Advertisement

Quality and Quantity

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 31–47 | Cite as

Alternative conceptual frameworks for the analysis of mobility tables and the log-linear models

  • Antonio Cobalti
Article

Abstract

This article contrasts two alternative conceptual frameworks for the analysis of mobility tables: the “structure vs. circulation” framework that in the past inspired the construction of “pure” mobility indices, and the “absolute vs. relative mobility” one, more recently proposed by Goldthorpe.

Contrary to the beliefs of the past, the former cannot conveniently be expressed by the parameters of the saturated log-linear model. The latter, on the contrary, permits (via the language of odds and odds ratios) the coherent application of log-linear models. Moreover, it does not incur those theoretical difficulties which even the most sophisticated attempts to save the old framework incur (e.g. Sobel et al., 1985).

In the third section of the article a contribution to the understanding of the analysis of mobility tables through odds ratios is given and the relation between odds ratios and the interaction parameters of the saturated model is shown.

Keywords

Conceptual Framework Interaction Parameter Saturated Model Relative Mobility Mobility Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bertaux, D. (1969). “Sur l'analyse des tables de mobilité sociale”, Revue francaise de sociologie, X: 448–490.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S.E. & Holland, P.W. (1975). Discrete Multivariate Analysis. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boudon, R. (1973). Mathematical Structures of Social Mobility. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, P.M. & Duncan, O.D. (1967). The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Breen, R. (1985). “A framework for comparative analysis of social mobility”. Sociology 19: 93–107.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, R. (1975). Conflict Sociology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, R. (1986). “Statistics versus words”, pp. 329–362, in R.Collins (ed.). Sociological Theory, New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan, O.D. (1966). “Methodological issues in the analysis of social mobility”, pp. 51–97. in N.J.Smelser & S.M.Lipset (eds.), Social Structure and Social Mobility in Economic Development, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Featherman, D.L. & Hauser, R.M. (1978). Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Featherman, D.L., Jones, F.L. & Hauser, R.M. (1975). “Assumptions of social mobility research in the U.S.: The case of occupational status”, Social Science Research 4: 329–60.Google Scholar
  11. Goldthorpe, J.H. (in collaboration with C. Llewellyn and C. Payne). (1980). Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, L. (1969). “How to ransack social mobility tables and other kinds of cross classification tables”, American Journal of Sociology 75: 1–40.Google Scholar
  13. Goodman, L. (1979). “Multiplicative models for the analysis of occupational mobility tables and other kinds of cross classification tables”, American Journal of Sociology 84: 804–819.Google Scholar
  14. Hauser, R.M., Koffel, J.N., Travis, H.P. & Dickinson, P.J. (1975). “Temporal change in occupational mobility: evidence for men in the United States”, American Sociological Review 40: 279–97.Google Scholar
  15. Hope, K. (1975). Trends in the openness of British society in the present century”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 1981, Vol. 1: 127–70.Google Scholar
  16. Hope, K. (1982). “Vertical and nonvertical class mobility in three countries”, American Sociological Review 47: 99–113.Google Scholar
  17. Hutchinson, B. (1958). “Structural and exchange mobility in the assimilation of immigrants to Brazil”, Population Studies 12 (2): 111–20.Google Scholar
  18. Knoke, D. & Burke, P.J. (1980). Log-linear Models. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Krauze, T.K. & Slomczynski, K.M. (1986). “Matrix representation of structural and circulation mobility”, Sociological Methods & Research 14 (3): 247–69.Google Scholar
  20. McRoberts, H.A. & Selbee, K. (1981). “Trends in occupational mobility in Canada and the United States: a comparison”, American Sociological Review 46: 406–21.Google Scholar
  21. Noble, T. (1979). “In pursuit of pure mobility” Sociology 13: 473–95.Google Scholar
  22. Persson, G. (1977). “Pure mobility and pure exchange mobility”, Quality & Quantity 11: 73–82.Google Scholar
  23. Peschar, J.L., Popping, R. & Robert, P. (1986). “Social mobility in Hungary and the Netherlands: consistencies and inconsistencies”, Paper presented at the Meeting ofthe Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility, Rome, April 3–5, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. Simkus, A.A. (1981). “Historical changes in occupation inheritance under socialism: Hungary 1930–73”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 1981, Vol. 1: 171–203.Google Scholar
  25. Simkus, A.A. (1984). “Structural transformations and social mobility: Hungary 1938–1973”, American Sociological Review 49: 291–307.Google Scholar
  26. Sobel, M.E. (1983). “Structural mobility, circulation mobility and the analysis of occupational mobility: a conceptual mismatch”, American Sociological Review 48: 721–727.Google Scholar
  27. Sobel, M.E., Hout, M. & Duncan, O.D. (1985). “Exchange, structure, and symmetry in occupational mobility”, American Journal of Sociology 91: 359–372.Google Scholar
  28. Tyree, A., Semyonov, M. & Hodge, R.W. (1979). “Gaps and glissandoes: inequality, economic development and social mobility in 24 countries”, American Sociological Review 4: 410–24.Google Scholar
  29. Upton, J.G. (1978). The Analysis of Cross-Tabulated Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Wanner, R.A. (1986). “Structural and exchange mobility in Canada and the United States: a comparison”, Paper presented at the Meeting of the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility, Rome, April 3–5, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Cobalti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations