Transcript Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in Britain Since 1851 Jason Long Department of Economics Colby College September 2007

Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in
Britain Since 1851
Jason Long
Department of Economics
Colby College
September 2007
Social Mobility in 19th Century Britain
Why Does Mobility Matter?
Fundamental to our understanding of economic equality and
“fairness” of society.
•
Importance of Distribution is obvious, and well-studied –
income, earnings, wealth, etc.
•
But Mobility informs our understanding of a given distribution:
two societies with identical earnings distributions but different
mobility regimes are not equally equal (Stokey, 1996).
Distribution → Equality of Outcome
Mobility
→ Equality of Opportunity
2
Equality in 19th Century Britain
Wage and Wealth Distribution
Subject of economic inequality and “Kuznets hypothesis” has
received much attention:
• Williamson (1980, 1982, 1985): Pay ratios show Kuznets curve
– stability from late 18thc until early 19th, rising inequality until
mid-century, leveling up to WWI
• Feinstein (1988): No trend during 19th century
• Lindert (1986, 2000, 2002): Real inequality increased earlier
than previously thought, from 1740 – 1810. Wealth inequality
greater before 1914 than since 1950.
3
Equality in 19th Century England
Social Mobility
Major work is Miles, Social Mobility in 19th and Early 20th Century
England (1999). Also Mitch (1993) and Miles (1993).
• 68% of sons in same occupational class as father from 1839-54,
falling to 53% by 1899-1914.
• “In terms of its inhabitants’ relative life chances, [Victorian and
Edwardian England was] a profoundly unequal society.”
20th Century Results:
• Goldthorpe (1980): 51% in 1972 in same class as father
58% in same class as first full-time job
Mobility trendless in 20th century: “Constant social fluidity”
• Baines, Johnson (1999): Higher working class mobility (50%) in
interwar London than in England from 1899-1914 (40%)
• Dearden et al (1997): Father/Son earnings elasticity between
0.4 and 0.6
4
Studying Mobility in 19th Century England
Marriage Registry Data
• All previous studies have relied on data from marriage registries.
• 1836 Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Act: church
registers must record occupation of bride, groom, and parents
• Advantages:(1) Unique in recording fathers’, sons’ occupations
(2) Signitures provide proxy for literacy
• Disadvantages
◦ Excludes non-marrying population (10% of 45-year old males)
◦ Includes only Anglican ceremonies (by 1914, over 40% of
marriages were non-Anglican)
◦ “Snapshot problem”: Father and son at point in time 
Does not control for stage of life cycle
◦ Cannot observe intra-generational mobility at all
5
Research Questions
1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenthcentury Britain?
How does controlling for life-cycle effects change what we know about
mobility?
2. How prevalent was intra-generational mobility?
How does it compare to mobility across generations?
3. How does mobility in nineteenth-century Britain compare with other
countries then and with Britain in the twentieth century?
What is the long-run trend in mobility?
6
Studying Mobility in the 19th Century
Linked Census Data
2% Sample of 1851 Census
168,130 men in England and Wales
+
Complete-Count 1881 Census
All 12,640,000 men in the census
Match Criteria:
•Name (phonetic)
•Year of birth
•County of birth
•Parish of birth
28,474 men in 1851 and 1881
• 16,829 sons in 1851
• 9,477 HH heads in 1851
20,269 sons in 1881
+
Complete-Count 1901 Census
8,677 sons in 1901
7
Example: William, William, and David Phillips
1851: Eastergate parish, Sussex, England
Last
County Parish
First Name Name
Sussex Eastergate William
