15. Erikson Goldthorpe

The CASMIN Project and the American DreamAuthor(s): Robert Erikson and John H. GoldthorpeSource: European Sociological Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, Special Edition on Social Stratification andSocial Mobility (Dec., 1992), pp. 283-305Published by: Oxford University PressStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to EuropeanSociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.93 on Thu, 16 May 2013 12:28:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/522720?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


European Sociological Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, December 1992 283 ?Oxford University Press 1992

The CASMINproject and the American dream

ROBERT ERIKSON AND JOHN H. GOLDTHORPE

ABSTRACT In this paper we respond to the critiques of our work undertaken under the auspices of the CASMIN project that are presented by Hout and Hauser and by Srensen in preceding papers in this number. We treat in turn issues concerning data comparability and the class schema that we use as the basis for our analyses of mobility; our model of 'core social fluidity'; and empirical results relevant to the evaluation of the FJH-hypothesis. In conclusion we point to certain conceptual presuppositions and related research interests which we would see as deeply rooted in the American tradition of work in the field of social stratification and mobility and which, we suggest, throw light on the nature of the reaction that our work has provoked.

INTRODUCTION

We are gratified that our work arising out of the CASMIN (Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations) Project has so quickly attracted attention, and we much appreciate the efforts that have been made by our critics both in this number of the European Sociological Review and elsewhere. We regret only that the speed of the critical reaction has been such that the content of our major publication (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992) would seem not always to have been fully assimilated.

In this response, we do not attempt to take up every point raised in the foregoing papers by Hout and Hauser and by S0rensen. We concentrate, rather, on what would appear to be the more crucial issues on which disagreement occurs; and we seek, moreover, to place these issues-even ones of a seemingly technical nature-in the context of certain broader considerations regarding the comparative study of social stratification and mobility.

To this end, it may be helpful if at the outset we note two concerns that guided the conception and the subsequent development of the CASMIN Project. First and foremost was a concern to improve the quality of data used in cross-national research and, above all, in regard

to comparability. By the early 1980s it had become apparent in mobility research-as in other fields-that dispiritingly inconsistent and confusing results would continue to be obtained from comparative analyses unless problems of data received far more serious attention (cf. Goldthorpe, 1985b). Consequently, within the CASMIN project a large part of our available resources were devoted to data preparation: in particular, to the recoding of the unit-record data of national mobility enquiries to new standardized categories that could be applied cross-nationally in a reasonably reliable way (see further Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 47-53; and, for greater detail, Konig et al., 1987; Erikson et al., 1988). We derive particular satisfaction from the fact that the approach and techniques followed in this connection by the CASMIN team have influenced similar efforts at improving data quality in subsequent comparative projects, such as the Luxembourg Income Study, the Development of Unionism in Europe Study, and the International Survey on Social Justice. It is, we believe, with research that is thus committed to taking data seriously that the future of comparative macro-sociology lies.'

Secondly, we indicated from the start of the CASMIN project our intention of treating mobility within the context of a class structure



THE CASMIN PROJECT AND THE AMERICAN DREAM

rather than that of a prestige or status hierarchy. We need not rehearse our arguments for this conceptual choice since they are set out fully elsewhere (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 29-35; and cf. also Goldthorpe, 1985a). It will be enough here to say that we wished to be able to treat adequately the effects on mobility of the structural development of national economies; and further to make our analyses of mobility as relevant as possible to the work of other sociologists-and of social historians- primarily interested in questions of class formation and decomposition, the linkages between class structures and educational systems and the class bases of political beliefs, values, and action.

These two concerns, with data quality and a class-structural perspective, are of immediate relevance to those arguments of our critics that we address in the following section, regarding the degree of aggregation of the class categories that we use in our comparative mobility analyses and the range of nations that is covered. Thence, 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 the empirical testing of the 'FJH hypothesis'. To end with, we point to certain conceptual presuppositions and related research interests which are, we believe, deeply rooted in the American tradition of work in the field of social stratification and mobility, and which help make more intelligible-to us at least-the otherwise often puzzling nature of the reaction that our work has provoked.

DATA AND THE CASMIN CLASS SCHEMA

It is one of the main complaints of Hout and Hauser that the class categories used in our comparative analyses of mobility (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1987a, 1987b, 1992) are of a too aggregated kind and that, in consequence, a good deal of mobility both within and between these categories is concealed. They therefore proceed to re-analyse our data-or, rather, a subset thereof-using the full 12 classes of the schema to which our data are coded in the

CASMIN IMS Superfile instead of the collapsed seven-category version that we ourselves adopt. S0rensen, in contrast, is content to operate with only a six-category version of the schema; but he objects that our model of core fluidity is applicable, if at all, only to the small number of nations that we consider and seeks to demonstrate this through an analysis of mobility in 23 nations, drawing on the data-set constituted by Ganzeboom et al. (1989).

We would, first of all, wish to assure our critics (though we find it odd that this should be necessary) that we would indeed have preferred to work with more refined class categories and with a larger number of national cases. The reason why we did not should be evident enough: it was not possible to do so without compromising the standards of data quality, and specifically of data comparability, that we would regard as minimally necessary for effective comparative research and that we had expressly set out to establish and maintain. Correspondingly, we can only regard our critics as themselves showing a lack of concern for data quality that is retrograde and that vitiates their efforts from the very start.

In our recoding exercise, we did indeed use the full version of the class schema. But, in the course of this exercise, it became apparent that a satisfactory standard of cross-national comparability could not be achieved at this level. In some instances, essential information was simply not available in the original studies: for example, to enable the distinction to be made between small proprietors with employees (Class IVa)2 or without (Class IVb) or to make any consistent differentiation among farmers, whether in terms of employees (which Hout and Hauser erroneously suppose to have been the case) or of indicators of farm size. In other instances, while we could in principle implement the schema for all our nations, we could not in practice do this in the same way from one nation to another: most obviously, in drawing the line between manual supervisory and lower technical grades (Class V) and skilled manual workers (Class VI) and also between the higher and lower grades of the service class (Classes I and II). To obviate such difficulties, resort to the collapsed seven-class version of the schema

284



EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

was-unfortunately-necessary (for further details, see Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 50-2).3

In placing our data in the public domain, it seemed only sensible to retain the more detailed form, since some potential users might have an interest in particular nations rather than in comparative analysis. But in working papers, conference presentations, and personal com- munications, as well as in the major report on our work (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 52), we have emphasized that only at the seven-class level of the schema can an acceptable degree of data comparability be claimed: that is, in the sense that no major defects are evident and that if, on this basis, statistically significant cross- national differences in mobility are revealed, it would for the most part be a reasonable presumption that they are real rather than artefactual.

It is not apparent why Hout and Hauser should choose to disregard this repeated message (though we do subsequently suggest a reason). However, the consequences are inevitably damaging. As they accept, they simply have to discard the theoretically interesting cases of Hungary and Poland-and, had they worked with the full CASMIN data-set, they would have been forced to discard Australia and the USA as well.4 But further, and more seriously, in all the analyses of mobility that they undertake they will of necessity introduce some non-negligible amount of cross-national 'variation' that is of an entirely spurious kind.

