects, about wh ich Hout and Hauser express particular doubts, it is true th at AFl-th e disaffinity term applying to mobility between th e service class and th at of agricultural workers-becomes insignificant (th ough with its expected sign) for 1979-87. However, it sh ould be noted th at even with a total N of over 3 000, th e numbers associated with Class VIIb, as one of origin or destination, are still very small. T h e AF2 term, wh ich applies to far more populous cells of th e mobility table, is little altered.8 We would th en claim th at, for England at least, our model stands up well to a validation exercise of th e kind th at Hout and Hauser propose, and th at th is result serves furth er to undermine any suggestion th at th e success of th e model in reproducing mobility data is ach ieved by tailoring.9 Performance Hout and Hauser and S0rensen alike aim to sh ow th at models th at th ey advance perform better th an wh at th ey refer to as eith er th e 'CASMIN' or 'Erikson-Goldth orpe' model. However, as we would h ave th ough t abundantly clear, our model of core social fluidity is one specifically tied to th e seven- category version of our class sch ema (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 140). And since, th en, neith er Hout and Hauser nor S0rensen work with th is version of th e sch ema, it must be pointed out th at th ey are simply not in a position to make th e comparisons th at th ey claim and th at take up so much of th eir papers. 288 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW S0rensen, as we h ave noted, is restricted by th e GLT data-set to only a six-category version of th e sch ema: th e classes of farmers and of farm workers (IVc and VIIb) are collapsed. As h e th en acknowledges-th ough in a rath er piecemeal way-th is means th at th e model h e subsequently deploys as th e 'Erikson- Goldth orpe' model is in fact quite substantially different from our model. First, of course, th ere can be no separate effect for immobility with in th e class of farmers (IN3); secondly, th e sector effect (SE) is completely lost; and th irdly, th e disaffinity effect (AF1) cannot be retained in its original form. In view of th is, and of th e importance th at th e IN3 and SE effects in particular prove to h ave, we find S0rensen's argument (p. 270) th at h e can still provide a 'fair test' of our model difficult to accept. But, as we h ave already observed, h is standards of fairness and ours are rath er far apart.10 With regard to Hout and Hauser, th ere is, fortunately, more th at can usefully be said. In fitting mobility tables constructed on th e twelve- category version of th e class sch ema, Hout and Hauser simply apply our model, designed for seven-class tables, with out any modification. We do not understand wh at justification th ere can be for following th is procedure. If we h ad th ough t it possible to obtain adequate cross- national comparability at th e level of th e full sch ema, we would surely h ave developed a model of core fluidity th at reflected th is greater degree of differentiation. Correspondingly, if th e aim is to assess th e performance of th e 'CASMIN model' in relation to twelve-class tables (accepting th ese now simply for th e purposes of th e argument), th is must be done on th e basis of a new version of th e model th at is appropriately extended according to th e th eoretical ideas underlying th e original (see Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1987a; 1992: ch . 4). Such a new version could, for example, be proposed on th e lines set out below. (T h e actual levels matrices for th e model are provided in th e Appendix to th is paper.) Hierarch y. T h e h ierarch ical divisions made with in th e class sch ema, and understood as reflecting differences in job rewards and requirements, are increased with th e twelve-class version from th ree to five.1' T h ere are th us now four rath er th an two h ierarch y effects, HI1-HI4, each referring to th e successively h igh er barriers confronting mobility as transitions over one, two, th ree, or four h ierarch ical divisions are involved. 1 2 3 4 5 original I+11 III, IVa+b, IVc+ d (D), V + VI IVc+d(O), VIIa, VIIb extended I II, IVa IIla, IVb, V IIIb, VI, IVc IVd, VIIa, VIIb Inh eritance. T h e number of inh eritance effects, th at is effects referring to propensities for class immobility, remains at th ree; but with th e twelve-class sch ema greater discrimination can be sh own regarding th e possibilities for th e inter- generational transmission of property in th e placing of classes on th e second level. original extended IN1 all all IN2 I+ II, IVa + b, IVc+d I, IVa, IVc, IVd IN3 IVc+d IVc Sector. Wh ile th e effect for sectoral barriers to mobility between agricultural and non- agricultural classes (SE1) is retained, th e twelve- class sch ema allows for a furth er such effect (SE2) to be introduced, referring to barriers to mobility between classes in th e small business sector (IVa, IVb, IVc, IVd) and th e rest. Affinities. T h e affinities included in th e original model are essentially retained in th e extended model, alth ough , with th e twelve-class sch ema, modifications can be made th at bring th eir implementation into rath er closer accord with th e th eoretical ideas th at underlie th em.'2 One additional affinity is included, relating to th e propensity for mobility between classes IVc and IVd, th ose of 'large' and 'small' farmers, wh ich migh t be expected to be h igh er th an provided for by oth er effects on account simply of fluctuation in th e economic for- tunes of farm families from one generation to anoth er. 289 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM AF1 (disaffinity) AF2 (status affinity) (capital affinity) (agriculture outflow affinity) original I+ II-VIIb I+ I1-III V + VVIVIa I+ IIVa + b IVa + bIVc + d IVc+d, VIIb-VIIa extended AF1 I, II-I-Vd, VIIb AF2 I, II, IIIa, IIIb (all transitions) V, VI, VIIa (all transitions) AF3 I, IVa, IVc (all transitions) AF4 IVc, IVd, VIIb-VIIa AF5 IVc,-IVd In T able 2 we sh ow in th e first row th e results of fitting our extended model to th e same collec- tion of national mobility tables th at Hout and Hauser derive from th e CASMIN data-set. In th e event, th e parameter for th e HI1 term proved to be insignificant, so th is effect was omitted and th e model re-applied, with th e results th at are sh own in th e second row. In th e th ird row we reproduce th e results reported by Hout and Hauser for th eir own preferred model (i.e. Model 13 in th eir T able 4). It can be seen th at our extended model performs better th an th eirs, according to th e bic statistic th at th ey adopt as th eir criterion for model ch oice, as also according to A. In th is way, th en, most of th e argument in th e central part of Hout and Hauser's paper is empirically undermined. It is apparent th at th e 'superiority' th at th ey claim for th eir alternative model specification is ach ieved only by keeping th e 'CASMIN model' unaltered wh ile moving to th e full version of th e class sch ema as th e basis for th e mobility tables analysed. T h e supposed superiority vanish es once our model of core fluidity is extended, following its underlying th eoretical rationale, so as to apply to twelve- class rath er th an seven-class tables. Moreover, if we turn to th e parameter estimates for our extended model given in th e lower panel of T able 2, doubt is also th rown on Hout and Hauser's more specific contention th at in our analyses we understate th e importance of h ierarch y effects on fluidity patterns as against th e effects of inh eritance and sector. We must stress th at we do not believe th at any great substantive importance sh ould be attach ed to th ese estimates