YChapter 17!Stratification and Social Mobility

:'17.1 Introduction

C;When considering the relevance of stratification and social mobility for the EuropeanUnion, it is impossible to begin this chapter in a different way but by making a point aboutthe significance of the 'hard-core' stratification characteristics in the present Europeansocieties. This involves the importance of occupation (labour market participation), edu-alion (various kinds of human capital investments), financial circumstances (incomeifferentiation, poverty) and in particular the 'summary' of the structural positions or

.locations', Le. the social class and the social status. The handbook devotes severalother chapters to the characteristics of social standing mentioned above, so this chap-ter focuses on the historically based, 'aggregated' and conceptually grounded approaches

'.and developments related to structural positions people occupy in the system of social;Watification.;;;', Without going into the details of the debate on the 'death of class' (e.g. Pakulski and1Waters 1996) and without providing any overview about such fashionable concepts like

ndividualisation' or 'globalisation' (Beck 1992, 2000; Giddens 1999), this chapter hasstarting point that various risks at the social and individual level root deeply in the

lassie and persisting forms of social stratification, summarised by class and status as11 as in the unequal probabilities to make changes in structural positions, to becomebile both in intergenerational manner and over the course of working life. This view

'Jollows basically the arguments by Breen (1997) on transferring the risks by employers~fo employees which is not a universal process but occurs in a varying manner, in ace01'-',Uance with the employees' different employment relations and class-related life chances,:even under the conditions of the emerging globalisation and market insecurity in mod-)on societies. The basic approach in this chapter is also in line with Goldthorpe's (2002)'opinion on the persistence of economic and social inequalities among members of dif-'f~l'ellt classes. In this light class structure as related to important differences between

~ll'llctural locations remains a relevant theory even under globalisation when inequalities~nd insecurities do not remain within the national borders. Despite the fashionable idea.gf being 'beyond status and class' or being 'individualised' in a global 'risk society',

~JR6bert (121)I.Arie Curie Excellence Senior Research Fellow, UCD Geary Institute; Associate Professor, Social SciencefCU1ty of the Eotvos L6n\nd University (ELTE), and Seinor Researcher, TARKI Social Research Instituteif.nail: peter.robert@ucd.ie; robert@tarkLhu.~.

~ 11l1l11erfall and G. Therborn (eds.), Handbook (~fEuropean Societies, 001 10.1 007/978-0-387-88 199-7_17,.;Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

499

50117 Stratification and Social Mobility

lThis handbook devotes a whole chapter to education; school system is typically regarded (e.g. byBourdieu) as an institution which plays alarge role in legitimating the reproduction of social inequalities.

their system of stratification. The history of stratification has been extensively reviewedby Lenski (1966) who states that social inequalities are strongly connected to the level oftechnical development and to the amount of surplus goods produced. In fact, the growingamount of surplus goods is also an outcome of technical, industrial development in thesociety and the roots of power and privilege lay in the unequal access to the larger shareof the surplus. However, one cannot speak about a clear trend on how technical devel-opment, social inequalities and the system of stratification relate to each other - thoughsome scholars in mobility research tried to formulate such a hypothesis. But the famousexpression by one of the founding fathers of social mobility analyses, Pitirim Sorokin,trendless fluctuation probably describes the historical developments better. From the per-spective of social mobility, Sorokin (1927, 1959) also investigates the various types ofsocieties throughout the history and concludes that there has not been any society withcomplete openness regarding the chances for mobility but there has not been any society(even not the Indian caste society) where complete closure would have been present. Allresearch done on the historical development of the societies, including also of course thewOl'ks by Marx, makes it clear that the existence of inequalities that shape the whole dIs-tributive system, the conflict over the access to the more valuable and consequently scarceresources and surplus goods make social stratification necessary. This also means that theidea of equal (or classless) society is probably completely naive. The realistic goal in thisregard can be the equality ofchances for the members of the society with different social,racial or religious background and this will be discussed in more detail in the section onsocial mobility.

