Social mobility refers to a process in which individuals, families, or wider groups within a society (such as women, ethnic, or racial groups) change their position in the social hierarchy. Social hierarchy can be based on economic factors (wealth, income), occupation, status, or political power. Most theoretical and empirical studies of social mobility focus on changes in occupations and professions and on movement between different classes. Because the class location of an individual is most often defined through his or her occupation (profession), most empirical studies have studied changes in this area. Vertical social mobility relates to changes in occupational status when a new occupation is considered to be on a different socio-economic level. If someone moves from a lower occupational status or class to a higher occupational status or class, we refer to it as upward vertical mobility; if someone moves from a higher occupational status or class to a lower occupational status or class, we refer to it as downward vertical mobility. Horizontal mobility refers to changes between occupations that are on the same socio-economic level, that is, in the same social class.

Intergenerational mobility refers to the case when an individual has an occupation that is in a different class than his parents. Intragenerational mobility refers to changes in an occupation that someone has over time, i.e., when someone starts his or her career in one class and over time moves to a different class.    

Patterns of social mobility (on a level of the whole society) differ between different societies and over time. Social mobility of a society becomes greater with the increase in rates of intergenerational and intragenerational mobility in it. In a society with overall low social mobility majority of individuals will stay in the same class as their parents and throughout their career. In a society with overall high social mobility majority of individuals will change their class location.

Causes of changes in the patterns of social mobility can be divided into structural and nonstructural. The most important structural causes in changes in mobility relate to changes in occupational structure, i.e., changes in the relative size of classes and occupations. Another structural cause is changes in the demographic structure, i.e., changes in the relative sizes of age groups. Nonstructural causes of changes in the patterns of social mobility can be various. In the last few centuries, most of the countries in the world have gone through processes of industrialization, globalization, and postindustrialization. All these processes have brought significant changes in the composition of occupations and classes and patterns of social mobility.

    Empirical and Theoretical Research on Social Mobility

 In his book Social Mobility (1927), Pitirim Sorokin presents his theory of social stratification. Social stratification is based on the unequal distribution of power, influence, privileges, rights, duties, and responsibilities. There are three main types of stratification: economic, political, and professional. Although high positioning by one type of stratification often means high positioning in two other types of stratification, there is always a degree of non-overlap, that is, cases where individuals are highly positioned in one sphere but not in the other two spheres of stratification. What differs between different societies is the scope, type, and intensity (degree of distance between the bottom and the top) of the stratification. Social mobility, both for individuals and groups, always exists in every society, but the form and intensity of that mobility vary between different societies. Upward mobility is facilitated by the most important social institutions, such as political, military, or educational institutions. He researched intergenerational mobility and intragenerational mobility in England, France, Germany, Italy, and the US.

In the books Class, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective (1953) and Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959), co-authored by Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, the authors present the results of comparative studies of class and mobility in multiple countries. Analyzing intergenerational mobility between father and son in the USA, Japan, Denmark, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland, the authors concluded that mobility between manual and non-manual occupations (in both directions) in all countries is about 30 percent. They believe that similar percentages of mobility do not automatically mean the existence of "equal opportunities" in all of these countries. They also concluded that the real chances for upward mobility in the United States are less than the social perception of those chances.

David Glass led a large-scale field survey conducted in 1949, which aimed to determine intergenerational status mobility. The results of this research are presented in the book Social Mobility in Britain (1954). Prior to the research, all professions were divided into seven status levels: 1) experts and senior management, 2) managers and executive directors, 3) inspectors, supervisors and non-manual workers of higher level, 4) inspectors, supervisors, and non-manual workers of the lower level, 5) skilled manual workers, 6) semi-skilled manual workers, 7) unskilled manual workers. The results showed that there was no increase in mobility in Britain in the first half of the 20th century. Although two-thirds of the respondents were in a different status category compared to the one in which their fathers were, the number of those who progressed was the same as those who fell behind in relation to the status of their fathers. The highest mobility is shown at the middle-status levels. Policy measures aimed at establishing equal opportunities in education and employment in Britain have not been successful, as inequalities in economic and status resources persist.