because of th e deficiencies of th e data wh en th e full version of th e class sch ema is utilized. None th e less, th e indication is th at, if we did h ave good quality twelve-class tables available for analysis, th e relative importance of th e effects in question would not in fact turn out to be all th at different from wh at we h ave found in considering seven-class tables.13 Modelling h ierarch y effects Hout and Hauser are greatly concerned to sh ow th at part at least of th e reason wh y we underestimate h ierarch y effects is because we model th em wrongly. As well as working with discrete h ierarch ical levels rath er th an with T ABLE 2 Results of fitting selected models to seven CASMIN mobility tables for men aged 25-64 (N=37857) G2 df rG2a A bic Extended (12-class) core model 1 978 833 88.7 7.4 -6 803 with HIl omitted 1979 834 88.7 7.4 -6813 Hout and Hauser's Model 13 2455 830 86.0 8.0 -6294 Effect parameters under extended core model (HI1 omitted) HI2 HI3 HI4 IN1 IN2 IN3 SE1 SE2 -0.25 -0.42 -0.44 0.58 0.59 1.34 - 1.01 -0.30 AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 AF5 -0.35 0.33 0.20 0.70 1.00 Note: arG2 is th e percentage reduction ach ieved in th e G2 for th e model of conditional independence. 290 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW T ABLE 3 Results of fitting th e extended core model to seven CASMIN mobility tables for men aged 25-64, with different specifications of h ierarch y effects (N=37857) G2 df rG2 A bic Extended (12-class) core model 1979 834 88.7 7.4 -6813 HI2, HI3, and HI4 replaced by linear-by-linear 'prestige' 2 150 836 87.7 7.7 - 6663 HI2, HI3 and HI4 replaced by linear-by-linear 'status' 2 149 836 87.7 7.5 -6 664 HI2, HI3 and HI4 replaced by 'status' and 'prestige' 2014 835 88.5 7.4 -6789 status or prestige continua, we also adopt a 'social-distance' rath er th an a 'linear-by-linear' specification of h ierarch y effects wh ich is, in th eir view, a conceptual error. We would point out again h ere th at our concern is with class mobility and th at, in th is perspective, h ierarch y effects are quite appropriately seen as relating to h ierarch ical 'distances' between class categories; wh ereas th e kind of modelling favoured by Hout and Hauser would appear more apt wh ere interest centres specifically on mobility with in a prestige or status order. But, in any event, as Hout and Hauser righ tly observe, th e best way of attempting to adjudicate between such differing conceptual approach es is to see wh at h appens wh en th ey are applied to data. In T able 3 we sh ow th e results of fitting our extended model of core fluidity to th e same set of tables used by Hout and Hauser, but with th e effective h ierarch y terms in th e model (HI2, HI3, and HI4) being replaced, first, by Hout and Hauser's linear-by-linear occupational prestige term; second, by th eir linear-by-linear socio-economic status term; and th ird, by both of th ese terms. It can be seen th at, wh ere eith er prestige or status alone replaces our h ierarch y effects, th e bic value returned is clearly inferior to th at sh own in T able 2 for our extended model in its unaltered form: and th at th e latter value is still not reach ed wh en status and prestige are entered togeth er.14 Again, th en, it is th e case th at Hout and Hauser's argument comes apart once th e 'CASMIN model' is represented in a form proper to th e mobility tables to wh ich it is applied. With in th e context of our extended model, th ere is no indication th at th e meth od of modelling h ierarch y effects th at th ey advocate would give any advantage. Had we th e data th at would allow th e serious comparative analysis of twelve-class tables, we could expect to do at least as well using th e meth od th at is consistent with our basic conceptual approach . In th is way more- over, we would be sure of avoiding th e rath er bizarre results th at Hout and Hauser obtain wh en th ey consider cross-national variation under a model in wh ich both status and prestige are included. We are, it appears, asked to believe th at in some nations differences in prestige between classes (net of all oth er effects) actually facilitates mobility between th em: th e greater th e difference in prestige, th e greater th e propensity for mobility to occur! SUBST ANT IVE RESULT S In th is section we turn to th e substantive results of th e analyses th at our critics present, aimed primarily at evaluating th e FJH-h ypoth esis, and th at th ey would regard as improvements on our own efforts. T o start with , th ough , we summarize th e findings we h ave already reported in th is respect (see furth er Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: ch . 5 and 374-9 esp.), since th ese do not always seem to be fully understood. In testing th e FJH h ypoth esis strictly construed, th at is, as represented by th e common social fluidity (CmSF) model, we find, like almost all previous investigators, th at it cannot be uph eld. T h ere are significant variations in relative rates of class mobility across th e 291 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM national societies we consider. However, as actually stated by Feath erman, Jones, and Hauser (1975: 337-9), th e h ypoth esis claims only a 'basic' similarity in relative rates. T h us, we argue, rejecting th e h ypoth esis on th e grounds th at th e CmSF model does not fit is scarcely an adequate test and, more seriously, risks th rowing out th e sociological baby with th e statistical bath -water. If a substantial cross- national commonality in social fluidity patterns were to exist, th is would represent a major empirical regularity th at, presumably, com- parative macro-sociologists would wish to know about. As we h ave already remarked, our model of core social fluidity was th en developed specifically in order to make possible some assessment of th e FJH-h ypoth esis in its less strict, but still h igh ly consequential form. In th e ligh t of applications of th e model to good quality class-mobility data for, in all, fifteen nations, th e main conclusions th at we reach are th e following. T h ere is clear support for th e FJH h ypoth esis, in its initial verbal formulation, in two respects. (a) Our model does identify a large commonality in patterns of social fluidity with in national class structures. If, for example, one were to suppose a counterfactual world in wh ich our model specified exactly th e pattern of fluidity pre- vailing in all nations alike, th en, in such a world, absolute rates of class mobility-total, inflow, and outflow-would only rarely diverge from th ose obtaining in th e real world to a degree th at sociologists would find worth y of comment (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 210-13). In oth er words, cross-national commonality in relative mobility rates may be reckoned as substantial, in th at variation at th is 'genotypical' level is of almost negligible effect in accounting for variation at th e 'ph enotypical' level of actually observed rates.15 (b) T h e cross-national differences in social fluidity th at do sh ow up, in th e form of deviations from our core model, appear for th e most part to be better understood as specific, h istorically-formed variations on th e th eme defined by th is model th an as representing variation of a more systematic kind. T h at is to say, no great scope would seem to exist for explaining th e extent and nature of differences in fluidity by reference to oth er generalizable attributes of societies, so th at (cf. Przeworski and T eune, 1970) th e names of variables migh t be substituted for th ose of nations. In being couch ed in terms of commonality rath er th an variation in relative rates, th e FJH h ypoth esis th us points to wh at