There are competing paradigms of looking at the system of stratification. I cannot gointo details in this regard either but it is unavoidable to summarise the functional and theconflict theories of social stratification. The famous article by Davis and Moore (1945) isperhaps the best representation of the functionalist approach. They state that certain occu-pational positions are more important in the society because of its proper functioning;these positions can be filled in only by distinguished persons who have the appropri-ate skills and abilities; these people in these positions deserve more reward in order tomotivate them to act for the society in those important positions. This logic leads to thenecessity of inequalities in the society, explains why unequal access to resources and sur-plus goods has a functional role and provides the ground for social differentiation andstratification. But from the viewpoint of the conflict theory, inequalities in societies fol-Iowa ditTerent logic. In fact, the higher rewards and the better access to scarce resourcesmake these positions so valuable that individuals in the society try to reach them or keepthem by any means. Several institutes in the society are used for this purpose to legitimatesocial inequalities in general or the selection processes of individuals to social position inparticular. I

These basic paradigmatic views on social stratification are also reflected by the way thistopic is empirically investigated by different researchers, following the different concep-tual approach of class by Marx and Weber in many respects. The Marxian view of class is

- based on the term of exploitation which is based on domination and property, ownershipof production means; this approach is usually labelled as one-dimensional. The Weberianview of social stratification is, however, a multi-dimensional one; even class is based on

Without any doubts, stratification and social mobility have perhaps the longest tra

502 P. R6ben

other aspects of life chances in addition to ownership like opportunities of income, reia"tion to production. In addition to class, status is the other crucial concept by Weber which,is based on consumption of goods and a style of life members of the class follow. Thechapter will provide examples for various class schemas that can be connected to thesedifferent theoretical approaches. Apparently, class analysts experiment with various classmodels because they have different theoretical views about the society and, they believe:that the particular class schema they use is the most suitable to grasp and describe social,inequalities in the society. On similar grounds, other scholars prefer to use a status measure,instead of a class location for describing one's social position. Beyond the different the.oretical arguments, measurement issues inf1uence the decisions on the empirical analysis'of social stratification as well; class schemas are categorical measures while most of thestatus indicators based on occupation have a gradational character.2 '

Since the European perspective plays a crucial role in this discussion, perhaps it is worth,to make a point about some specific distinction between the European and the America!l:view of the problem related to stratification and social mobility. Although research in this:field and especially its modern quantitative empirical realisation has developed out in sev,~,eraI respects in the US social science, it is important to note that part of the 'pairs' 9t~categories mentioned above like, e.g. the functionalist approach to stratification vs. confHc,l;" 'theory or the class location vs. social status can be seen from a viewpoint of the dif'feretl,l(' 'ways of thinking, being characteristic of the European vs. American approach to the topic.;"'Functionalism in social stratification has stronger traditions in social science in the USA"while conflict theory gets larger emphasis in the European way of thinking about social,"inequalities. Similarly, social status linked to the Weberian theory is more frequently used;by US scholars of stratification, while the class approach is rooted deeper in the EuropeaN'view of stratification and socialmobility.3 ,>\l.'

Apparently there are historical roots behind this existing distinction between thyf \European and American perspective regarding the dominance of the conflict theoryow,that of the class approach. For instance the practice of class movements, in particular thllJ;of the worker class movement, or the stronger dominance of a class-based discourse onr "social stratification and reproduction of social inequalities can be mentioned as basis f()l\-the European traditions in the more political way of thinking on the topic. Agood illustr~A;

Table 17.1 The distribution of the EGP schema in 25 nations6

17 Stratification and Social Mobility 505

13.220,19.7

11.72.73.8:).63.1

10.818.62.7

40,940

Total

9.722.614.918.3

1.63.42.41.06,7

16.62.8

20,492

Women

Distribution (%)

Men

16.917.44.14.73.94.24.85.3

15.420.72.6

19,448

Class categories

I. High-grade professionals, administrators, managersIl. Low-grade professionals, administrators, managers

\ ilia, Routine non-manual employees, high-gradc tcchniciansIllb, Routinc non-manual cmployces, low-gradc salcs and serviceIVa, Small proprietors with employees

. IVb. Small proprictors without employeesIVc. Farmers and smallholders

.1/, Supervisors and low-grade techniciansVI. Skilled manual workers'Ilia. Semi- and unskilled manual workersVlIb. Agricultural labourersTotal (No. of cases = 100%)

and smallholders; (V) Supervisors and low-grade technicians; (VI) Skilled manual work-ers; (VHa) Semi- and unskilled manual workers; (VHb) Agricultural labourers. Thisclassification is presented in Table 17.1 for 25 European nations, separately for men andwomen.

f ';;,The calculations were made on European Social Survey data from 2004 to 2005 using Harry Ganzeboom'sIF:code program (Ganzeboom and Treiman 1996). The distribution is based on the followinO' coun-~lrles: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,':h'el~nd, Icel~nd, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,,Sweden, SWItzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.}The distl'ibution in Table 17, I refers to everybody who has ever been in the labour force. Part of thispOpulation is not in the labour force anymore, e.g. those in pension. The proportion of the service class for.~,epl'esent labour force (a younger population) is 40 percent.

'W'Y-!hen looking at occupational gender gap, ~le differences in the level of qualification between men and,Oll1en should also be taken into account. Another chapter of the Handbook deals with education but,~;,Oll1en tend to have higher level of schooling in comparison to men as recent statistics reveal.

:'i~he s?arc of self-employed is a bit larger for the (younger) population in the labour force, while that of.~le agl'lcultural labourers is even smaller for them.

According to these data about one-third of the European population belong to the ser-vice class.? Men are overrepresented in the higher level and women are overrepresented inthe lower level of the service class. This may provide an argument for sociologists arguingabout existing and persisting gender gap in the labour market and also support the assump-tion about a 'glass ceiling' that hinders women's career prospects in the society.8 Evenstronger gender discrepancy can be observed for the routine non-manual employees whereo/0men have a much higher share. At the same time a bigger proportion of men can befound in the manual sphere, especially among skilled manual workers. This indicates thetfxistence and persistence of a gender-specific blue collar-white collar gap in the labourffiUl'ket where men with a middle level of qualification tend to specify to manual jobs while.%men with a middle level of qualification tend to carry out office work. The proportion{9f self-employed is about IO percent with an overrepresentation of men, while only 2-3

]pcrcent work(ed) as agriculturallabourers.9

17.3.1 Employment Relations and Class

them in terms like landowners and peasants, aristocracy and bourgeoisie, capitalists andworkers, and sociologists started to develop more stratified class schemas in order todescribe the more complex social reality. The chapter intends to consider more than one1class approach and provide alternate looks at the European societies. The most intluentiaFclassification is probably the EGP class schema that is usually labelled as following th1;)1(neo-)Weberian approach with a focus on market situation (Erikson et al. 1979; Eriks()ll' ,.and Goldthorpe 1992; Goldthorpe 2000). On the contrary, Erik Olin Wright's class schel11U)is built on the (neo-)Marxian terms of control and power relationships as well as exploita::f 'tion (Wright 1997, 2005). A straightforward response to the post-industrial transforinatioli\,is the 'post-Fm'disC class categorisation developed by Esping-Andersen (1993). Finally;!'the most recent and very ambitious development which cannot be neglected is the projeCtlon developing a European Socio-Economic Classification (ESeC) in the European UnioN?!in collaboration with the EUROSTAT (Rose et al. 200 I; Rose and Pevalin 2003; Rose anCl',}:,:Harrison2007).,))., '.