The problem of data that arises with S0rensen's contribution is similar, but still more severe. The Ganzeboom, Luijkx, and Treiman (GLT) data-set to which he resorts is one constructed following an approach to the problem of data comparability quite different from that of the CASMIN Project. Briefly, the 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 then to regard each table as a 'data-point', subject to error. In all analyses based on the data-set it is therefore necessary to check on possible effects due to error, at the same time as substantive issues are addressed (Ganzeboom et al., 1989).

We have serious doubts about the viability of this approach, at least as so far implemented (see Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 53, n. 27, 100-1). But what we would wish to emphasize here is that S0rensen shows no awareness of its essential logic. In effect, he treats the mobility tables that he takes over from the GLT data- set as if they were on a par with those produced within the CASMIN Project and carries out no 'quality controls' whatever. His only concession to the problem of data comparability is to reject tables that score 0 and 1 on the six-point GLT quality grading. This is, however, entirely inadequate. Only tables scoring 5 are directly comparable to CASMIN tables (Ganzeboom et al., 1989: 21); and it can be shown that even tables produced in the manner that will give a quality score of 4 (by mimicking the class schema via ISCO occupational codes) are likely to create quite serious problems of comparability.5 Furthermore, examination of S0rensen's Table II in the light of the documentation of the GLT data reveals that the subset that he has extracted is especially patchy: thus, for nine of his 23 nations he can muster in total, only three tables (out of 35) that attain a quality score of 4, the remainder scoring only 3 or 2.

We do not therefore find it at all surprising that in analysing these data S0rensen should show a degree of cross-national variation in relative rates of social mobility that is quite incompatible with the FJH-hypothesis. There is no reason to suppose that any other outcome would have been possible. That is to say, the FJH-hypothesis, in any version, will necessarily be rejected on the basis of these data, simply on account of the lack of cross-national comparability inherent in them. Even in using the CASMIN data-set, we would argue, some 'charity' is due to the hypothesis in virtue of the residual non-comparability that is still present and that will therefore count-unfairly-against it (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 174). But S0rensen appears quite happy to exploit the deficiencies of his data to the advantage of his own case.

As against both Hout and Hauser and S0rensen, we would then wish to maintain that the first requirement of any worthwhile

285




sociological analysis is that the limitations of the available data should be respected. Hout and Hauser are kind enough to say that the CASMIN project 'has produced a wealth of new information on comparative class mobility' (p. 239). We are sorry that we could not produce more. But nothing-but trouble-will be gained by proceeding as if the data we use are more detailed or more extensive than is in fact the case.

To conclude this section, we append one further comment relating to Hout and Hauser's argument for wishing to work with the full version of the class schema: namely, that the classes of the collapsed version are too hetero- geneous in the prestige or status scores of their constituent elements (pp. 240-41). To repeat, we too would have liked to utilize the full schema, had requirements of data quality allowed-but not, we should say, for the reason that Hout and Hauser here advance. To judge the validity of any class schema by reference to prestige or status makes little theoretical sense, unless one supposes, as we would not, that classes are just more or less arbitrary slices of a prestige or status continuum. So far at least as our schema is concerned, the appropriate criteria are those considered by Evans, in his paper in this number; that is, ones pertaining to the different aspects of employment relations in terms of which the theoretical rationale of the schema is expressed (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 35-47). Evans' results indicate that, as we have always supposed, we do indeed lose something in collapsing the schema (and especially Classes V and VI); but prestige or status gradations are not the relevant consideration. It would not surprise us if the latter could always explain something more of mobility rates and patterns over and above what can be explained in terms of class-although, we would argue, the reverse is more obviously true, in particular with regard to structural effects. But, in any event, as we noted earlier, our own concern has from the beginning been with class mobility; and those whose interest centres, rather, on mobility in terms of prestige or status surely have the option of dispensing with class categories altogether in favour of some appropriate scale.

THE CASMIN MODEL

Our critics are dissatisfied with this model on a variety of counts, which we shall consider in turn.

Tailoring Both Hout and Hauser (p. 255) and S0rensen (pp. 268, 278) contend that our model of core social fluidity is tailored to fit the mobility data to which it is applied, and in particular, they believe, through the 'affinity' terms that it includes. As it stands, however, this charge is simply incorrect. The model is tailored, as we have described in some detail (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1987a, 1992: ch. 4), in order to fit the empirical representation of 'core' fluidity that we derive from our data for England and France (the two nations which emerged from a MDSCAL analysis of data for nine European nations as those most central to the 'space' within which cross-national variation in fluidity occurs). But, beyond this, no tailoring is undertaken, and such fit as the core model may achieve to mobility data for other nations cannot be devalued on this account.6

It ought, moreover, to be recognized-and more clearly than our critics accept-just what the purpose of the above-mentioned procedure was: that is, to provide an adequate test of the FJH hypothesis, taken in its actual verbal formulation as claiming only a 'basic' (not total) similarity in cross-national fluidity patterns. To this end, it would not have been appropriate simply to postulate a model of such basic, or core, fluidity a priori, and then to deem the hypothesis to have been refuted if this model did not fit the data well. Some attempt had to be made to identify empirically the best 'candidate' for such a core pattern. S0rensen writes at one point (p. 268): 'The danger is that a model such as that proposed by Erikson and Goldthorpe, while coming close to fitting adequately in all nations, none the less may not provide a true representation of the pattern of relative mobility in a given nation.' But a model of this kind is just what one has to look for in the interests of testing the FJH-hypothesis not only as rigorously as possible but also fairly- something with which, as we have already

286




observed, S0rensen himself seems rather little concerned.

Symmetry Hout and Hauser dislike our model of core social fluidity because it is asymmetrical. They are forced to acknowledge that in a majority of the nations they consider asymmetries in relative mobility rates, or, that is, in the pattern of social fluidity, do in fact exist; but they still contend that a symmetrical model should be favoured on grounds of parsimony and interpretability. On the issues of parsimony, as against fit, what would seem ultimately to be involved are differing preferences that cannot perhaps be usefully debated. But on the issue of interpretability, the main argument that Hout and Hauser advance is one that we must regard as at best misleading and at worst just wrong.

Their claim (p. 249) is that 'Intrinsic asymmetry [i.e. asymmetry in fluidity patterns] is incompatible with the analysis of structural mobility'. This statement needs, however, to be glossed as follows: 'accepting asymmetry in fluidity patterns is incompatible with making the distinction between structural and exchange mobility, according to the model proposed by Sobel et al. (1985).' To which we would then reply: so much the worse for the model. It has the evidently unsatisfactory property that its applicability depends upon a purely contingent fact: i.e. that fluidity is symmetrical; and, in any event, we would regard the distinction between structural and exchange mobility as by now outmoded and unnecessary (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 58-9).

At the same time, though, what must be stressed is that 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 that this can most usefully be done by treating these effects, following Sobel, Hout, and Duncan (SHD), as reflecting changes between origin and destination distributions that raise or lower the odds of mobility to a given destination by the same factor across all origins alike. This valuable suggestion is, one should note, quite detachable from the SHD model itself. All that is required

is a recognition that heterogeneity in the marginal distributions of the mobility table may derive in part from the pattern of fluidity itself or, in other words, that the latter may not be symmetrical.