would appear to be th e proper focus of macro-sociological attention. At th e same time, th ough , th e need for two qualifications to th e FJH h ypoth esis is also suggested. (a) A recurrent source of cross-national variation in social fluidity is found to lie in political intervention. T h e FJH h ypoth esis, at least in its original formulation, applies to societies in wh ich th ere is a market economy and some kind of family system. But th e effects of market and family, th e two great pillars of civil society, in creating and perpetuating differential mobility ch ances can evidently be modified by political action taken via a modern state apparatus. Societies in wh ich such action is initiated and sustained can th us be regarded as more likely to sh ow deviations from 'core' fluidity th an are oth ers-even th ough it may not be possible to associate distinctive types of fluidity pattern with th e particular institutional or ideological features of different political regimes. (b) T h ere is also evidence to suggest (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 379-89) th at one specific and quite small (th ough th eoretically interesting) part of cross-national variation in fluidity could h ave a systematic basis: th at is, evidence th at th e lower th e degree of economic inequality among individuals and families, th e greater th e overall level of fluidity with in a society. However, confirmation of th is possibility (for wh ich several previous investigators h ave also argued) will not, in our view, be possible until th e construction of adequate data-sets on comparative economic inequality h as progressed furth er, as, for example, under th e auspices of th e Luxembourg Income Study. So, our conclusions are not altogeth er straigh tforward, but th ey are, we believe, reasonably clear in th eir relation to our empirical findings. Wh at of th ose reach ed by our critics? S0rensen clearly wish es to reject th e FJH- h ypoth esis out of h and. His grounds for so 292 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW doing are th at wh en h e supplements (wh at h e represents as) our model of core fluidity with Goodman's II* association model, wh ich freely scales th e six class categories h e uses, h e ach ieves a significant improvement in fit to h is mobility tables for 23 nations. He th erefore feels justified in furth er exploiting Goodman's model in order to identify inductively a set of differing 'mobility profiles' among th ese nations, defined in terms of category scaling or wh at h e refers to as 'class cleavages'. Our fundamental objection to S0rensen's analyses, as we h ave already made clear, concerns th e data on wh ich h e draws. T o repeat, th e demonstrable lack of cross-national com- rability inh erent in th ese data renders th em a quite inappropriate basis on wh ich to seek to test th e FJH-h ypoth esis, at all events, if stringent quality controls are not implemented. In turn, we would suspect th at S0rensen's 'mobility profiles' are in large part artefacts of th e degree of non-comparability in h is data, and before h e seeks explanations for th em on th e lines h e indicates at th e end of h is paper, h e too, we suggest, sh ould engage in a cross-validation exercise. T h ere are several additional critical observations th at we would wish to make on th e results S0rensen reports, and wh ich would apply even if h is analyses h ad a more secure empirical basis. First, we do not find it at all surprising th at adding Goodman's II* model to th e so- called 'Erikson-Goldth orpe' model sh ould give an improvement in fit. T h is would no doubt h ave occurred even if S0rensen h ad worked with our actual core model and with th e CASMIN data-set: th at is, th e Goodman model would simply pick up th e differences in social fluidity th at we treat via our national variant models. But sh owing th is simply confirms again th at th e FJH h ypoth esis does not h old stricto sensu: it says noth ing to th e question of h ow tenable th e h ypoth esis is in th e modified form in wh ich we sough t to test it. As we h ave earlier suggested, S0rensen quite fails to see th e importance of investigating wh eth er or not a substantial cross- national commonality in fluidity patterns prevails as well as some amount of variation. Furth ermore, th e II* model is itself ill-suited to such a task. S0rensen argues (p. 268) th at a 'minimal requirement' of th e FJH h ypoth esis is th at 'class cleavages' in fluidity patterns sh ould be located at th e same places in all nations. But th ere is noth ing in th e FJH h ypoth esis th at requires such cleavages to fall in just one dimension. Such unidimensionality is, h owever, imposed by th e scaling of th e II* model, and often with much consequential distortion th at S0rensen fails to recognize. Consider, for example, h is results for Poland, wh ich derive from good quality data from just one enquiry. Poland emerges (Figure 4) as an instance of th e 'lower wh ite-collar elite' mobility profile. T h is sounds improbable and it is improbable. Smallest-space analysis of th e Polish table indicates th at cleavages, or distances, between classes in terms of th e propensity for mobility between th em cannot be captured in less th an two dimensions. In th e ligh t of such analysis, it is moreover apparent th at th e emergence of th e lower wh ite-collar class at th e top of th e scale created by model II* h as noth ing wh atever to do with its elite position in post-war Polish society, as anyone familiar with th at society could readily h ave told S0rensen. It h as to do, rath er, with th e large distance between th e lower wh ite-collar class and th e farm class, in a dimension th at cannot be interpreted as h ierarch ical or 'vertical' in any sense. 16 Finally, questions may be raised as to h ow securely S0rensen's results are based in h is procedures for model ch oice. T o start with , it sh ould be noted with regard to T able 4 th at th e mobility profiles th at figure in h is preferred model 4, and on wh ich all h is subsequent analysis rests, are, as h e explains, arrived at inductively: in fact, from results obtained under h is model 2 (p. 272 and T able 5, p. 275). T h us, not only does model 4 'not fare as well' as S0rensen would like (p. 274), but th e grounds for favouring it remain unclear: th e significance tests reported for contrasts between th is model and model 5 can h ave little meaning. In fact, S0rensen appeals h ere to 'all' conventional criteria. But assuming th at, as seems to be th e case, h e counts th e bic statistic among th ese, anoth er major problem th at h e h as simply failed to observe may th en be pointed out. Remarkably, given h is concern with th e FJH 293 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM h ypoth esis, S0rensen does not fit to h is data th e model th at h as served as, at all events, th e regular starting-point for testing th is h ypoth esis: th at is, th e CmSF model. Had h e done so, h e would h ave found th at it returns a clearly lower bic (-19 1019) th an h is preferred model 4 or any oth er h e considers.17 In sum, on th e basis of data of quite inadequate quality, S0rensen rejects th e FJH h ypoth esis in any version, wh ereas, according to a criterion of model ch oice th at h e regularly invokes, h e sh ould in fact accept it in its strictest form. Here, at least, two wrongs certainly do not make a righ t. T urning now to th e results presented by Hout and Hauser, we find a similar uncertainty, and one deriving from similar sources: th at is, data of insufficient comparability and th e use of bic. We h ave already underlined th e unsuitability for comparative analyses of th e CASMIN mobility tables in th eir twelve-class form; h ere, th erefore, we focus ch iefly on th e latter problem. T h e model th at Hout and Hauser prefer for purposes of comparison with (wh at th ey take to be) th e 'CASMIN model' (th at is, th eir model 13) is one wh ich provides for no cross-national variation in fluidity patterns. In oth er words, it too underwrites th e FJH h ypoth esis stricto sensu. Moreover, wh en Hout and Hauser come to search for such variation by adding appropriate terms to model 13, as in th eir models 14 and 15, th ey find th at, according to bic, wh ich h as h ith erto guided th eir model ch oice, th ese latter models are inferior. 