;f.'~

In this section the so-called Goldthorpe class schema (known also as EGP classes) is prei'i,sented including its conceptual background as well as the empirical appearance of II;e1"'1:'class distribution in the European societies. Regarding its theory behind, the schema i8/;;;'based on employment relations, making a distinction between employers/self-employe~'i';~,who own the means of production and employees on the one hand and, for the latter grou .....distinguishing between service relationship and labour contract to the employer, onthother hand (Goldthorpe 1982; Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992). The two forms of eniplo,.;;;;ment relations are based on the difference in the degree of specificity ofhuman assets anEmpirically II categories are distinguished in the most detailed form of the clschema: (I) High-grade professionals, administrators, managers; (H) Low-grade prof.sionals, administrators, managers; (HIa) Routine non-manual employees, high-grade teenicians; (HIb) Routine non-manual employees, low grade in sales and service; (IVa) Smproprietors with employees; (IVb) Small proprietors without employees; (IVc) Fal'ltl;

5Employees working in service relationship are also labelled as salariat. It is important to note that ser,relations are not restricted to the service sector; the service class appem's in other economic sectors as W

504

506 P. R6bert

17.3.2 Power Relations, Exploitation and Class: The Wright Approach

One of the key notions in Wright's class concept is social relations. By this term hemeans particular relations within production and not only market relations. Market rela.tions describe locations regarding market capacity, and differences in these locations leadto the variation of life chances different occupations and class locations provide to thosewho occupy them. Relations within production cannot be restricted to technical diversitiesexpressed, e.g. by the division of labour. Social relations within the production involvedifferent degrees of power relations and of having control over productive resources. Thisleads to the variation oflocations people occupy on grounds of how much rights and powersthey have and this creates the class relations.

Wright states that the main distinction between his approach and the one by Goldthorpeis the fact that Goldthorpe's concept is built on characteristics of occupations, positions in'the division of labour, like difficulty of work monitoring or level of human asset speciftcity.:His concept, on the other hand, is built on the actual, individual situation of the persons inthe given occupations and on how people carry out their daily work activities. The mos't'important feature making a difference between individuals and describing their situationiti'social relations of production is given by the categories of 'the haves' and 'the have nots',;,This refers to the ownership of the means of production first of all, but also to various asset~people have as well as to job characteristics by which people's daily work can be describedand categorised.

Ownership, i.e. having or not having any means of production, is the crucial divisionin producing class relations because this feature is the basis of exploitation creating a system of domination and subordination. In this respect, capitalist is a straightforward class'location but it can take various forms measured by the number of subordinates.SelPemployed workers, however, occupy a contradictory class location (in an earlier versioi\:of Wright's class schema) because these people own the means of production but do 116t'exploit anybody.

Wright distinguishes between two kinds of assets, the organisational ones and the skill'assets. Organisational assets characterise the managers and supervisors who have powel':'and control over the subordinates within the system of production, while professionals and'experts are defined by their skill assets and this also provides them certain power and con>trol. The most important features of a job Wright uses for demarking class locations af~',decision making, authority (basically supervisory position), managerial location (positioh'in the formal hierarchy) and work autonomy. The class schema is largely based on the cOli)~Fbination of the organisational and skill assets taking into account the job characteristics. It}is important to underline that the skill assets, Le. having them or not having them, play a,role here in defining classes unlike in the EGP schema where the conceptual distinctionlie~fin the degree of the human asset specificity to be considered for separating class positions!,>

The categories of Wright' exploitation class model are as follows: (I) Capitalist (wltlliLmore than ten employees); (2) Small employer; (3) Self-employed (with no emploYif'ees); (4) Expert managers (combining high levels of organisational and skill assets); L ....Expert supervisors; (6) Experts (with high levels of skill assets but without subordinates(7) Skilled managers; (8) Skilled supervisors; (9) Skilled workers; (10) Low-skilled m'agers (with high levels of organisational but low levels of skill assets); (11) Low-ski! ,supervisors; (12) Low-skilled workers. Table 17.2 presents the distribution of this schetpfor 25 European nations. . ....