It is of interest here to note that in the paper proposing their model, SHD do at one point show some awareness that 'greater generality' might be achieved in the way in question: that is, by not requiring that marginal heterogeneity be completely accounted for by structural effects (Sobel et al., 1985: 365, n. 2). They then dismiss this idea on the grounds that if symmetry in relative rates does not hold, structural effect parameters will not be (uniquely) estimable. But this would appear to be a misconception. At all events, with the kind of topological model that we develop, the objection does not apply. Structural effects can be quite satisfactorily estimated, regardless of the asymmetry in fluidity that is specified.7

Finally, then, we must point out that when Hout and and Hauser write (p. 240) that 'Erikson and Goldthorpe give almost no attention to structural mobility', this is true only in that 'structural mobility', like 'exchange mobility', is not a concept that we have use for. But, as readers may see for themselves, we do discuss structural effects on mobility quite extensively (1992: ch. 6 esp. but cf. also chs. 3, 7, 9, 10), including in the manner that Hout and Hauser favour. Indeed, the findings that they report in this respect (pp. 249-51) are ones that we have in all salient features anticipated (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 204-7). In sum, the implication contained in Hout and Hauser's paper that 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 the desirability of validating our model against fresh data, rather than by comparing its fit with that of other models against CASMIN data. While we would not accept that this desirability stems from the tailoring of the model to the CASMIN tables, to attempt cross-validation in the way that Hout and Hauser propose is still an obviously

287




TABLE 1 Results of fitting the 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 shift effects (Class I + II set 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, the smallest in the CASMIN data-set. For further details of this statistic, see Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992: 88-90). bThe parameters for HI1 and AF1 do not attain significance.

appropriate procedure. Their own exercise, on the basis of mobility data for Britain taken from Marshall et al. (1988), is, as they recognize, inconclusive, primarily because the sample N is too small. Fortunately, though, there are other data available, somewhat more adequate to the purpose in hand: namely, those from the British General Election Surveys of 1979, 1983, and 1987.

In Table 1 we show the results of fitting our model of core social fluidity to a mobility table for men aged 20-64 in England and Wales that is derived from the pooled data of these three studies. Results previously reported for the corresponding CASMIN (1972) table are also given for purposes of comparison. It can be seen that the fit of the model to the 1979-87 data is very satisfactory, and that estimates of effect parameters, including 'structural shift' parameters, are for the most part rather close to those for 1972. In so far as differences do show up, they are ones that are scarcely implausible or indeed that point to changes over time that can be independently documented, such as a relative decline in the industrial working class and a relative growth in the petty bourgeoisie.

In the case of the affinity effects, about which Hout and Hauser express particular doubts, it is true that AFl-the disaffinity term applying to mobility between the service class and that of agricultural workers-becomes insignificant

(though with its expected sign) for 1979-87. However, it should be noted that even with a total N of over 3 000, the numbers associated with Class VIIb, as one of origin or destination, are still very small. The AF2 term, which applies to far more populous cells of the mobility table, is little altered.8

We would then claim that, for England at least, our model stands up well to a validation exercise of the kind that Hout and Hauser propose, and that this result serves further to undermine any suggestion that the success of the model in reproducing mobility data is achieved by tailoring.9

Performance Hout and Hauser and S0rensen alike aim to show that models that they advance perform better than what they refer to as either the 'CASMIN' or 'Erikson-Goldthorpe' model. However, as we would have thought abundantly clear, our model of core social fluidity is one specifically tied to the seven- category version of our class schema (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 140). And since, then, neither Hout and Hauser nor S0rensen work with this version of the schema, it must be pointed out that they are simply not in a position to make the comparisons that they claim and that take up so much of their papers.

288




S0rensen, as we have noted, is restricted by the GLT data-set to only a six-category version of the schema: the classes of farmers and of farm workers (IVc and VIIb) are collapsed. As he then acknowledges-though in a rather piecemeal way-this means that the model he subsequently deploys as the 'Erikson- Goldthorpe' model is in fact quite substantially different from our model. First, of course, there can be no separate effect for immobility within the class of farmers (IN3); secondly, the sector effect (SE) is completely lost; and thirdly, the disaffinity effect (AF1) cannot be retained in its original form. In view of this, and of the importance that the IN3 and SE effects in particular prove to have, we find S0rensen's argument (p. 270) that he can still provide a 'fair test' of our model difficult to accept. But, as we have already observed, his standards of fairness and ours are rather far apart.10

With regard to Hout and Hauser, there is, fortunately, more that can usefully be said. In fitting mobility tables constructed on the twelve- category version of the class schema, Hout and Hauser simply apply our model, designed for seven-class tables, without any modification. We do not understand what justification there can be for following this procedure. If we had thought it possible to obtain adequate cross- national comparability at the level of the full schema, we would surely have developed a model of core fluidity that reflected this greater degree of differentiation. Correspondingly, if the aim is to assess the performance of the 'CASMIN model' in relation to twelve-class tables (accepting these now simply for the purposes of the argument), this must be done on the basis of a new version of the model that is appropriately extended according to the theoretical ideas underlying the original (see Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1987a; 1992: ch. 4). Such a new version could, for example, be proposed on the lines set out below. (The actual levels matrices for the model are provided in the Appendix to this paper.)

Hierarchy. The hierarchical divisions made within the class schema, and understood as reflecting differences in job rewards and requirements, are increased with the twelve-class

version from three to five.1' There are thus now four rather than two hierarchy effects, HI1-HI4, each referring to the successively higher barriers confronting mobility as transitions over one, two, three, or four hierarchical 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

Inheritance. The number of inheritance effects, that is effects referring to propensities for class immobility, remains at three; but with the twelve-class schema greater discrimination can be shown regarding the possibilities for the intergenerational transmission of property in the placing of classes on the second level.

original extended IN1 all all IN2 I+ II, IVa + b, IVc+d I, IVa, IVc, IVd IN3 IVc+d IVc

Sector. While the effect for sectoral barriers to mobility between agricultural and non- agricultural classes (SE1) is retained, the twelve- class schema allows for a further such effect (SE2) to be introduced, referring to barriers to mobility between classes in the small business sector (IVa, IVb, IVc, IVd) and the rest.

Affinities. The affinities included in the original model are essentially retained in the extended model, although, with the twelve-class schema, modifications can be made that bring their implementation into rather closer accord with the theoretical ideas that underlie them.'2 One additional affinity is included, relating to the propensity for mobility between classes IVc and IVd, those of 'large' and 'small' farmers, which might be expected to be higher than provided for by other effects on account simply of fluctuation in the economic for- tunes of farm families from one generation to another.

289




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 Table 2 we show in the first row the results of fitting our extended model to the same collec- tion of national mobility tables that Hout and Hauser derive from the CASMIN data-set. In the event, the parameter for the HI1 term proved to be insignificant, so this effect was omitted and the model re-applied, with the results that are shown in the second row. In the third row we reproduce the results reported by Hout and Hauser for their own preferred model (i.e. Model 13 in their Table 4). It can be seen that our extended model performs better than theirs, according to the bic statistic that they adopt as their criterion for model choice, as also according to A.