Phillips
Sussex Eastergate Martha
Phillips
Sussex Eastergate William
Phillips
Sussex Eastergate Mary
Phillips
Sussex Eastergate Richard
Rewell
Marital
Relation Status
Head
M
Wife
M
Son
U
Daur
U
Lodger W
Sex Age
M
42
F
37
M
17
F
13
M
85
Birth
County
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Birth
Parish
Chichester
Walberton
Walberton
West Hampnet
Walberton
Occupation
Sex Age
Blacksmith
M
47
Blacksmith wife F
45
Bricklayers lab
M
15
Scholar
M
8
M 10m
Birth
County
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Birth
Parish
Walberton
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Birth
County
Sussex
Hull
Sussex
Sussex
Birth
Parish
Arundel
Yorkshire
Arundel
Brighton
Occupation
Ag Labourer
Ag Labourer
Scholar
Ag Labourer
1881: Arundel parish, Sussex, England
County
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Parish
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Last
First Name Name
William
Phillips
Jane
Phillips
George
Phillips
David
Phillips
Thomas
Phillips
Marital
Relation Status
Head
M
Wife
M
Son
U
Son
U
Son
U
1901: Arundel parish, Sussex, England
County
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Parish
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Arundel
Last
First Name Name
David
Phillips
Emily
Phillips
Patricia
Phillips
Selina
Bolton
Marital
Relation Status Occupation
Head
M
Gen Labourer
Wife
M
Daur
U
Visitor U
-
Sex Age
M
28
F
21
F
8
F
4
8
Linked Data: Three Generations, 1851 – 1901
End result: 54,218 males covering three generations from 1851 to 1901
• Inter-generational mobility, 1851–1881
◦ 12,647 father/son pairs where son < 20 years old in 1851
◦ Average age of father in 1851 = 41.5 years
◦ Average age of son in 1881 = 38.0 years
• Intra-generational mobility, 1851–1881
◦ 7,790 males aged 20-35 in 1851, 50-65 in 1881
• Inter-generational mobility, 1881–1901
◦ 4,071 father/son pairs where son between 10-19 years old in 1881
◦ Average age of father in 1881 = 46.7 years
◦ Average age of son in 1901 = 33.9 years
• Mobility over three generations, 1851–1881–1901
◦
◦
◦
◦
5,763 grandfather/father/son sets
Average age of grandfather in 1851 = 45.8 years
Average age of father in 1881 = 45.3 years
Average age of son in 1901 = 32.1 years
9
Inter-generational Social Mobility, 1851-1881
Sons aged 0-19 in 1851, 30-49 in 1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class,
I
II
III
IV
V
1881
I: Prof
35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 0.7% 0.7%
II: Int
24.7
36.2
11.5
6.6
7.8
III: Skilled
31.9
44.3
67.5
37.7
55.9
IV: Semi-S
2.3
8.4
7.7
37.6
15.0
V: Unskilled
6.1
5.4
10.7
17.4
20.7
Total
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total
3.1%
13.9
54.5
16.0
12.5
100%
MOBILITY:
Total:
50.11%
Up:
26.78%
Down:
23.33%
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class,
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
Total
Percent
I
II
III
IV
92
110
157
24
65
692
690
215
84
848 4,056 1,220
6
160
463 1,216
16
103
643
563
263 1,913 6,009 3,238
2.1% 15.1% 47.5% 25.6%
V
Total
Pct.
8
391
95 1,757
684 6,892
184 2,029
253 1,578
1,224 12,647
9.7% 100%
3.1%
13.9%
54.5%
16.0%
12.5%
100%
10
Social Mobility 1851-1881
Intra- and Inter-Generational Mobility
Own Class, 1851
Own Class,
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
64.5% 10.1% 2.0%
16.7
46.8
13.1
14.5
33.4
66.9
0.5
5.5
8.2
3.8
4.2
9.8
186
713 3,962
IV
V
0.8% 1.5%
11.4
9.8
24.0
39.6
48.7
19.5
15.1
29.6
2,206
723
Total
3.9%
15.5
47.9
20.3
12.5
7,790
MOBILITY:
Total:
43.59%
Up:
25.38%
Down: 18.22%
11
Social Mobility 1851-1881
Intra- and Inter-Generational Mobility
Own Class, 1851
Own Class,
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
64.5% 10.1% 2.0%
16.7
46.8
13.1
14.5
33.4
66.9
0.5
5.5
8.2
3.8
4.2
9.8
186
713 3,962
IV
V
0.8% 1.5%