The specificity of Wright's class model is that it provides a very detailed picture aboclass locations with different degrees of organisational and expert skills. The schema;

17 Stratification and Social Mobility

Table 17.2 The distribution of Wright's exploitation class model in 25 nations 10

Distribution (%)Class categories Men Women TotalI. Capitalist 1.2 0.3 0.72. Small employers 6.4 2.2 4.23. Self-employed 9.9 6.3 8.14. Expert manngers 3.9 1.6 2.75. Expert supervisors 3.2 1.9 2.56. Experts 3.8 3.1 3.47. Skilled mnnngers 6.7 3.3 5.18. Skilled supervisors 7.7 6.4 7.19. Skilled workers 22.7 17.4 19.910. Low-skilled nmnngers 3.0 2.6 2.811. Low-skilled supervisors 6.0 11.1 8.612. Low-skilled workers 25.5 43.8 34,9Total (No. of cases = 100%) 17,349 18,346 35,695

ve!'y much pyrami~-like wi~h a large bottom class including about a proportion of one-thlrd.(35 percent) of .pro~etanat (I.ow-skilled workers). For women nearly 44 percent belongt~ th:s category, whIle for m~n ~t is every fourth person. Apparently this is a very 'darkvIew about .the European soclettes where such a large percentage of the population 11 canbe chara~tertsed ~y 'have nots' in terms of Wright's concept, Le. employees without any

of productIon, any kind of organisational or skill assets. A closer look at this broadcategory reveals that, in addition to semi-skilled and unskilled manuals, even low-levela~ministrative associ~te professionals appear here and this proletariat involves basically alloffice clerks, secretanes (who are called as 'routine non-manual employees' in other class

s~hemas), as well as se~'vice. workers and sale persons too. Indeed, this is a clearly differentvIew about class locattons 1I1 modern societies in comparison to the one by Goldthorpe'while he suggests to 'upgrade' service workers and to separate them from other man~ual workers, Wright looks at these people as being exploited because of not having anyassets.

In this class m.~~el the second biggest category is the skilled workers (about one-fifth)and the ~ender dlfferenc~s are not so marked for them. From this perspective there is aS,ub.stantl.al worker class 1I1 the European societies (about 55 percent), people with veryluna.ed .nght~, ~ower o.r con.trol. over the relations in the system of productions. Another~peclficlty of thIS classIficatIon IS that it separates the owners of the means of productionfrom the managers and professionals unlike the EGP schema. The entire proportion ofthe 'owners' is 13 percent though the majority is own-account workers. The combinationof organisational and skill assets provides a very fi'agmented picture about expert, skilled

('

JOThe cnlculations were made on Europenn Socinl Survey data from 2004 to 2005 usincr the recodedrrrgl'am developed and presented in Leiulfsrud et nl. (2005). with some modifications be~nuse of the,r'le:.rent m~nsure ~or work autonomy.in ESS Round2. The distribution is based on the following coun-.

'1 I ' Austna, Belgium, Czech RepublIc, Denmark, Estonin, Finland, France, Germnny Greece Hllncral'yre and [ I d L b ' '0',S' , ce .nn, uxem ourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakin, Slovenia, Spnin,

;Iweden, SWitzerland, Turkey, Ukrnine, United Kingdom.lThe d' 'b' ,

'hCllla Istn utlOn III .Table 17.2 re~ers again to everybody who has ever been in the labour force. For the'or ,I labour force ~hls percen.tage IS lower, only 28 percent. The proportion of men drops to one-fifth, that'!,' WOmen to one-third npproxlmately.

507

509

Table 17.3 The distribution of Esping-Andersen's Fordist and post-industrial schema in 25 nations l2

Jle calculations were made on European Social Survey data from 2004 to 2005 using the recoderum d,eveloped and presented in Leiulfsrud et al. (2005). The distribution is based on the follow-Ountnes: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland France Germ'my Greece

I y, Ireland, I~eland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, P~rtugal, Slovak;a, .~llovenia:1, Sweden, SWitzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

le distribution in Table 17.3 refers again to everybody who has ever been in the labour force,

1'7 Stratification and Social Mobility

Distribution (%)

Empir~cally Esping-~ndersen distinguishes a Fordist and a post-industrial hierarchy.The pre:'l.ous one c?nta1l1s. (a) the managers and proprietors including also the petitebOUl:geOlsIC; (b) rout1l1e c~en~al, administrative and sales workers; (c) skilled manual pro-ductIOn w~rkers; (d~ s~ml-.skllled and unskilled manual workers and manual occupationsin p~"Oduc.tlol~ and distrIbution. The latter one includes (a) professionals and scientists; (b)seml~professl~nals (e.g. teachers, nurses) and technicians; (c) skilled service workers; (d)unskilled servlc~ ~ork~rs aI:d ~ervice proletariat (Esping-Andersen 1993, pp. 24-25). InTable 17.3 the dlstnbutlon of thIS schema is presented for 25 European nations, separatelyfor men and women.