In this way, then, most of the argument in the central part of Hout and Hauser's paper is empirically undermined. It is apparent that the 'superiority' that they claim for their alternative model specification is achieved only by keeping the 'CASMIN model' unaltered while moving to the full version of the class schema as the basis for the mobility tables analysed. The supposed superiority vanishes once our model of core fluidity is extended, following its underlying theoretical rationale, so as to apply to twelve-

class rather than seven-class tables. Moreover, if we turn to the parameter estimates for our extended model given in the lower panel of Table 2, doubt is also thrown on Hout and Hauser's more specific contention that in our analyses we understate the importance of hierarchy effects on fluidity patterns as against the effects of inheritance and sector. We must stress that we do not believe that any great substantive importance should be attached to these estimates because of the deficiencies of the data when the full version of the class schema is utilized. None the less, the indication is that, if we did have good quality twelve-class tables available for analysis, the relative importance of the effects in question would not in fact turn out to be all that different from what we have found in considering seven-class tables.13

Modelling hierarchy effects Hout and Hauser are greatly concerned to show that part at least of the reason why we underestimate hierarchy effects is because we model them wrongly. As well as working with discrete hierarchical levels rather than with

TABLE 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 the percentage reduction achieved in the G2 for the model of conditional independence.

290




TABLE 3 Results of fitting the extended core model to seven CASMIN mobility tables for men aged 25-64, with different specifications of hierarchy 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' rather than a 'linear-by-linear' specification of hierarchy effects which is, in their view, a conceptual error.

We would point out again here that our concern is with class mobility and that, in this perspective, hierarchy effects are quite appropriately seen as relating to hierarchical 'distances' between class categories; whereas the kind of modelling favoured by Hout and Hauser would appear more apt where interest centres specifically on mobility within a prestige or status order. But, in any event, as Hout and Hauser rightly observe, the best way of attempting to adjudicate between such differing conceptual approaches is to see what happens when they are applied to data.

In Table 3 we show the results of fitting our extended model of core fluidity to the same set of tables used by Hout and Hauser, but with the effective hierarchy terms in the model (HI2, HI3, and HI4) being replaced, first, by Hout and Hauser's linear-by-linear occupational prestige term; second, by their linear-by-linear socio-economic status term; and third, by both of these terms. It can be seen that, where either prestige or status alone replaces our hierarchy effects, the bic value returned is clearly inferior to that shown in Table 2 for our extended model in its unaltered form: and that the latter value is still not reached when status and prestige are entered together.14

Again, then, it is the case that Hout and Hauser's argument comes apart once the 'CASMIN model' is represented in a form proper to the mobility tables to which it is

applied. Within the context of our extended model, there is no indication that the method of modelling hierarchy effects that they advocate would give any advantage. Had we the data that would allow the serious comparative analysis of twelve-class tables, we could expect to do at least as well using the method that is consistent with our basic conceptual approach. In this way moreover, we would be sure of avoiding the rather bizarre results that Hout and Hauser obtain when they consider cross-national variation under a model in which both status and prestige are included. We are, it appears, asked to believe that in some nations differences in prestige between classes (net of all other effects) actually facilitates mobility between them: the greater the difference in prestige, the greater the propensity for mobility to occur!

SUBSTANTIVE RESULTS

In this section we turn to the substantive results of the analyses that our critics present, aimed primarily at evaluating the FJH-hypothesis, and that they would regard as improvements on our own efforts. To start with, though, we summarize the findings we have already reported in this respect (see further Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: ch. 5 and 374-9 esp.), since these do not always seem to be fully understood.

In testing the FJH hypothesis strictly construed, that is, as represented by the common social fluidity (CmSF) model, we find, like almost all previous investigators, that it cannot be upheld. There are significant variations in relative rates of class mobility across the

291




national societies we consider. However, as actually stated by Featherman, Jones, and Hauser (1975: 337-9), the hypothesis claims only a 'basic' similarity in relative rates. Thus, we argue, rejecting the hypothesis on the grounds that the CmSF model does not fit is scarcely an adequate test and, more seriously, risks throwing out the sociological baby with the statistical bath-water. If a substantial cross- national commonality in social fluidity patterns were to exist, this would represent a major empirical regularity that, presumably, comparative macro-sociologists would wish to know about. As we have already remarked, our model of core social fluidity was then developed specifically in order to make possible some assessment of the FJH-hypothesis in its less strict, but still highly consequential form. In the light of applications of the model to good quality class-mobility data for, in all, fifteen nations, the main conclusions that we reach are the following.

There is clear support for the FJH hypothesis, in its initial verbal formulation, in two respects. (a) Our model does identify a large commonality in patterns of social fluidity within national class structures. If, for example, one were to suppose a counterfactual world in which our model specified exactly the pattern of fluidity pre- vailing in all nations alike, then, in such a world, absolute rates of class mobility-total, inflow, and outflow-would only rarely diverge from those obtaining in the real world to a degree that sociologists would find worthy of comment (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 210-13). In other words, cross-national commonality in relative mobility rates may be reckoned as substantial, in that variation at this 'genotypical' level is of almost negligible effect in accounting for variation at the 'phenotypical' level of actually observed rates.15 (b) The cross-national differences in social fluidity that do show up, in the form of deviations from our core model, appear for the most part to be better understood as specific, historically-formed variations on the theme defined by this model than as representing variation of a more systematic kind. That is to say, no great scope would seem to exist for explaining the extent and nature of differences

in fluidity by reference to other generalizable attributes of societies, so that (cf. Przeworski and Teune, 1970) the names of variables might be substituted for those of nations. In being couched in terms of commonality rather than variation in relative rates, the FJH hypothesis thus points to what would appear to be the proper focus of macro-sociological attention.

At the same time, though, the need for two qualifications to the FJH hypothesis is also suggested. (a) A recurrent source of cross-national variation in social fluidity is found to lie in political intervention. The FJH hypothesis, at least in its original formulation, applies to societies in which there is a market economy and some kind of family system. But the effects of market and family, the two great pillars of civil society, in creating and perpetuating differential mobility chances can evidently be modified by political action taken via a modern state apparatus. Societies in which such action is initiated and sustained can thus be regarded as more likely to show deviations from 'core' fluidity than are others-even though it may not be possible to associate distinctive types of fluidity pattern with the particular institutional or ideological features of different political regimes. (b) There is also evidence to suggest (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 379-89) that one specific and quite small (though theoretically interesting) part of cross-national variation in fluidity could have a systematic basis: that is, evidence that the lower the degree of economic inequality among individuals and families, the greater the overall level of fluidity within a society. However, confirmation of this possibility (for which several previous investigators have also argued) will not, in our view, be possible until the construction of adequate data-sets on comparative economic inequality has progressed further, as, for example, under the auspices of the Luxembourg Income Study.

So, our conclusions are not altogether straightforward, but they are, we believe, reasonably clear in their relation to our empirical findings. What of those reached by our critics?