Ralf Dahrendorf, in his book Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1957), concludes that the manual working class was going through the process of increased stratification. The differences in wages, prestige, and job security between unskilled and semi-skilled, on the one hand, and skilled manual workers, on the other, were constantly increasing. The stratification of the working class and the increase in intergenerational mobility lead to a decline in class solidarity and a reduction in class conflicts in society.

In the article „Orderly Careers and Social Participation” (1961), Harold Wilensky showed the results of his study of different professions. He believes that the concept of a professional career should be limited to individual advancement within an organization. This approach is aimed at upward mobility within the organization and is therefore related to the idea of ​​an "orderly career". In order to determine what makes a profession a profession, he analyzed eighteen professions, and based on that research, he made a sequential model of professional development, which emphasizes the highest stages of a profession. He concludes that occupations that are characterized by a very slow ascending career of employees cannot be regarded as real professions. Gerhard Lenski, in Power and Privilege (1966), researched stratification and social mobility. He discovered that the chances for upward mobility for skilled workers in emerging technologies were steadily increasing.

Peter Blau and Duncan Otis Dudley conducted detailed statistical surveys of 20,000 men and over four hundred professions to research intergenerational and intragenerational mobility, and published the results in the book The American Occupational Structure (1967). They found out that statistically significant ‘‘paths’’ from father’s occupation to his son’s occupation exist. Education was the main pathway for upward mobility. A father's occupation influenced a son's status largely through educational opportunities. Social mobility existed, but was constrained by structural factors like race, region, and family background. Occupational status was a strong indicator of both economic and social power, though not perfectly aligned with income.

In the book White-Collar Proletariat: Deskilling and Gender in Clerical Work (1984), Rosemary Crompton concluded that women working as white-collar workers had little chance of upward career mobility. In addition, her research has shown that most white-collar workers have experienced a decline in expertise and that promotions to middle positions have often been more formal than actual career advancement.

The book The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (1969) presents the results of large empirical research on the rich manual workers in the industrial city of Luton. That study was conducted jointly by David Lockwood and John Goldthorpe, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt from 1963 to 1964, to test the hypothesis of a "bourgeoisization" of the working class. The authors found that there were big differences between this group of rich workers and traditional manual workers. Although most of the surveyed workers had high salaries, even higher than some members of the white collar, the original thesis was not proven. Differences like market situation, the possibility of career advancement, attitude towards work, social attitudes, and political affiliation continued to separate "rich" workers from members of the middle class who had similar salaries. This study also concludes that administrative staff workers are in a position between the working class and the middle class.

Goldthorpe developed a sevenfold class scheme for the needs of the Oxford Class Mobility Study, the empirical part of which was conducted in England and Wales in 1972. The results and conclusions of the study were published in the book Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980). In this book, Goldthorp presents the following class scheme going from the top to the bottom: 1) the most successful professionals, directors, and managers, as well as big capitalists; 2) professionals, middle managers, and managers; 3) routine non-manual employees; 4) smaller owners, farmers and the self-employed; 5) lower technical staff, supervisors of manual workers; 6) skilled manual workers; 7) unskilled and semi-skilled manual workers in industry and agriculture. Several criteria were used in the construction of this scheme: source and level of income, economic security, market situation, as well as the level of autonomy in work. Goldthorp calls the first two highest classes the service class, while members of the third and fifth classes are called the intermediate class. When studying mobility between these classes, a high rate of class mobility was found, higher upward than downward mobility, as well as an increase in the chances of those who come from the working class to leave it.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Goldthorpe and Robert Erikson developed a “core model” of social mobility that they applied to the study of the situation in several countries. This model of social mobility uses a somewhat modified, sevenfold class scheme previously developed by Goldthorpe. The essence of this model, presented in the book The Constant Flux (1992b), is the assumption of the existence of standard patterns of social fluidity, that is, that in all industrialized countries, with a free market, the patterns of social mobility are essentially the same, which they named as trendless fluctuation. After a mathematical analysis of data from different countries, they concluded that the model is fully applicable to Britain and France, while it is necessary to make minor adjustments to the model to be applicable to other countries. Large-scale structural processes such as globalization, deindustrialization, and an increase in the service and information sector brought structural changes to social mobility. The demand for both a highly skilled and educated workforce, and for a low-wage unskilled workforce increased. These processes led to the bifurcation of the workforce and for education to become the most important factor in determining individual success. The authors also conclude that at the end of the twentieth century, the influence of class affiliation on the formation of class identities has decreased. 

Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters co-authored the book The Death of Class (1996). The authors argue that modern societies are transformed too much, in relation to the earlier ones, so that they can no longer be considered class societies. The key processes that have led to such changes are: globalization, changes in the economy, new technologies, and political changes. In addition, unlike earlier periods, the increase in geographical mobility has now led to a decline in the importance of family and family background as the main source of class reproduction, which allows for greater intergenerational social mobility.

Peter Saunders is a great critic of the British tradition of mobility research, such as studies done by Glass and Goldthorpe. In the book Unequal but Fair ?: A Study of Class Barriers in Britain (1996), Saunders, using data from the National Child Development Study, concludes that there is a real meritocracy in Britain because talented children succeed in life regardless of socioeconomic background. In that sense, it can be said that there is inequality in Britain, but that economic differences are fair because they are based on talent and success. People who receive higher economic rewards are the ones who make the greatest contribution to the development of society. Unequal economic rewards also contribute to motivating those who are most talented to give their best. In Social Mobility Myths (2010), Saunders argues that in the United Kingdom, among academia, politicians, and the general public, four myths about social mobility are prevalent. These myths are: 1) UK is ‘a closed shop society’, where life chances are predominatly determined by the class a person is born into; 2) Social mobility is only getting more limited over time; 3) differences between individuals in their abilities, either don’t exist, or are irrelevant for individual success; 4) governments can increase social mobility with the proper use of social policy, education and equal income distribution. Saunders concludes that all of these myths are either false or present an incomplete picture of the situation.   

                    Status Seeking and Upward Mobility

Werner Sombart, in his book Luxury and Capitalism (1912), connects the growth of the consumer mentality with the emergence of court life, where the need for luxury goods was a means to achieve upward mobility and social ambitions. Luxury goods were not used to make life more comfortable; instead, those goods were used to show higher social status, in a situation when the rules of social stratification were not the clearest.

In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen studies the status consumption of the "leisure class", which consists of renters and absentee property and business owners. He rejects the idea of ​​completely rational economic behavior and believes that a large part of consumption, and thus production, can be explained by the desire of people to increase their own social status and reputation. To achieve this higher status, individuals, especially those belonging to the upper classes, indulge in the wasteful consumption of luxury goods. In countries that have great social and geographical mobility, such as the United States, luxury spending is the fastest and safest way to confirm one's social status. The wasteful spending of the leisure class has no function other than creating a social distinction that allows that class to reproduce the social hierarchy.

In Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment Taste (1979), Pierre Bourdieu explored the relationship between cultural consumption and class. This book is based on a large empirical study of cultural consumption, including newspapers, music, food, and other forms of consumption. He concluded that there are three hierarchically ordered types of aesthetic taste or style of cultural consumption: elite (legitimate), middlebrow, and popular (mass). Each type of cultural consumption and taste serves to give individuals a sense of place within the social structure. The aesthetic taste of a person (elite, middlebrow, or mass) in one of the areas of cultural consumption (e.g., art) usually corresponds to the type of taste in other areas (e.g., fashion, sports, literature). A significant and underestimated aspect of class tensions is, in Bourdieu's opinion, the "classification struggle" concerning the symbolic function of everyday cultural consumption and lifestyles. He defines different classes according to the level of different forms of capital (symbolic capital, cultural capital, economic capital, and social capital) they possess, and how relations between those forms of capital affect the collective and individual practices of members of different classes. Individuals, as members of different classes, use their own capital, of all types, to develop strategies and put them into practice, all to improve or maintain their own position. The success of these strategies for each individual is what Bourdieu calls the "social trajectory" of the individual.