Look~ng at .the percen.tages, roughly half (55 percent) of the European population I3n ~e fou~d 111 the Fordlst classes. At first sight, this is quite a large number for the

?st-lndustna.l.Europe. r;revertheless, certain class categories like, e.g. proprietors will note out .even If. the Fordlst class concept is losing its relevance. The managerial class isSO~lllte persistent and self-employment may even increase under the circumstances of

~ll1g labour market flexibility. Consequently these classes, including also the routinencat workers or sale workers, may be considered as part of the post-industrial classlem~ as ~ell: Similarly, certain classes like, e.g. the professionals are part of the post-llstnal 'fractIOn' because of their increasing significance in the modern societies, though

Class categories Men Women TotalThe Fordist 'fraction' of the class schema

II. Proprietors 4.2 2.1 3.12, Managers7.5 2.8 5.13. Petty bourgeoisie 2.3 1.0 1.64, Routine clerical workers 7.7 19.1 13.65. Sales workers 5.6 11.4 8.66, Skilled manual production workers 21.9 5.2 13.27, Semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations in production 13.7 6.5 10.0

The post-industrial 'fraction' of the class schema8, Professionals and scientists 9.5 6.6 8.09, Semi-professionals 4.0 13.1 8.710, Technicians

5.9 3.2 4.5II. Skilled service workers 3.7 5.2 4.512, Unskilled service workers and service proletariat 6.6 18.6 12.8The primary sector 'fraction' of the class schema,I). Fanners

4.3 2.1 3.2[4, Farm workers, agricultural labourers 3.1 3.1 3.1Total (No, of cases = 100%) 19,445 20,940 40,385

and low-skilled managers and supervisors. For those with power or control possibilities(managers and supervisors) it is their qualification, the degree of expertise which puts theminto different levels. The proportion of experts with high levels of skill assets but withoutany organisational assets and, consequently, with low level of rights and power or controlpossibilities is only about 3-4 percent.

17.3.3 Classes in the Post-industrial Society

P. R6ben

As a response to the claim that classes are outdated because industrialism becomes lesssignificant in modern societies, Esping-Andersen (1993) states that new regulative mecha-nisms and institutions began to be effective as driving forces of class formation. He refersto the welfare state, the collective bargaining system, modern corporations, mass educa-'tion and new family arrangements. This means that the former industrial class system'(in his terms the 'Fordist' class system) tends to disappear but division of labour persistto generate class relations in the society, even if with strong modification and changing~:institutional settings. At the same time the new post-industrial class system tends to b~,;'more 'Hoating' than the previous Fordist one which used to have a stronger hierarchic~Jii)'character. For building the conceptual background of this class approach several elementirN'of various theories are applied. First, in line with Bell (1976) or Gouldner (1979) increasitlg,t,'meritocracy and features of the 'new class' theory like cultural control, knowledge-base~J~\\';differentiation, emerging technical and scientific expertise are emphasised as importaQlij~~,attributes to the class position. In addition to human capital assets, autonomy and trus,P:irelationships are important features generating a new kind of division of labour. Seconthe danger of an insider-outsider cleavage is considered referring to the growing you,tand long-term unemployment, early retirees and, consequently, a decline of the lab(j,force. The insider vs. outsider character of the labour market is crucial for the emploment protection regulations. The legislative rules employer can apply for hiring or fiii.'employees affect the chances for a faster labour market entry or re-entry and a shol'\job search period with an effect on youth unemployment and long-term unemploymeThird, the previous industrial class schema which described a dominant male workforis replaced by a new post-industrial class structure which takes into account the emergiservice sector, the rising educational level of women, their growing participation inlabour force, in particular in the emerging sectors of employment as well as the chang'family constructions and arrangements. These emerging sectors are the different 1'01'1the service sector, the business (or producer) services, the social services (health, edution, welfare) and the consumer services. Fourth, Esping-Andersen assumes that the npost-industrial service jobs differ from the former traditional Fordist jobs in the sensetthey represent different career and life chance regimes. This is a consequence of the declof standard employment, an increase in the flexibility of the work (e.g. part-time empment, temporary work contracts), the convergence of the male and female employmin fact the feminisation of the male labour. The structure of employment is reshaand institutions like the welfare state, education and the industrial relations contrito and strengthen this process leading to the post-industrial stratification system. Es,Andersen emphasises the international differences and the country-specific charac,tthe institutional settings and these deviations can affect against the convergence IEuropean societies.