S0rensen clearly wishes to reject the FJH- hypothesis out of hand. His grounds for so

292




doing are that when he supplements (what he represents as) our model of core fluidity with Goodman's II* association model, which freely scales the six class categories he uses, he achieves a significant improvement in fit to his mobility tables for 23 nations. He therefore feels justified in further exploiting Goodman's model in order to identify inductively a set of differing 'mobility profiles' among these nations, defined in terms of category scaling or what he refers to as 'class cleavages'.

Our fundamental objection to S0rensen's analyses, as we have already made clear, concerns the data on which he draws. To repeat, the demonstrable lack of cross-national com- rability inherent in these data renders them a quite inappropriate basis on which to seek to test the FJH-hypothesis, at all events, if stringent quality controls are not implemented. In turn, we would suspect that S0rensen's 'mobility profiles' are in large part artefacts of the degree of non-comparability in his data, and before he seeks explanations for them on the lines he indicates at the end of his paper, he too, we suggest, should engage in a cross-validation exercise.

There are several additional critical observations that we would wish to make on the results S0rensen reports, and which would apply even if his analyses had a more secure empirical basis. First, we do not find it at all surprising that adding Goodman's II* model to the so- called 'Erikson-Goldthorpe' model should give an improvement in fit. This would no doubt have occurred even if S0rensen had worked with our actual core model and with the CASMIN data-set: that is, the Goodman model would simply pick up the differences in social fluidity that we treat via our national variant models. But showing this simply confirms again that the FJH hypothesis does not hold stricto sensu: it says nothing to the question of how tenable the hypothesis is in the modified form in which we sought to test it. As we have earlier suggested, S0rensen quite fails to see the importance of investigating whether or not a substantial cross- national commonality in fluidity patterns prevails as well as some amount of variation.

Furthermore, the II* model is itself ill-suited to such a task. S0rensen argues (p. 268) that a

'minimal requirement' of the FJH hypothesis is that 'class cleavages' in fluidity patterns should be located at the same places in all nations. But there is nothing in the FJH hypothesis that requires such cleavages to fall in just one dimension. Such unidimensionality is, however, imposed by the scaling of the II* model, and often with much consequential distortion that S0rensen fails to recognize. Consider, for example, his results for Poland, which derive from good quality data from just one enquiry. Poland emerges (Figure 4) as an instance of the 'lower white-collar elite' mobility profile. This sounds improbable and it is improbable. Smallest-space analysis of the Polish table indicates that cleavages, or distances, between classes in terms of the propensity for mobility between them cannot be captured in less than two dimensions. In the light of such analysis, it is moreover apparent that the emergence of the lower white-collar class at the top of the scale created by model II* has nothing whatever to do with its elite position in post-war Polish society, as anyone familiar with that society could readily have told S0rensen. It has to do, rather, with the large distance between the lower white-collar class and the farm class, in a dimension that cannot be interpreted as hierarchical or 'vertical' in any sense. 16

Finally, questions may be raised as to how securely S0rensen's results are based in his procedures for model choice. To start with, it should be noted with regard to Table 4 that the mobility profiles that figure in his preferred model 4, and on which all his subsequent analysis rests, are, as he explains, arrived at inductively: in fact, from results obtained under his model 2 (p. 272 and Table 5, p. 275). Thus, not only does model 4 'not fare as well' as S0rensen would like (p. 274), but the grounds for favouring it remain unclear: the significance tests reported for contrasts between this model and model 5 can have little meaning. In fact, S0rensen appeals here to 'all' conventional criteria. But assuming that, as seems to be the case, he counts the bic statistic among these, another major problem that he has simply failed to observe may then be pointed out. Remarkably, given his concern with the FJH

293




hypothesis, S0rensen does not fit to his data the model that has served as, at all events, the regular starting-point for testing this hypothesis: that is, the CmSF model. Had he done so, he would have found that it returns a clearly lower bic (-19 1019) than his preferred model 4 or any other he considers.17 In sum, on the basis of data of quite inadequate quality, S0rensen rejects the FJH hypothesis in any version, whereas, according to a criterion of model choice that he regularly invokes, he should in fact accept it in its strictest form. Here, at least, two wrongs certainly do not make a right.

Turning now to the results presented by Hout and Hauser, we find a similar uncertainty, and one deriving from similar sources: that is, data of insufficient comparability and the use of bic. We have already underlined the unsuitability for comparative analyses of the CASMIN mobility tables in their twelve-class form; here, therefore, we focus chiefly on the latter problem.

The model that Hout and Hauser prefer for purposes of comparison with (what they take to be) the 'CASMIN model' (that is, their model 13) is one which provides for no cross-national variation in fluidity patterns. In other words, it too underwrites the FJH hypothesis stricto sensu. Moreover, when Hout and Hauser come to search for such variation by adding appropriate terms to model 13, as in their models 14 and 15, they find that, according to bic, which has hitherto guided their model choice, these latter models are inferior. 'If we relied upon bic as the criterion for including cross-national interactions' they write (p. 259), 'and wanted to improve the fit of model 13, we would not add any terms to the model.' But bic is their chosen criterion, as, for example, in their rejection of models with asymmetries. And what the foregoing curious sentence ought then to mean is that they do accept model 13 un- modified: a distinctly embarrassing position, to be sure, for analysts who regard the FJH- hypothesis as 'long obsolete' (p. 263). It is relevant here to point out that the bic statistic was introduced by Raftery precisely in order to provide 'a consistent model selection procedure' and 'an automatic way of making the often difficult and subjective trade-off between L2 and df which is inherent in the conventional

LRT model selection procedure.' (1986a: 146, our emphases). In other words, those who ride with bic are not free to get on and off at will.

However, Hout and Hauser follow the sentence quoted by telling us that because of their 'strong prior interest' in cross-national variation, they feel justified in deleting only the two weakest sets of cross-national interaction effects in models 14 and 15 so as to produce model 16, which allows for variation of a more limited kind. But, according to bic, model 16 still gives a poorer fit than model 13; and since the very point of bic is to avoid 'subjective' judgements in model choice, Hout and Hauser's interests, strong or otherwise, must be regarded as strictly irrelevant. If they are to be consistent, they are stuck with model 13, and in turn with the FJH hypothesis. Some stirrings of conscience do indeed arise, and it is acknowledged that 'model 13 is still preferable to model 16', and caution is urged in the interpretation of the parameters for cross- national variation included in model 16. None the less, Hout and Hauser proceed to discuss these parameters and to draw substantive conclusions from them. And it is of course at this juncture that our own reservations about results under model 16 would enter in: not regarding its inferior bic (we have no belief in bic or any other 'automatic' criterion of model choice) but regarding, rather, the extent to which the variation that Hout and Hauser claim to detect will derive simply from lack of comparability in the tables they analyse.18

Hout and Hauser's paper then ends in a notably inconclusive way. Despite having described the FJH hypothesis as 'long obsolete', they state (p. 263) that their results, from model 13, 'strengthen the case for basic similarity' in fluidity patterns-but almost immediately go on to add that the notion of basic similarity is not one on which they 'wish to lean too heavily'. Scientific caution in the face of a difficult issue is indeed very proper. But it is still pertinent to ask how far Hout and Hauser's difficulties here are of their own making. As Bishop Berkeley once remarked: 'First we have raised a dust, and then we complain we cannot see'.