William Lloyd Warner, in the book The Status System of a Modern Community, 2 vols. (1941, 1942), presents the results of his research on class structure in a city in the US. Warner identified six specific classes: upper-upper, lower-upper, upper-middle, lower-middle, upper-lower, and lower-lower. The upper-upper class consisted of "patrician aristocrats", the richest families who possessed wealth for generations; they possessed specific patterns of social interaction and behavior, and they lived in the biggest houses and the best part of the city. The lower-upper class was made of families that experienced upward economic mobility and were sometimes richer than some upper-upper class families, but because their wealth was considered "new", those families did not have the same social reputation. In some other cities, where there is greater upward and downward economic mobility, these two classes formed a single class.

References:

Blau. “Social Mobility and Interpersonal Relations”, in American Sociological Review (1956);

     -     The American Occupational Structure (1967);

Crompton. Economy and Class Structure  (1977);

     -     White-Collar Proletariat: Deskilling and Gender in Clerical Work (1984);

     -     Gendered Jobs and Social Change (1990);

     -     Class and Stratification (1993);

     -     Economic Restructuring and Social Exclusion (1994);

Dahrendorf. Class and Conflict in an Industrial Society (2022, in German 1957);

Esping-Anderson. Changing Classes Stratification and Mobility in Post-Industrial Societies (1993); 

Glass. Social Mobility in Britain (1954);

Goldthorpe. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980); 

     -     The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies (1992); 

Heath, A. Social Mobility (1981);

Lenski. “Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status”, in American Sociological Review (1954);

     -     Power and Privilege (1966); 

Lipset. Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959);

Lockwood. The Blackcoated Worker (1958);

     -     The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (1969);

Marx. The XVIII Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (in German 1852);

     -     Capital Vol. 1, 2, & 3: The Only Complete and Unabridged Edition in One Volume (2020, in German 1867, 1885, 1894);

Ohlin. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (1960);

Pakulski. The Death of Class (1996); 

Riesman. A Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (1950);  

Saunders. Social Class and Stratification (1990);

     -     Unequal But Fair?: A Study of Class Barriers in Britain (1996);

     -     Social Mobility Myths (2010);

Sørensen. ,,On the Usefulness of Class Anaysis in Research on Social Mobility and Socioeconomic Inequality‟, in Acta Sociologica (1991);

     -     ,,The Structural Basis of Social Inequality‟, in The American Journal of Sociology (1996);

     -     ,,Toward a Sounder Basis for Class Analysis‟, in The American Journal of Sociology (2000);

Smelser, N. J. & Lipset, S. M. (Eds.). Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development. (1966); 

Sorokin. Social Mobility (1927);

Tocqueville. Democracy in America (2021, in French 1835, 1840);

     -     The Old Regime and the French Revolution (2014, in French 1856); 

Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (1899);

Warner. The Status System of a Modern Community, 2 vols. (1941, 1942);

     -     Who Shall Be Educated? The Challenge of Unequal Opportunities (1944);

     -     Occupational Mobility in American Business and Industry: 1928-1952 (1955);

Weber Max. Economy and Society: A New Translation (2019, in German 1922);

White. Chains of Opportunity: System Models of Mobility in Organizations (1970);

Willer. Theory and the Experimental Investigation of Social Structures (1987);

Wilson W. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions (1978);

     -     The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987);

     -     When Work Disappears (1996).