11.4
9.8
24.0
39.6
48.7
19.5
15.1
29.6
2,206
723
Total
3.9%
15.5
47.9
20.3
12.5
7,790
MOBILITY:
Total:
43.59%
Up:
25.38%
Down: 18.22%
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class,
I
II
III
IV
V
1881
I: Prof
35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 0.7% 0.7%
II: Int
24.7
36.2
11.5
6.6
7.8
III: Skilled
31.9
44.3
67.5
37.7
55.9
IV: Semi-S
2.3
8.4
7.7
37.6
15.0
V: Unskilled
6.1
5.4
10.7
17.4
20.7
N
263 1,913 6,009 3,238 1,224
Total
3.1%
13.9
54.5
16.0
12.5
12,647
MOBILITY:
Total:
50.11%
Up:
26.78%
Down: 23.33%
12
Intergenerational Mobility: Controlling for Life Cycle Effects
Linked Census Data vs Marriage Registry Data
TABLE P : LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1851-1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
V
Total
35.0%
5.8%
2.6%
1.5%
0.6%
3.1%
24.7
36.2
11.5
8.8
6.3
13.8
31.9
44.1
67.6
51.8
40.8
54.4
1.9
3.8
4.7
22.6
8.4
6.7
6.5
10.1
13.6
15.4
43.9
22.0
263
1,910
5,980
753
3,741 12,647
MOBILITY:
Total:
47.54%
Up:
27.82%
Down: 19.71%
TABLE Q : MARRIAGE REGISTRIES, 1859-1874
Father's Class at Date of Son's Marriage
Son's Class
at Marriage
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
V
53.5%
3.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
30.2
52.9
6.4
5.1
2.6
7.0
23.2
75.2
33.1
19.8
4.7
10.5
8.1
46.7
12.2
4.7
9.8
9.9
14.7
65.5
43
410
1,034
272
724
Total
1.7%
13.3
44.7
13.9
26.5
2,483
MOBILITY:
Total:
34.80%
Up:
17.72%
Down: 17.08%
Source: Miles (1999)
13
Comparing Mobility Across Tables
Need a single metric that
•
•
summarizes difference in mobility across two tables
is not affected by differences in occupation structure across tables
•
can be tested for statistical significance
Altham (1970): For two r  s tables,
 r s r s
 pijplmpimplj 

d ( P, Q)   log 

 i 1 j 1 l 1 m1  pimpljqijqlm 
2
1/ 2



measures how far the association between rows and columns in table P departs
from the association between rows and columns in table Q.
A simple likelihood-ratio 2 statistic G2 tests whether the matrix  with elements
θij=log(pij /qij) is independent
If d(P,Q) > 0 and d(P,I) > d(Q,I), greater mobility in Q (mobility is closer in Q than
in P to what we would observe under independence of rows and columns.)
14
Intergenerational Mobility: Controlling for Life Cycle Effects
Linked Census Data vs Marriage Registry Data
TABLE P : LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1851-1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
MOBILITY:
Total:
I
II
III
IV
V
Total
35.0%
5.8%
2.6%
1.5%
0.6%
3.1%
24.7
36.2
11.5
8.8
6.3
13.8
31.9
44.1
67.6
51.8
40.8
54.4
1.9
3.8
4.7
22.6
8.4
6.7
6.5
10.1
13.6
15.4
43.9
22.0
263
1,910
5,980
753
3,741 12,647
TABLE Q : MARRIAGE REGISTRIES, 1859-1874
Father's Class at Date of Son's Marriage
Son's Class
at Marriage
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
V
53.5%
3.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
30.2
52.9
6.4
5.1
2.6
7.0
23.2
75.2
33.1
19.8
4.7
10.5
8.1
46.7
12.2
4.7
9.8
9.9
14.7
65.5
43
410
1,034
272
724
Source: Miles (1999)
Total
1.7%
13.3
44.7
13.9
26.5
2,483
47.54%
ALTHAM TESTS:
d(P,I)
46.26
G2
2885.98
prob [d(P,I)=0]
d(Q,I)
0
62.56
G2
1680.94
prob [d(Q,I)=0]
d(P,Q)
0
26.26
G2
267.17
prob [d(P,Q)=0]
0
MOBILITY:
Total:
34.80%
15
Research Questions
1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenthcentury Britain, controlling for life cycle?
Higher than previously believed:
Total mobility
= 48% versus 35%,
Upward mobility = 28% versus 18%
2. How prevalent was intra-generational mobility?
Mobility within work-life was common: 44% changed class
from 20s to 50s, 25% of them moving up
3. How does mobility in nineteenth-century Britain compare with other
countries then and with Britain in the twentieth century?
What is the long-run trend in mobility?