'If we relied upon bic as th e criterion for including cross-national interactions' th ey write (p. 259), 'and wanted to improve th e fit of model 13, we would not add any terms to th e model.' But bic is th eir ch osen criterion, as, for example, in th eir rejection of models with asymmetries. And wh at th e foregoing curious sentence ough t th en to mean is th at th ey do accept model 13 un- modified: a distinctly embarrassing position, to be sure, for analysts wh o regard th e FJH- h ypoth esis as 'long obsolete' (p. 263). It is relevant h ere to point out th at th e bic statistic was introduced by Raftery precisely in order to provide 'a consistent model selection procedure' and 'an automatic way of making th e often difficult and subjective trade-off between L2 and df wh ich is inh erent in th e conventional LRT model selection procedure.' (1986a: 146, our emph ases). In oth er words, th ose wh o ride with bic are not free to get on and off at will. However, Hout and Hauser follow th e sentence quoted by telling us th at because of th eir 'strong prior interest' in cross-national variation, th ey feel justified in deleting only th e two weakest sets of cross-national interaction effects in models 14 and 15 so as to produce model 16, wh ich allows for variation of a more limited kind. But, according to bic, model 16 still gives a poorer fit th an model 13; and since th e very point of bic is to avoid 'subjective' judgements in model ch oice, Hout and Hauser's interests, strong or oth erwise, must be regarded as strictly irrelevant. If th ey are to be consistent, th ey are stuck with model 13, and in turn with th e FJH h ypoth esis. Some stirrings of conscience do indeed arise, and it is acknowledged th at 'model 13 is still preferable to model 16', and caution is urged in th e interpretation of th e parameters for cross- national variation included in model 16. None th e less, Hout and Hauser proceed to discuss th ese parameters and to draw substantive conclusions from th em. And it is of course at th is juncture th at our own reservations about results under model 16 would enter in: not regarding its inferior bic (we h ave no belief in bic or any oth er 'automatic' criterion of model ch oice) but regarding, rath er, th e extent to wh ich th e variation th at Hout and Hauser claim to detect will derive simply from lack of comparability in th e tables th ey analyse.18 Hout and Hauser's paper th en ends in a notably inconclusive way. Despite h aving described th e FJH h ypoth esis as 'long obsolete', th ey state (p. 263) th at th eir results, from model 13, 'strength en th e case for basic similarity' in fluidity patterns-but almost immediately go on to add th at th e notion of basic similarity is not one on wh ich th ey 'wish to lean too h eavily'. Scientific caution in th e face of a difficult issue is indeed very proper. But it is still pertinent to ask h ow far Hout and Hauser's difficulties h ere are of th eir own making. As Bish op Berkeley once remarked: 'First we h ave raised a dust, and th en we complain we cannot see'. In sum, we can, we believe, reasonably claim th at our own results, clearly rejecting th e FJH 294 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW h ypoth esis in its strict version but emph asizing still th e extent of cross-national commonality in fluidity patterns and th e nationally specific nature of much of th e apparent variation, are more coh erent th an th ose of our critics and also h ave a more secure grounding in data and in modelling alike. T HE AMERICAN DREAM In th is final section of our paper we turn from responding to our critics to try to elaborate th e conceptual presuppositions and related research programme from wh ich , we believe, th eir critiques derive. We do so, we would stress, not with th e idea of th us furth er undermining th eir arguments. Rath er, our aims are to make more sense of th e somewh at disparate, and often quite tech nical, issues on wh ich th ey h ave ch osen to concentrate, and to move attention on to wh at we would see as underlying questions of a more interesting, because more sociological, kind. In a memorable paper, Duncan (1968: 675) expressed th e view th at th e work of Cooley and Sorokin provided 'conceptual orientations' more suited to th e study of 'specifically American social stratification' th an did th at of auth ors such as Weber, Veblen, or Marx. From Cooley and Sorokin, Duncan took an understanding of social stratification in wh ich th ere were two key elements: first, a 'h ierarch y of inequality', wh ich could be most appropriately treated as one of occupational prestige or 'socio- economic' status; and, second, th e movement of individuals with in th is h ierarch y over time and especially between generations. T h e less th ere was of such mobility, th e more 'stratified' a society was, and vice versa. In th is perspective, th en, research on mobility or immobility was to be essentially equated with research on stratification: rates of mobility or immobility constituted 'th e stratification process'. Duncan, it sh ould be noted, explicitly set th is emph asis on process against wh at h e saw as th e current preoccupation in American sociology with structural features of stratification. Questions of 'th e structure of differentiation' and, more specifically, of mobility in relation to class structure and class-based action were in fact excluded from h is range of concern (Duncan, 1968: 685, 694). From th is position, th e programme of 'status attainment' research th en naturally followed. T h e focus of interest sh ifted from mobility flows and propensities with in a particular structural context (wh eth er th at of class or status groups), to th e relative importance of ach ieved and ascribed ch aracteristics in determining th e placement of individuals with in th e 'h ierarch y of inequality'; and, correspondingly, regression tech niques took over from tabular analysis. In th e course of time, h owever, th e status attainment approach itself became subject to criticism: for example, for its neglect of structural constraints on individual attainment and for its tendency to suppose th at th e same 'regression rules' governed attainment across all sections of national populations alike (cf. Bielby, 1981). T h us, an awareness of th e advantages of a tabular approach returned, and was greatly strength ened as th e emergence of log-linear modelling h elped resolve many of th e tech nical problems with wh ich th is approach h ad previously been encumbered. It is, we believe, h elpful to 'situate' our critics with in th is h istorical background. Hout and Hauser th emselves must indeed be regarded as key actors, in particular th rough th eir efforts at reconciling and combining th e traditions of status attainment research and mobility table analysis (e.g. Hauser, 1978; 1984a, Feath erman and Hauser, 1978; Hout, 1984; 1989, Sobel et al., 1985). However, our argument is th at, such efforts notwith standing, th e 'conceptual orientations' favoured by Duncan in 1968 are still th ose dominant among American sociologists currently engaged in th e study of stratification; and furth er, th