Search

Previous research on social mobility in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has confined itself exclusively to the linkages between male occupational origins and destinations. In this paper, three unique aspects of the Irish occupational mobility experience is investigated. First, the question of women's intergenerational occupational mobility is considered for the first time. Second, as in some recent North American research, traditional models of male intergenerational occupational mobility are modified to allow only the occupational achievement of mothers in the portrayal of a woman's occupational origins. Third, the occupational category of housewife is included as one possible occupational outcome for Irish women. The general conclusion of this paper is that not only does a mother's occupational attainments more realistically display the influence of occupational origins on women's subsequent occupational activities, but one vital component of this influence must be the occupational category of housewife. Only via the introduction of both these elements may the notably ascriptive nature of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in relation to female occupational mobility become understandable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The high point of research investment in mobility research was in the early 1970s, when three major national surveys of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland absorbed very substantial proportions of the spending of the SSRC on sociology. Only the Oxford Social Mobility Group retained a sufficiently large team of scholars to sustain active work on the data collected, although the number of publications that have subsequently made use of the three data-sets must now be several hundred in number. The dismal economics of large-scale survey research have since prevented ant similar follow-ups of mobility per se, but there have been some smaller specialist studies and new data have been derived from other sources. Both the range of articles featured in this paper, and the secondary analysis referred to, demonstrate how the original paradigm of mobility research and has become modified. Social mobility is now not so much a single area of sociology as four or arguably five connecting clusters of work. The first, not least in terms of paradigmatic dominance, concentrates on discovering and describing large-scale flows of people between social origins and social definitions. It is this which gives rise to our knowledge about patterns and rates of mobility.

This paper analyzes trends of social mobility in England and Wales. Speculations about trends of social mobility have been prominent in contemporary commentaries on the condition of England, and on the changing structures of highly industrialized societies. Empirical research has given little support to expectations that definite changes would be observable when rates of social mobility were compared over time. The theory that in the U.S. the closing of the frontier and the consolidation of corporate capitalism must have reduced movement up and down the social scale has been questioned by recent research. And the contrasting notion, common in Western Europe, that economic, political and educational changes must have increased chances of social ascent and descent has also been empirically challenged. These studies have made little impact on the general debate about contemporary social stratification. But such evidence has also been only partly relevant to some major issues of the debate. For while the data relate to patterns of social mobility prevailing yesterday, the debate has often in effect centered on those patterns which may prevail tomorrow. It is possible that the occupational experience of those who are still only children or adolescents today will follow new lines–in consequence particularly, it has been suggested, of recent changes in educational policy.

This paper examines the effects of de-industrialization on the careers of 874 economically active men and women living in London and interviewed between July, 1980 and April, 1981. De-industrialization is defined in relation to the volume and pattern of international trade which are proximate indices of the macro-economic processes which lead to a reduction in manufacturing output and jobs. This influences the occupational distribution of employment indirectly through its effect on the industrial distribution of employment. A distinction is made between occupation and class such that occupational mobility and transition are not synonymous with class mobility and transition. Empirical evidence is presented to show that industrial transition has affirmed rather than modified an existing pattern of inequality. This is because some white-collar work in growing industries has become a typical feature of working-class experience. It is also suggested that the association of de-industrialization and higher aggregate unemployment may have occurred under conditions which make a militant political opposition unlikely to develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses an argument by D. Lovatt and B. Ham that changes in the industrial and occupational structure do not modify patterns of inequality as measured by occupational mobility, but instead confirm existing patterns. Evidence about mobility in five industrial sectors is presented, which illustrates the relationship between growth of sector, growth of non-manual employment, and mobility opportunity. It is demonstrated that female mobility does not counterbalance changes in male mobility, and that mid and later career mobility do not counterbalance trends in international mobility at first job. It follows that, although there has been little change in mobility trends in the 1970s and early 1980s, the main trend has indeed been to modify patterns of inequality in favour of the non-manual class. An argument on the effect of a decline of manufacturing industry and the growth of service industry on the rates of class mobility, was presented. Clarification of the difference between the affirmation and modification positions was discussed. Lovatt and Ham present intra-generational mobility data. A final problem with the Lovatt and Ham case is its unusual sample, unusual that is for demonstrating widespread patterns of social inequality.

This article focuses on a detailed compilation of the data on income trends among the manual and white-collar employees from 1890, made by sociologist Robert K. Burns. This article speculates the causes of the equalization he discovers as well as venturing predictions about future trends. Findings reported in this article show neither equality of income nor an inversion of the historical pattern. The white-collar worker typically begins with a higher income than do skilled workers and this difference is maintained through to middle age. The chances are that he will move into a still higher occupational rank at this point in his career. It appears likely that a minority are unsuccessful in their mobility aims. These persons may well face serious losses of income both in absolute terms to the manual workers.