16
Intergenerational Mobility from 1851 to the Present
Linked Census Data vs Oxford Mobility Study (1972)
TABLE P : LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1851-1881
Males Aged 30-49 in 1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
V
35.0%
5.8%
2.6%
0.7%
0.7%
24.7
36.2
11.5
6.6
7.8
31.9
44.3
67.5
37.7
55.9
2.3
8.4
7.7
37.6
15.0
6.1
5.4
10.7
17.4
20.7
263
1,913
6,009
3,238
1,224
Total
3.1%
13.9
54.5
16.0
12.5
12,647
MOBILITY:
Total
7.0%
26.3
48.1
15.3
3.3
3,460
MOBILITY:
TABLE Q : OXFORD MOBILITY STUDY DATA, 1972
Males Aged 30-49 in 1972
Father's Class when Son Age 14
Son's Class
1972
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
32.4%
9.2%
6.2%
3.3%
40.0
41.4
23.6
16.4
22.9
35.9
52.2
55.8
4.8
11.0
14.7
21.5
0.0
2.6
3.3
3.1
105
839
1,723
550
V
2.1%
10.3
55.1
24.3
8.2
243
Total:
50.11%
Up:
26.78%
Down:
23.33%
Total:
59.02%
Up:
35.52%
Down:
23.50%
17
Intergenerational Mobility from 1851 to the Present
Linked Census Data vs Oxford Mobility Study (1972)
TABLE P : LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1851-1881
Males Aged 30-49 in 1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
I
II
III
IV
V
35.0%
5.8%
2.6%
0.7%
0.7%
24.7
36.2
11.5
6.6
7.8
31.9
44.3
67.5
37.7
55.9
2.3
8.4
7.7
37.6
15.0
6.1
5.4
10.7
17.4
20.7
263
1,913
6,009
3,238
1,224
MOBILITY:
Total:
Total
3.1%
13.9
54.5
16.0
12.5
12,647
I
II
III
IV
32.4%
9.2%
6.2%
3.3%
40.0
41.4
23.6
16.4
22.9
35.9
52.2
55.8
4.8
11.0
14.7
21.5
0.0
2.6
3.3
3.1
105
839
1,723
550
V
2.1%
10.3
55.1
24.3
8.2
243
ALTHAM TESTS:
48.15
d(P,I)
G2
2943.77
0
prob [d(P,I)=0]
33.26
d(Q,I)
G2
TABLE Q : OXFORD MOBILITY STUDY DATA, 1972
Males Aged 30-49 in 1972
Father's Class when Son Age 14
Son's Class
1972
I: Prof
II: Int
III: Skilled
IV: Semi-S
V: Unskilled
N
50.11%
337.23
0
prob [d(Q,I)=0]
21.16
d(P,Q)
Total
7.0%
26.3
48.1
15.3
3.3
3,460
G2
247.37
prob [d(P,Q)=0]
0
MOBILITY:
Total:
59.02%
18
Cross-Country Comparison
Intergenerational Mobility in Britain and the U.S., 1850-1881
From Long and Ferrie (2006)
Parallel linked census data set for the U.S.