In sum, we can, we believe, reasonably claim that our own results, clearly rejecting the FJH

294




hypothesis in its strict version but emphasizing still the extent of cross-national commonality in fluidity patterns and the nationally specific nature of much of the apparent variation, are more coherent than those of our critics and also have a more secure grounding in data and in modelling alike.

THE AMERICAN DREAM

In this final section of our paper we turn from responding to our critics to try to elaborate the conceptual presuppositions and related research programme from which, we believe, their critiques derive. We do so, we would stress, not with the idea of thus further undermining their arguments. Rather, our aims are to make more sense of the somewhat disparate, and often quite technical, issues on which they have chosen to concentrate, and to move attention on to what we would see as underlying questions of a more interesting, because more sociological, kind.

In a memorable paper, Duncan (1968: 675) expressed the view that the work of Cooley and Sorokin provided 'conceptual orientations' more suited to the study of 'specifically American social stratification' than did that of authors such as Weber, Veblen, or Marx. From Cooley and Sorokin, Duncan took an understanding of social stratification in which there were two key elements: first, a 'hierarchy of inequality', which could be most appropriately treated as one of occupational prestige or 'socio- economic' status; and, second, the movement of individuals within this hierarchy over time and especially between generations. The less there was of such mobility, the more 'stratified' a society was, and vice versa. In this perspective, then, research on mobility or immobility was to be essentially equated with research on stratification: rates of mobility or immobility constituted 'the stratification process'. Duncan, it should be noted, explicitly set this emphasis on process against what he saw as the current preoccupation in American sociology with structural features of stratification. Questions of 'the structure of differentiation' and, more specifically, of mobility in relation to class structure and class-based action were in fact

excluded from his range of concern (Duncan, 1968: 685, 694).

From this position, the programme of 'status attainment' research then naturally followed. The focus of interest shifted from mobility flows and propensities within a particular structural context (whether that of class or status groups), to the relative importance of achieved and ascribed characteristics in determining the placement of individuals within the 'hierarchy of inequality'; and, correspondingly, regression techniques took over from tabular analysis. In the course of time, however, the 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 that the same 'regression rules' governed attainment across all sections of national populations alike (cf. Bielby, 1981). Thus, an awareness of the advantages of a tabular approach returned, and was greatly strengthened as the emergence of log-linear modelling helped resolve many of the technical problems with which this approach had previously been encumbered.

It is, we believe, helpful to 'situate' our critics within this historical background. Hout and Hauser themselves must indeed be regarded as key actors, in particular through their efforts at reconciling and combining the traditions of status attainment research and mobility table analysis (e.g. Hauser, 1978; 1984a, Featherman and Hauser, 1978; Hout, 1984; 1989, Sobel et al., 1985). However, our argument is that, such efforts notwithstanding, the 'conceptual orientations' favoured by Duncan in 1968 are still those dominant among American sociologists currently engaged in the study of stratification; and further, that while Duncan himself adopted an explicitly 'exceptionalist' stance, a leading concern of these sociologists today is to take these orientations as the basis not only for American, but also for comparative inquiries.

More specifically, we would maintain that while the analysis of mobility tables is com- monly practised, it tends to be concentrated on one main issue: that of 'how destinations depend on origin': precisely the issue posed by Duncan in a later paper, suggesting models for such

295




tables that 'emphasize the "achievement" rather than the "mobility" point of view hitherto taken' (1979: 793).19 What is in fact pursued in tabular analysis is the representation of the dependence of destinations on origin through a limited number of parameters and ones that relate, as far as possible, to 'vertical' effects. In comparative work, these parameters then become the dependent variables of primary interest, and explanations for the variance they display cross-nationally (and also perhaps over time) can be sought in terms of independent variables pertaining to generalizable attributes of societies and thus capable of 'replacing the names of nations' according to the Przeworski- Teune proposal (cf. Grusky and Hauser, 1984).

This, then, is the 'American Dream' to which we refer: the possibility that the mobility regimes of modern societies can be parsimoniously modelled within a primarily hierarchical perspective, and that cross-national variation in the strength of the effects thus identified can in turn be accounted for via multi-variate analyses in which nations are the units. We do therefore appreciate that for those who share in this dream the 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 the results it has produced would suggest that this American Dream-just like the better-known one-may well remain a largely unfulfilled aspiration. Recognition of this clash of research programmes does, we believe, help make more intelligible than would otherwise be the case the particular pre- occupations that our critics display.

Most obviously, one can in this way appreciate their concern to re-establish some conception of hierarchy as the main dimension within which mobility is to be analysed. In the class structural perspective on mobility that we ourselves adopt, hierarchy need not be specially privileged. Class structures do of course have important hierarchical aspects, reflecting the differentiation of levels and kinds of resources among class positions. But at the same time much class mobility has to be recognized which is not usefully characterized in any 'vertical' sense, even though clearly consequential

socially-in entailing major changes in the relations in which individuals are involved- and perhaps politically also (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 30-5). However, to the extent that such a perspective is maintained, the relevance of the 'achievement point of view' is evidently undermined. And here, we would suggest, lies the source of Hout and Hauser's leading concern to argue that our core model underestimates hierarchy effects relative to others it comprises and, through their reanalysis of our data, to redress the balance in this respect. In turn, we would in this way also seek to understand their strange assumption that the criterion for validating the categories of our class schema should be prestige or status homogeneity and, further, what we earlier found most puzzling of all: their eagerness to base their reanalysis on the full version of the class schema, despite our repeated warnings of the unwisdom of such a procedure. By so doing, the effect of the prestige or status differentiation of classes in shaping fluidity patterns may be allowed to show up to a maximum extent, so that, as Hout and Hauser in fact put it, they can 'improve estimates of the size of hierarchical effects and cross-national differences'. Finally, we may note, Hout and Hauser's desire to reassert Duncan's 'achievement point of view' becomes most overt-and makes sense of what would otherwise seem much ado about nothing-in their lengthy discussion of the merits of the linear-by-linear as against the social distance specification of hierarchy effects. The former specification is preferred because it 'accords more closely with the prevalent con- ceptualization of stratification processes' (pp. 251-2, our emphasis) which, it has then to be understood (p. 253), is one focused not on the issue of how mobility decreases as the distance between categories increases but 'more fundamentally' on 'how destinations depend on origins' .20

Similarly, it may be pointed out that in S0rensen's analyses the central notion of 'class cleavages' is not used in the essentially relational sense of the theorists, such as Parkin, whom S0rensen invokes. It has in fact no other reference than to quite abstract 'distances' between classes derived from the propensities

296




for mobility among them. In other words, even while using language that might suggest a class structural perspective, S0rensen too is in effect seeking to reimpose the idea of a single 'hierarchy of inequality' by which fluidity patterns are crucially shaped. Other authors, also working with versions of Goodman's model II* and the same derived dimension as that of S0rensen's 'class cleavages', have indeed quite explicitly given this a hierarchical interpretation in terms of socio-economic status (see e.g. Hauser, 1984a; Ganzeboom et al., 1989); and it would at all events have been less misleading had S0rensen done likewise.