at wh ile Duncan h imself adopted an explicitly 'exceptionalist' stance, a leading concern of th ese sociologists today is to take th ese orientations as th e basis not only for American, but also for comparative inquiries. More specifically, we would maintain th at wh ile th e analysis of mobility tables is com- monly practised, it tends to be concentrated on one main issue: th at of 'h ow destinations depend on origin': precisely th e issue posed by Duncan in a later paper, suggesting models for such 295 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM tables th at 'emph asize th e "ach ievement" rath er th an th e "mobility" point of view h ith erto taken' (1979: 793).19 Wh at is in fact pursued in tabular analysis is th e representation of th e dependence of destinations on origin th rough a limited number of parameters and ones th at relate, as far as possible, to 'vertical' effects. In comparative work, th ese parameters th en become th e dependent variables of primary interest, and explanations for th e variance th ey display cross-nationally (and also perh aps over time) can be sough t in terms of independent variables pertaining to generalizable attributes of societies and th us capable of 'replacing th e names of nations' according to th e Przeworski- T eune proposal (cf. Grusky and Hauser, 1984). T h is, th en, is th e 'American Dream' to wh ich we refer: th e possibility th at th e mobility regimes of modern societies can be parsimoniously modelled with in a primarily h ierarch ical perspective, and th at cross-national variation in th e strength of th e effects th us identified can in turn be accounted for via multi-variate analyses in wh ich nations are th e units. We do th erefore appreciate th at for th ose wh o sh are in th is dream th e CASMIN project is likely to be disturbing in at least two respects: first, because it reflects an agenda for mobility research of a significantly different kind; and second, because th e results it h as produced would suggest th at th is American Dream-just like th e better-known one-may well remain a largely unfulfilled aspiration. Recognition of th is clash of research programmes does, we believe, h elp make more intelligible th an would oth erwise be th e case th e particular pre- occupations th at our critics display. Most obviously, one can in th is way appreciate th eir concern to re-establish some conception of h ierarch y as th e main dimension with in wh ich mobility is to be analysed. In th e class structural perspective on mobility th at we ourselves adopt, h ierarch y need not be specially privileged. Class structures do of course h ave important h ierarch ical aspects, reflecting th e differentiation of levels and kinds of resources among class positions. But at th e same time much class mobility h as to be recognized wh ich is not usefully ch aracterized in any 'vertical' sense, even th ough clearly consequential socially-in entailing major ch anges in th e relations in wh ich individuals are involved- and perh aps politically also (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 30-5). However, to th e extent th at such a perspective is maintained, th e relevance of th e 'ach ievement point of view' is evidently undermined. And h ere, we would suggest, lies th e source of Hout and Hauser's leading concern to argue th at our core model underestimates h ierarch y effects relative to oth ers it comprises and, th rough th eir reanalysis of our data, to redress th e balance in th is respect. In turn, we would in th is way also seek to understand th eir strange assumption th at th e criterion for validating th e categories of our class sch ema sh ould be prestige or status h omogeneity and, furth er, wh at we earlier found most puzzling of all: th eir eagerness to base th eir re- analysis on th e full version of th e class sch ema, despite our repeated warnings of th e unwisdom of such a procedure. By so doing, th e effect of th e prestige or status differentiation of classes in sh aping fluidity patterns may be allowed to sh ow up to a maximum extent, so th at, as Hout and Hauser in fact put it, th ey can 'improve estimates of th e size of h ierarch ical effects and cross-national differences'. Finally, we may note, Hout and Hauser's desire to reassert Duncan's 'ach ievement point of view' becomes most overt-and makes sense of wh at would oth erwise seem much ado about noth ing-in th eir length y discussion of th e merits of th e linear-by-linear as against th e social distance specification of h ierarch y effects. T h e former specification is preferred because it 'accords more closely with th e prevalent con- ceptualization of stratification processes' (pp. 251-2, our emph asis) wh ich , it h as th en to be understood (p. 253), is one focused not on th e issue of h ow mobility decreases as th e distance between categories increases but 'more fundamentally' on 'h ow destinations depend on origins' .20 Similarly, it may be pointed out th at in S0rensen's analyses th e central notion of 'class cleavages' is not used in th e essentially relational sense of th e th eorists, such as Parkin, wh om S0rensen invokes. It h as in fact no oth er reference th an to quite abstract 'distances' between classes derived from th e propensities 296 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW for mobility among th em. In oth er words, even wh ile using language th at migh t suggest a class structural perspective, S0rensen too is in effect seeking to reimpose th e idea of a single 'h ierarch y of inequality' by wh ich fluidity patterns are crucially sh aped. Oth er auth ors, also working with versions of Goodman's model II* and th e same derived dimension as th at of S0rensen's 'class cleavages', h ave indeed quite explicitly given th is a h ierarch ical interpretation in terms of socio-economic status (see e.g. Hauser, 1984a; Ganzeboom et al., 1989); and it would at all events h ave been less misleading h ad S0rensen done likewise. T h e second main way in wh ich recognition of th e discordance between th e CASMIN project and th e 'American Dream' can illuminate th e reactions of our critics is in regard to modelling strategy. For us, as we h ave indicated, th e aim was first of all to see if it were possible to identify th e cross-national commonality in fluidity patterns implied by th e FJH-h ypoth esis in its less strict form; and th en, if so, to model national variations on th e 'th eme' th us defined, wh ile leaving open, initially at least, th e question of wh eth er or not such variation migh t be treated as systematic. In oth er words, we h ad no prior commitment to th e viability of th e Przeworksi-T eune programme in comparative mobility research but emph asized, rath er, th e dangers of its premature adoption and th e need for sensitivity to h istorical specificities and singularities (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 60-3). Such an approach -and th e results th at h ave in fact followed from it-are th en scarcely congenial to th e idea th at it is on variation, rath er th an commonality, in fluidity patterns th at macro-sociological interest sh ould focus, and th at th is variation can, in its essentials, be both parsimoniously expressed and systematic- ally accounted for. Hence, we would suggest, comes our critics' particular dislike of th ose features of our model of core fluidity th at clearly do not make for parsimony: th at is, its asymmetries and also th e affinity terms th at are intended to capture effects on mobility deriving from specific linkages or discontinuities between classes and operate th us to offset or to reinforce effects of a more generalized kind (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 128). And in th is way too we may th en