• 9,497 males linked from 1850 to 1880 Federal Population
Census
• Same technique: nominal linkage (w/ phonetic variation and age
tolerance)
• More rudimentary, unordered occupational classification
scheme necessary:
◦ White Collar
◦ Farmer
◦ Skilled and Semiskilled
◦ Unskilled
• Two data sets explicitly constructed to be compatible
19
Inter-Generational Mobility in Britain and the U.S., 1850-1881
Parallel Linked Census Data, Long and Ferrie (2006)
TABLE P : BRITAIN, 1851-1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
W
F
S/SS
U
Total
Wht Collar 36.6% 11.1% 13.9% 5.4% 13.8%
Farmer
2.9
40.9
2.4
2.3
5.9
Skilled/SemiS 51.6
32.6
69.6
45.6
57.6
Unskilled
8.8
15.4
14.1
46.7
22.7
N
339
279
1,607
857
143
Source: Long and Ferrie (2006)
1,370
363
129
Total:
42.99%
Up:
53.33%
Down:
13.48%
3,082
TABLE Q : U.S. LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1850-1880
Father's Class, 1850
Son's Class
1880
W
F
S/SS
U
Total
Wht Collar 38.5% 12.9% 22.6% 23.3% 17.2%
Farmer
30.8
62.0
25.3
27.1
50.9
Skilled/SemiS 23.1
15.6
45.7
31.0
22.6
Unskilled
7.7
9.4
6.3
18.6
9.3
N
MOBILITY:
MOBILITY:
Total:
45.39%
Up:
81.40%
Down:
8.69%
2,005
20
Inter-Generational Mobility in Britain and the U.S., 1850-1881
Parallel Linked Census Data
TABLE P : BRITAIN, 1851-1881
Father's Class, 1851
Son's Class
1881
W
F
S/SS
U
Total
Wht Collar 36.6% 11.1% 13.9% 5.4% 13.8%
Farmer
2.9
40.9
2.4
2.3
5.9
Skilled/SemiS 51.6
32.6
69.6
45.6
57.6
Unskilled
8.8
15.4
14.1
46.7
22.7
N
339
279
1,607
857
3,082
TABLE Q : U.S. LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1850-1880
Father's Class, 1850
Son's Class
1880
W
F
S/SS
U
Total
Wht Collar 38.5% 12.9% 22.6% 23.3% 17.2%
Farmer
30.8
62.0
25.3
27.1
50.9
Skilled/SemiS 23.1
15.6
45.7
31.0
22.6
Unskilled
7.7
9.4
6.3
18.6
9.3
N
143
Source: Long and Ferrie (2006)
1,370
363
129
2,005
MOBILITY:
Total:
42.99%
ALTHAM TESTS:
d(P,I)
23.70
G2
836.60
prob [d(P,I)=0]
0
d(Q,I)
11.90
G2
287.20
prob [d(Q,I)=0]
0
d(P,Q)
14.40
G2
108.90
prob [d(P,Q)=0] 0
MOBILITY:
Total:
45.39%
21
Mobility Trends in Britain and the U.S. since 1850
Degree of Association between Fathers’ and Sons’ Occupations
60
50
d(P,I)
40
Britain
U.S.
30
20
10
0
1880
1900
Year
1970
22
Research Questions
1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenthcentury Britain, controlling for life cycle?
2. How prevalent was intra-generational mobility?
3. How does mobility in nineteenth-century Britain compare with other
countries then and with Britain in the twentieth century?
•
•
Britain became more mobile from 1880 to 1970
Contrasts with Erickson and Goldthorpe’s finding of “constant flux”
for many countries since WWII
•
Consistent with Miles finding of upward trend from 1839 to 1914
•
•
Britain significantly less mobile in 19th century than U.S.
But, trends moving in opposite directions: mobility in the U.S. has
declined dramatically since the 19th century.
23
Comparing Mobility in Two Economies
Simple two-generation human capital model – Solon (1999, 2004),
Becker and Tomes (1979, 1986) – implies that the intergenerational
transmission of earnings will be greater (i.e. that mobility will be
lower) when
• Heritability of “intrinsic” human capital is greater
• Human capital investment is more productive
• Earnings return to human capital is greater
• Public investment in children’s human capital is less progressive
24
The (Belated) Rise of Schooling in England
• Education Act of 1870 establishes school boards; mandatory,
government-funded primary education
• Education Act of 1880: Set minimum leaving age to 10, heavily
restricted to 13
• Leaving age periodically raised thereafter, to age 14 by 1900
England
France
U.S.
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Percentage of School-Age Population
1850
1870
1890
n.a.
16.8%
38.5%
35.1%
46.7
56.7
47.2
48.4
54.3
1910
54.2%
58.8
59.2
Note : "School-Age" is 5-19 for England and France, 5-20 for the U.S.
Sources : England and France: Crafts (1984, Tables 2 and 3)
U.S.: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (Series Bc438).
25
More Questions
• What explains differences in mobility over time and across countries?
Which factors were most important in increasing mobility in Britain
since 1850 and in decreasing mobility in the U.S. over that same
period?
• Importance of education: The Scottish experience. Was opportunity
truly greater? “Lad of parts”: reality or “self-congratulatory myth”?
Newly available Scottish census data will allow construction of similar
data set.
• Micro-level analysis of determinants of mobility
◦ Childhood investments in human capital:
Schooling, Birth order, Family size, Mother’s labor market status,
Servant(s) in household
◦ Geographic mobility
26