508

511

Distribution (%)Men Women Total

13.0 6.8 9.817.3 22.0 19.74.5 14.9 9.98.9 4.7 6.73.7 1.6 2.6

11.7 5.8 8.65.8 16.8 11.6

16.4 5.9 10.918.7 21.5 20.2

19,564 21,277 40,841

'Thble 17.4 The distribution of the European socio-economic classification in 25 nations l4

J7 Stratification and Social Mobility

Class categories

J, Large employers, higher grade professionals and managers2. Lower professionals, managers, higher supervisors, technicians3. Intermediate (administrative, clerical) occupations4. Small employers and own-account workers5. Employers and self-employed in agriculture6. Lower supervisors and technicians7. Lower service, sales and clerical occupations8. Lower technical occupations (production, agriculture)9. Routine (service, sales, production, agriculture) occupationsTotal (No. of cases = 100%)

J4The calculations were made on European Social Survey data from 2004 to 2005 usinO' the ESEC 'deriva-,lion matrix' developed for that purpose. The distribution is based on the following"'countries: Austria,Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,1ge~and, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,~Wltzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.15R?se and Harrison (2007) provide examples on the level of occupations, e.g. lawyers, scientists, uni-,versIty professors, chief executive officers are in Class I. But school teachers, managers with less than 10

~ll1ployees are in Class 2. Typical intermediate occupations in Class 3 are mostly clerical and administra-tIve ones. Shop workers, retails assistants, care workers can be found in Class 7. The typical occupationsfor Class 8 are tool makers, fitters, plumbers, while cleaners, assemblers, machine operators are put intoClass 9.16The distribution in Table 17.4 refers again to everybody who has ever been in the labour force.

P. R6b

they were present in the Fordist era as well. The proportion of the European population ithe post-industrial class categories is nearly 40 percent. (About 6 percent belong to tlprivate farmers and farm labourers.)

The gender distribution of the class categories is completely in line with Esping~0;~CAndersen's theoretical considerations on the feminisation of the post-industriallaboui;;i~market. This distribution is almost equal for women, 48 and 47 percent in the Fordist and:*i;'the post-industrial categories, respectively. The gender differences are partly caused bi~lcthe fact that fewer women are working among proprietors, managers or in the petty bour{~~geoisie but they are strongly present in clerical and sales jobs. This is what we have seeif;~ri/for the European societies when applying the EGP classification as well. There is a verY4t(cstrong overrepresentation of women among the unskilled service workers (service prole.';;:~tariat). Another typical feature of gender inequalities in the post-industrial labour market i~'that men have a bigger share among high professionals, while more women can be fOllndit,'among semi-professionals. The latter fact is a consequence of the large number of vario\\~lf:}'occupations in education and health where there are plenty of female employees belonginglfftto this class but the existence and persistence of the occupational gender gap seem tob'~;ii,;; (=='semi- and unskilled workers'). 15 The distribution of this classification is presented dnclearly displayed by the class schema as well. ,xii Table 17.4 for 25 nations.

,..~~~