The second main way in which recognition of the discordance between the CASMIN project and the 'American Dream' can illuminate the reactions of our critics is in regard to modelling strategy. For us, as we have indicated, the aim was first of all to see if it were possible to identify the cross-national commonality in fluidity patterns implied by the FJH-hypothesis in its less strict form; and then, if so, to model national variations on the 'theme' thus defined, while leaving open, initially at least, the question of whether or not such variation might be treated as systematic. In other words, we had no prior commitment to the viability of the Przeworksi-Teune programme in comparative mobility research but emphasized, rather, the dangers of its premature adoption and the need for sensitivity to historical specificities and singularities (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 60-3). Such an approach-and the results that have in fact followed from it-are then scarcely congenial to the idea that it is on variation, rather than commonality, in fluidity patterns that macro-sociological interest should focus, and that this variation can, in its essentials, be both parsimoniously expressed and systematic- ally accounted for.

Hence, we would suggest, comes our critics' particular dislike of those features of our model of core fluidity that clearly do not make for parsimony: that is, its asymmetries and also the affinity terms that are intended to capture effects on mobility deriving from specific linkages or discontinuities between classes and operate thus to offset or to reinforce effects of a more generalized kind (Erikson and

Goldthorpe, 1992: 128). And in this way too we may then understand the concern of Hout and Hauser, in re-analysing our data, to 'simplify the model' (p. 240), and of S0rensen to reject the very idea of a core model in favour of seeking inductively to establish variation in fluidity in one dimension which 'hopefully ... will be systematic to a certain extent' (p. 278).

Finally from this standpoint, we may throw light on one further matter that could otherwise remain perplexing: that is, the predilection of our critics for the bic statistic as the criterion of model choice, despite, as we have seen, the embarrassment that it turns out to cause them. A difficulty long encountered by highly parsimonious models of mobility framed within a hierarchical perspective was that they failed to fit the data according to conventional standards (see further Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1989). In this situation, therefore, the introduction of bic (Raftery, 1986a, 1986b) came to devotees of such models as a kind of deliverance. On account of its rather 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 when by any other criteria they were far from reproducing the data to which they were applied. The attraction of bic to those pursuing the 'American Dream' is not therefore difficult to appreciate, and it was in fact rapidly accepted among them. However, what they appear not to have foreseen is that once their larger purposes were taken into account, bic would be likely to prove a dangerously two-edged instrument. Its bias in favour of parsimony means that it can indeed be readily used in attempts to 'simplify' models that aim to capture the more detailed aspects of fluidity patterns- as, for example, by Hout and Hauser when they seek to eliminate asymmetries from our core model. But the point then is that if bic is insensitive to the loss of fit that is thus brought about, it will likewise tend to be insensitive to that which results when, in comparative analyses, models embodying the FJH hypothesis stricto sensu are imposed, as Hout and Hauser find to their apparent discomfiture and as S0rensen manages to overlook. The message from bic, used as the means of a 'consistent

297




model selection procedure', would appear to be that cross-national variation in social fluidity, far from being the proper focus of macro- sociological attention, is best disregarded.21

We have not, we must stress, any wish to argue that the 'American Dream' should be abandoned. It represents a research programme that must be left to take its course; judgements as to whether it is progressive or degenerative in nature will be formed in the fullness of time. Here we have only two, concluding, observations to make. First, it appears to us that, so far at least, its proponents are working hard to find a world that fits their models; we would prefer to set our own efforts in the reverse, more modest, but perhaps ultimately more rewarding, direction. Secondly, we think that debate in the field of stratification and mobility research would be clarified and made more productive if those pursuing the 'American Dream' were to recognize that theirs is not the only research programme on offer, and that it is not in itself a fault for other investigators to have different interests and priorities and also, perhaps, different conceptions of what macro- sociology can and should aim to achieve.

NOTES

1. Correspondingly, we would see the tendency for kudos in the field to attach primarily to virtuosity in modelling, rather than to work on data, as one that creates an unfortunate incentive structure, and especially so far as younger sociologists are concerned.

2. The class labels, based on a combination of roman numerals and letters, enable changes introduced from the earliest seven-class version of the schema (Goldthorpe, 1980/1987) to be traced. A listing of the classes in the twelve-class version is given in the Appendix.

3. We are aware that the aggregation of classes may itself cause problems of comparability if the classes involved differ markedly in their relative sizes among nations (or over time). We were especially concerned with this problem with regard to farmers, which explains why we placed Class IVc + d at a lower hierarchical level as a class of origin than as a class of destination. We would certainly regard this procedure as a pis aller (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 46, 124), but it is still better than supposing a distinction-between farmers with and without employees-that simply does not exist in the data. As is evident from the documentation of the CASMIN IMS Superfile (Erikson et al., 1988) the

distinction between 'large' and 'small' farmers refers to employees in some nations but in others 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. Thus, for example, when they investigate the relative position of farmers among fathers and sons via association models (Figure 2), they impose a unidimensional structure on mobility propensities, and fail to recognize that the presence of a strong sector effect could well hide a 'vertical' shift (cf. our analogous criticism of S0rensen in the text above, p. 317). The strongest pragmatic argument for implementing a distinction at the twelve-class level, despite the loss of comparibility entailed, arises in fact with Classes I and II.

4. Japan could, however, have been included. Why Hout and Hauser did not attempt to use the full CASMIN data-set is unclear (as is their reason for eliminating the 20-24 age-group from all their analyses).

5. We are in this respect indebted to Gordon Marshall for making available to us the results of an exercise in which respondents to a recent British survey were coded to different versions of the class schema both via the GLT procedure and via our own algorithm based on OPCS codes. The discrepancies are substantial. Even at the level of the six-category version of the schema employed by S0rensen, 23 per cent of all respondents are differently allocated. We do, of course, appreciate the attractiveness of being able to implement the class schema in a systematic, cross-national way through the recoding of national to ISCO occupational categories; and we are also aware that some of the problems that arise with the initial GLT procedure can be overcome by the use of supplementary employment status codes. None the less, we still doubt that an adequate approximation to the class schema can be arrived at in this way, chiefly because the ISCO categories are, from our point of view, too loosely defined.

6. Note further that these other nations include six -Australia, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the USA-that were not even included in the original MDSCAL analysis.

7. We are grateful to Richard Breen and Ruud Luijkx for drawing our attention to the note in Sobel et al. (1985) to which we have referred, and also to the former not only for allowing himself to be persuaded that the note was mistaken but further for the following demonstration of why this is so. The ratio of two shift parameters is equal to the ratio of two expected frequencies multiplied by the inverse ratio of the corresponding cell interaction parameters, i.e.

aj = Fij X Iji ai Fji Iij

where F is the fitted cell value, a is the shift effect, and I is the cell interaction parameter for the ijth cell. The ratios among the fitted values are clearly invariant under alternative parameterizations, and if this is also

298




the case with the ratios among cell-interaction parameters (as in fact it is), then it must also be so with the ratios among shift parameters.

8. We have also fitted our core model to mobility tables derived from the 1979, 1983, and 1987 studies taken separately. In each case an excellent fit is again achieved, but with much smaller Ns (644, 1161, and 1207, respectively) we encounter similar problems in estimating parameters to those faced by Hout and Hauser. Even so, in only one instance does a (non- significant) parameter show the wrong sign, and in general effects do not differ widely from those estimated from the pooled data.