understand th e concern of Hout and Hauser, in re-analysing our data, to 'simplify th e model' (p. 240), and of S0rensen to reject th e very idea of a core model in favour of seeking inductively to establish variation in fluidity in one dimension wh ich 'h opefully ... will be systematic to a certain extent' (p. 278). Finally from th is standpoint, we may th row ligh t on one furth er matter th at could oth erwise remain perplexing: th at is, th e predilection of our critics for th e bic statistic as th e criterion of model ch oice, despite, as we h ave seen, th e embarrassment th at it turns out to cause th em. A difficulty long encountered by h igh ly parsimonious models of mobility framed with in a h ierarch ical perspective was th at th ey failed to fit th e data according to conventional standards (see furth er Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1989). In th is situation, th erefore, th e intro- duction of bic (Raftery, 1986a, 1986b) came to devotees of such models as a kind of deliverance. On account of its rath er gross bias in favour of parsimony as against fit, bic could be relied upon to select, and legitimate, models of mobility with relatively few parameters, even wh en by any oth er criteria th ey were far from reproducing th e data to wh ich th ey were applied. T h e attraction of bic to th ose pursuing th e 'American Dream' is not th erefore difficult to appreciate, and it was in fact rapidly accepted among th em. However, wh at th ey appear not to h ave foreseen is th at once th eir larger purposes were taken into account, bic would be likely to prove a dangerously two-edged instrument. Its bias in favour of parsimony means th at it can indeed be readily used in attempts to 'simplify' models th at aim to capture th e more detailed aspects of fluidity patterns- as, for example, by Hout and Hauser wh en th ey seek to eliminate asymmetries from our core model. But th e point th en is th at if bic is insensitive to th e loss of fit th at is th us brough t about, it will likewise tend to be insensitive to th at wh ich results wh en, in comparative analyses, models embodying th e FJH h ypoth esis stricto sensu are imposed, as Hout and Hauser find to th eir apparent discomfiture and as S0rensen manages to overlook. T h e message from bic, used as th e means of a 'consistent 297 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM model selection procedure', would appear to be th at cross-national variation in social fluidity, far from being th e proper focus of macro- sociological attention, is best disregarded.21 We h ave not, we must stress, any wish to argue th at th e 'American Dream' sh ould be abandoned. It represents a research programme th at must be left to take its course; judgements as to wh eth er it is progressive or degenerative in nature will be formed in th e fullness of time. Here we h ave only two, concluding, observations to make. First, it appears to us th at, so far at least, its proponents are working h ard to find a world th at fits th eir models; we would prefer to set our own efforts in th e reverse, more modest, but perh aps ultimately more rewarding, direction. Secondly, we th ink th at debate in th e field of stratification and mobility research would be clarified and made more productive if th ose pursuing th e 'American Dream' were to recognize th at th eirs is not th e only research programme on offer, and th at it is not in itself a fault for oth er investigators to h ave different interests and priorities and also, perh aps, different conceptions of wh at macro- sociology can and sh ould aim to ach ieve. NOT ES 1. Correspondingly, we would see th e tendency for kudos in th e field to attach primarily to virtuosity in modelling, rath er th an to work on data, as one th at creates an unfortunate incentive structure, and especially so far as younger sociologists are concerned. 2. T h e class labels, based on a combination of roman numerals and letters, enable ch anges introduced from th e earliest seven-class version of th e sch ema (Goldth orpe, 1980/1987) to be traced. A listing of th e classes in th e twelve-class version is given in th e Appendix. 3. We are aware th at th e aggregation of classes may itself cause problems of comparability if th e classes involved differ markedly in th eir relative sizes among nations (or over time). We were especially concerned with th is problem with regard to farmers, wh ich explains wh y we placed Class IVc + d at a lower h ierarch ical level as a class of origin th an as a class of destination. We would certainly regard th is procedure as a pis aller (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 46, 124), but it is still better th an supposing a distinction-between farmers with and with out employees-th at simply does not exist in th e data. As is evident from th e documentation of th e CASMIN IMS Superfile (Erikson et al., 1988) th e distinction between 'large' and 'small' farmers refers to employees in some nations but in oth ers to amount and/or type of land owned. Moreover, some of Hout and Hauser's criticisms regarding our treatment of farmers seem not well grounded. T h us, for example, wh en th ey investigate th e relative position of farmers among fath ers and sons via association models (Figure 2), th ey impose a unidimensional structure on mobility propensities, and fail to recognize th at th e presence of a strong sector effect could well h ide a 'vertical' sh ift (cf. our analogous criticism of S0rensen in th e text above, p. 317). T h e strongest pragmatic argument for implementing a distinction at th e twelve-class level, despite th e loss of comparibility entailed, arises in fact with Classes Iand II. 4. Japan could, h owever, h ave been included. Wh y Hout and Hauser did not attempt to use th e full CASMIN data-set is unclear (as is th eir reason for eliminating th e 20-24 age-group from all th eir analyses). 5. We are in th is respect indebted to Gordon Marsh all for making available to us th e results of an exercise in wh ich respondents to a recent British survey were coded to different versions of th e class sch ema both via th e GLT procedure and via our own algorith m based on OPCS codes. T h e discrepancies are substantial. Even at th e level of th e six-category version of th e sch ema employed by S0rensen, 23 per cent of all respondents are differently allocated. We do, of course, appreciate th e attractiveness of being able to implement th e class sch ema in a systematic, cross-national way th rough th e recoding of national to ISCO occupational categories; and we are also aware th at some of th e problems th at arise with th e initial GLT procedure can be overcome by th e use of supplementary employment status codes. None th e less, we still doubt th at an adequate approximation to th e class sch ema can be arrived at in th is way, ch iefly because th e ISCO categories are, from our point of view, too loosely defined. 6. Note furth er th at th ese oth er nations include six -Australia, Czech oslovakia, Italy, Japan, th e Neth erlands, and th e USA-th at were not even included in th e original MDSCAL analysis. 7. We are grateful to Rich ard Breen and Ruud Luijkx for drawing our attention to th e note in Sobel et al. (1985) to wh ich we h ave referred, and also to th e former not only for allowing h imself to be persuaded th at th e note was mistaken but furth er for th e following demonstration of wh y th is is so. T h e ratio of two sh ift parameters is equal to th e ratio of two expected frequencies multiplied by th e inverse ratio of th e corresponding cell interaction parameters, i.e. aj= FijX Iji ai Fji Iij wh ere F is th e fitted cell value, a is th e sh ift effect, and Iis th e cell interaction parameter for th e ijth cell. T h e ratios among th e fitted values are clearly invariant under alternative parameterizations, and if th is is also 298 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW th e case with th e ratios among cell-interaction parameters (as in fact it is), th en it must also be so with th e ratios among sh ift parameters. 