9. We are currently engaged in attempts at cross- validating our model in the case of other nations.

10. The question has to be raised why S0rensen did not choose to work wtih the same mobility tables that we have analysed, as we indeed suggested to him. He would have been restricted to 15 rather than 23 nations, but he would have avoided major problems of data quality and would then have been able to make valid comparisons between results deriving from his modelling approach and our own.

11. As before, we would seek to validate these divisions by reference to national and international scales of occupational prestige or socio-economic status. Thus, for example, on the new international scale of occupational status devised by Ganzeboom, De Graaf, and Treiman (1992), and used by Hout and Hauser, we estimate the average score of positions falling into our five divisions as being within the 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 that the affinity terms in our model have no clear theoretical rationale (cf. also Hout, 1989: 148). It is difficult to know how to respond to such charges when their authors refuse to take account of the rationale that is in fact provided (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1987a: 67-9; 1992: 128-30). Note that in the extended model we specify as separate effects (AF2, AF3, AF4) the three different kinds of (positive) affinity which we have distinguished but which in the original model were subsumed under a single term (AF2).

13. The same conclusion holds, it should be noted, if we estimate parameters for our twelve-class core model in the same way as we did for the original seven-class version: that is, by fitting it not to a set of actual national mobility tables, but rather to counterfactual tables showing what national tables would be like if our preferred empirical representation of core fluidity-the odds ratios under the model of common social fluidity fitted to the tables for the 'central' nations of England and France-were generally to prevail (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 131, 133-4). These results are available on request.

14. We would not wish to claim that our way of modelling hierarchical effects will always prove superior to a linear-by-linear specification. We would rather

underwrite the conclusion reached earlier by Hauser (1984b: 390) that 'variations in the functional form of the vertical term do not dramatically affect fit'.

15. In evaluating these results, we would again point out that the FJH-hypothesis deserves some charity in that any non-comparability remaining in our data will count against it and, further, in that our core model may not in fact be the best possible representation of the commonality in fluidity patterns that exists. We would in this respect agree with the observations made by Hout and Hauser, at least as regards the strength of the sector effect (cf. Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 174, n. 22).

16. The metric for the smallest-space analysis was provided by G2s for fits of fifteen log-linear models to the six- class Polish table, one for each pair of rows and columns. Each model proposes that independence of class of origin and of destination prevails in cells given a weight of I (rather than 0) within a weight matrix. In each case, cells receiving a weight of 0 are those not involving either the given row or column, or indicating mobility between them, or on the diagonal. Full details of the analysis are available on request, and will be included in a forthcoming paper intended to extend Erikson and Goldthorpe (1989) into a more comprehensive critique of the use of association models in mobility-table analysis.

17. We have difficulty in reproducing S0rensen's results exactly, but he would certainly also receive a lower bic for the CmSF model than for any of the models he suggests.

18. This applies especially to the differences in prestige and status effects estimated under model 16 and shown in Table 6, including the highly implausible results in the case of prestige, previously referred to.

19. This paper can in fact be regarded as signalling the start of the process through which exponents of the status-attainment approach have sought to take over the advantages offered by tabular analysis while, however, reorienting this to their particular pre- occupations.

20. As we have argued, the linear-by-linear specification may well be thought the more appropriate to Hout and Hauser's own concerns, but this gives them no grounds for claiming a general superiority for it. Indeed, the results we have reported in Table 2, above suggest (and it is by no means sociologically implausible) that hierarchy effects are not in fact linear; and this finding is corroborated by the more reliable results that we have previously presented (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 136-7 and n. 14).

21. Difficulties arising in an analogous way have been experienced by analysts using bic to legitimate the choice of models through which they then seek to claim trends towards increasing social fluidity over time (e.g. Hout, 1988; Ganzeboom et al., 1989). It has not proved difficult to propose other models im- plying constant fluidity which return a preferable bic (see Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992: 100-1, 325-6).

299




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to Axel van den Berg and Harry Ganzeboom for helpful comments on an earlier version of this 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 the measurement of trend' in Sheldon E B, Moore W E. (eds.), Indicators of Social Change, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 675-719.

(1979): 'How destination depends on origin in the occupational mobility table', American Sociological Review, 84: 793-801.

Erikson R, Goldthorpe J H. (1987a): 'Commonality and variation in social fluidity in industrial nations. Part I: A model for evaluating the "FJH hypothesis"', European Sociological Review, 3: 54-77.

- (1987b): 'Commonality and variation in social fluidity in industrial nations. Part II: The model of core social fluidity applied', European Sociological Review, 3: 145-66.

-- - (1989): 'Is social mobility best measured by association models?', ISA Research Committee on Social Stratification, Stanford.

- - (1992): The 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, Mannheim: Institut fur Sozialwissen- schaften, University of Mannheim.

Featherman D L, Hauser R M (1978): Opportunity and Change, New York: Academic Press. - Jones FL, Hauser R M. (1975): 'Assumptions of Social Mobility Research in the US: The case of occupational status', Social Science Research, 4: 329-60.

Ganzeboom H, de Graaf P, Treiman D J. (1992): 'An international scale of occupational status', Social Science Research, 21: 1-56.

-, Luijkx R, Treiman DJ. (1989): 'Intergenerational class mobility in comparative perspective', Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 8: 3-55.

Goldthorpe 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 Tradition soziologischer Forschung' in Strasser H, Goldthorpe J H. (eds.), Die Analyse Sozialer Ungleichheit, Opladen: Westdeutscher 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): 'A structural model of the 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: The American occupational structure in the 1980s', American Journal of Sociology, 93: 1358-1400.

(1989): Following in Father's Footsteps: Social Mobility in Ireland, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Konig W, Luttinger P, Muller W. (1987): 'A comparative analysis of the development and structure of educational systems-methodological foundations and the construction of a comparative educational scale', Mannheim: Casmin Working Paper no. 12.

Marshall G, Newby H, Rose D, Vogler C. (1988): Social Class in Modern Britain, London: Hutchinson.

Przeworski A, Teune H. (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley.

Raftery A E. (1986a): 'Choosing models for cross- classifications', American Sociological Review, 51: 145-6.

- (1986b): 'A note on Bayes factors for log-linear contingency table models with vague prior information', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 48: 249-50.

Sobel ME, Hout M, Duncan OD (1985): 'Exchange, structure and symmetry in occupational mobility', American Journal of Sociology, 91: 359-72.

AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

Robert Erikson, Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, S-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.

John H. Goldthorpe, Nuffield College Oxford, OX1 1NF, Great Britain.

300



EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 301

APPENDIX

Extended twelve-category CASMIN class schema I Higher service class II Lower service class IIIa Routine non-manual employees, higher grade IIIb Routine non-manual employees, lower grade IVa Small proprietors etc. with employees IVb Small proprietors etc. without employees IVc Farmers IVd Small-holders V Lower-grade technicians; 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 the 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



302 THE CASMIN PROJECT AND THE 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



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



304 THE CASMIN PROJECT AND THE 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




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



Date post:	28-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andrea-fur
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times

15. Erikson Goldthorpe

Documents