8. We h ave also fitted our core model to mobility tables derived from th e 1979, 1983, and 1987 studies taken separately. In each case an excellent fit is again ach ieved, but with much smaller Ns (644, 1161, and 1207, respectively) we encounter similar problems in estimating parameters to th ose faced by Hout and Hauser. Even so, in only one instance does a (non- significant) parameter sh ow th e wrong sign, and in general effects do not differ widely from th ose estimated from th e pooled data. 9. We are currently engaged in attempts at cross- validating our model in th e case of oth er nations. 10. T h e question h as to be raised wh y S0rensen did not ch oose to work wtih th e same mobility tables th at we h ave analysed, as we indeed suggested to h im. He would h ave been restricted to 15 rath er th an 23 nations, but h e would h ave avoided major problems of data quality and would th en h ave been able to make valid comparisons between results deriving from h is modelling approach and our own. 11. As before, we would seek to validate th ese divisions by reference to national and international scales of occupational prestige or socio-economic status. T h us, for example, on th e new international scale of occupational status devised by Ganzeboom, De Graaf, and T reiman (1992), and used by Hout and Hauser, we estimate th e average score of positions falling into our five divisions as being with in th e following ranges: I: 70-5; II, IVa: 50-5; IIIa, IVb, V: 45-50; IIIb, VI, IVc: 35-40; IVd, VIIa, VIIb: 25-30. 12. Hout and Hauser (p. 240) claim th at th e affinity terms in our model h ave no clear th eoretical rationale (cf. also Hout, 1989: 148). It is difficult to know h ow to respond to such ch arges wh en th eir auth ors refuse to take account of th e rationale th at is in fact provided (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1987a: 67-9; 1992: 128-30). Note th at in th e extended model we specify as separate effects (AF2, AF3, AF4) th e th ree different kinds of (positive) affinity wh ich we h ave distinguish ed but wh ich in th e original model were subsumed under a single term (AF2). 13. T h e same conclusion h olds, it sh ould be noted, if we estimate parameters for our twelve-class core model in th e same way as we did for th e original seven-class version: th at is, by fitting it not to a set of actual national mobility tables, but rath er to counterfactual tables sh owing wh at national tables would be like if our preferred empirical representation of core fluidity-th e odds ratios under th e model of common social fluidity fitted to th e tables for th e 'central' nations of England and France-were generally to prevail (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 131, 133-4). T h ese results are available on request. 14. We would not wish to claim th at our way of modelling h ierarch ical effects will always prove superior to a linear-by-linear specification. We would rath er underwrite th e conclusion reach ed earlier by Hauser (1984b: 390) th at 'variations in th e functional form of th e vertical term do not dramatically affect fit'. 15. In evaluating th ese results, we would again point out th at th e FJH-h ypoth esis deserves some ch arity in th at any non-comparability remaining in our data will count against it and, furth er, in th at our core model may not in fact be th e best possible representation of th e commonality in fluidity patterns th at exists. We would in th is respect agree with th e observations made by Hout and Hauser, at least as regards th e strength of th e sector effect (cf. Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 174, n. 22). 16. T h e metric for th e smallest-space analysis was provided by G2s for fits of fifteen log-linear models to th e six- class Polish table, one for each pair of rows and columns. Each model proposes th at independence of class of origin and of destination prevails in cells given a weigh t of I(rath er th an 0) with in a weigh t matrix. In each case, cells receiving a weigh t of 0 are th ose not involving eith er th e given row or column, or indicating mobility between th em, or on th e diagonal. Full details of th e analysis are available on request, and will be included in a forth coming paper intended to extend Erikson and Goldth orpe (1989) into a more compreh ensive critique of th e use of association models in mobility-table analysis. 17. We h ave difficulty in reproducing S0rensen's results exactly, but h e would certainly also receive a lower bic for th e CmSF model th an for any of th e models h e suggests. 18. T h is applies especially to th e differences in prestige and status effects estimated under model 16 and sh own in T able 6, including th e h igh ly implausible results in th e case of prestige, previously referred to. 19. T h is paper can in fact be regarded as signalling th e start of th e process th rough wh ich exponents of th e status-attainment approach h ave sough t to take over th e advantages offered by tabular analysis wh ile, h owever, reorienting th is to th eir particular pre- occupations. 20. As we h ave argued, th e linear-by-linear specification may well be th ough t th e more appropriate to Hout and Hauser's own concerns, but th is gives th em no grounds for claiming a general superiority for it. Indeed, th e results we h ave reported in T able 2, above suggest (and it is by no means sociologically implausible) th at h ierarch y effects are not in fact linear; and th is finding is corroborated by th e more reliable results th at we h ave previously presented (Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 136-7 and n. 14). 21. Difficulties arising in an analogous way h ave been experienced by analysts using bic to legitimate th e ch oice of models th rough wh ich th ey th en seek to claim trends towards increasing social fluidity over time (e.g. Hout, 1988; Ganzeboom et al., 1989). It h as not proved difficult to propose oth er models im- plying constant fluidity wh ich return a preferable bic (see Erikson and Goldth orpe, 1992: 100-1, 325-6). 299 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S We are indebted to Axel van den Berg and Harry Ganzeboom for h elpful comments on an earlier version of th is paper. REFERENCES Bielby W T . (1981): 'Models of status attainment', Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 1: 3-26. Duncan 0 D. (1968): 'Social stratification and mobility: Problems in th e measurement of trend' in Sh eldon E B, Moore W E. (eds.), Indicators of Social Ch ange, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 675-719. (1979): 'How destination depends on origin in th e occupational mobility table', American Sociological Review, 84: 793-801. Erikson R, Goldth orpe J H. (1987a): 'Commonality and variation in social fluidity in industrial nations. Part I: Amodel for evaluating th e "FJH h ypoth esis"', European Sociological Review, 3: 54-77. - (1987b): 'Commonality and variation in social fluidity in industrial nations. Part II: T h e model of core social fluidity applied', European Sociological Review, 3: 145-66. -- - (1989): 'Is social mobility best measured by association models?', ISAResearch Committee on Social Stratification, Stanford. - - (1992): T h e Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies, Oxford: Clarendon Press. - - Konig W, Liittinger P, Muller W. (1988): CASMIN International Mobility Superfile: Docu- mentation, Mannh eim: Institut fur Sozialwissen- sch aften, University of Mannh eim. Feath erman D L, Hauser R M (1978): Opportunity and Ch ange, New York: Academic Press. - Jones FL, Hauser R M. (1975): 'Assumptions of Social Mobility Research in th e US: T h e case of occupational status', Social Science Research , 4: 329-60. Ganzeboom H, de Graaf P, T reiman D J. (1992): 'An international scale of occupational status', Social Science Research , 21: 1-56. -, Luijkx R, T reiman DJ. (1989): 'Intergenerational class mobility in comparative perspective', Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 8: 3-55. Goldth orpe J H. (with Catriona Llewellyn and Clive Payne) (1980), 2nd edn., 1987): Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press. - (1985a): 'Soziale Mobilitat und Klassenbildung: Zur Erneuerung einer T radition soziologisch er Forsch ung' in Strasser H, Goldth orpe J H. (eds.), Die Analyse Sozialer Ungleich h eit, Opladen: Westdeutsch er Verlag, 174-204. - (1985b): 'On economic development and social mobility', British Journal of Sociology, 36: 549-73. Grusky D B, Hauser R M (1984): 'Comparative social mobility revisited: Models of convergence and divergence in 16 countries', American Sociological Review, 49: 19-38. Hauser R M. (1978): 'Astructural model of th e mobility table', Social Forces, 56: 919-53. (1984a): 'Vertical class mobility in England, France, and Sweden', Acta Sociologica, 27: 87-109. (1984b): 'Corrigenda', Acta Sociologica, 27: 387-90. Hout M. (1984): 'Status, autonomy and training in occupational mobility', American Journal of Sociology, 89: 1379-1409. - (1988): 'More universalism, less structural mobility: T h e American occupational structure in th e 1980s', American Journal of Sociology, 93: 1358-1400. (1989): Following in Fath er's Footsteps: Social Mobility in Ireland, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Konig W, Luttinger P, Muller W. (1987): 'A comparative analysis of th e development and structure of educational systems-meth odological foundations and th e con- struction of a comparative educational scale', Mannh eim: Casmin Working Paper no. 12. Marsh all G, Newby H, Rose D, Vogler C. (1988): Social Class in Modern Britain, London: Hutch inson. Przeworski A, T eune H. (1970): T h e Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley. Raftery AE. (1986a): 'Ch oosing models for cross- classifications', American Sociological Review, 51: 145-6. - (1986b): 'Anote on Bayes factors for log-linear contingency table models with vague prior information', Journal of th e Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 48: 249-50. Sobel ME, Hout M, Duncan OD (1985): 'Exch ange, structure and symmetry in occupational mobility', American Journal of Sociology, 91: 359-72. AUT HORS' ADDRESSES Robert Erikson, Swedish Institute for Social Research , Stockh olm University, S-106 91, Stockh olm, Sweden. Joh n H. Goldth orpe, Nuffield College Oxford, OX1 1NF, Great Britain. 300 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 301 APPENDIX Extended twelve-category CASMIN class sch ema I High er service class II Lower service class IIIa Routine non-manual employees, h igh er grade IIIb Routine non-manual employees, lower grade IVa Small proprietors etc. with employees IVb Small proprietors etc. with out employees IVc Farmers IVd Small-h olders V Lower-grade tech nicians; supervisors of manual workers VI Skilled manual workers (not in primary production) VIIa Semi- and unskilled manual workers (not in primary production) VIIb Manual workers in primary production Design matrices used in th e extended 12-class core model HI1 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 II 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 IIIA 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 IIIB 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 IVA 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 IVB 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 IVC 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 IVD 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 V 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 VI 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 VIIA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 VIIB 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 HI2 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 II 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 IIIA 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 IIIB 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 IVB 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 IVC 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 V 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 VI 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 VIIB 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 302 T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM HI3 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 II I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIB 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HI4 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIB 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IN1 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIB 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 V11 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 2 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 303 IN2 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIBVA 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IN3 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 SE1 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 2 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 IIIB 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 IVB 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 IVC 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 IVD 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 11 2 VIIB 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 304 T HE CASMIN PROJECT AND T HE AMERICAN DREAM SE2 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 IIIA1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 11 1 IIIB1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 IVA 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 IVB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 V 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 IVC 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 IVD 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 VIIB 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 AF1 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 II1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIB 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AF2 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 2 2 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 IIIB 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 21 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW AF3 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 IVC 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AF4 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 IVD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 AF5 D I II IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC IVD V VI VIIA VIIB 0 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 IIIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVA 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 IVB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IVC 1 1 11 1 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 IVD 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIA 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VIIB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 305 This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions