The Long Road from Periphery to Convergence: Social Mobility in Southern European Countries

Ildefonso Marqués-Perales, University of Seville Carlos J. Gil, University of Seville Manuel Herrera-Usagre, University of Seville José M. Echavarren, University of Pablo de Olavide, Seville

Presentation• Introduction. Common characteristics of

Southern European Countries (SEC). Hypothesis

First part. H1 and H2 Second part. H3 and H4

Data and Methods Results

Social Fluidity Models accross generations▪ Conclusions (H1 and H2)

Core Social Fluidity Model▪ Conclusions (H3 and H4)

Introduction

Common Characteristics of Southern European Countries welfare regimes (Castles y Obinger, 2008; Sotiropoulos, 2009): Familism (Jurado and Naldini, 1996). Particular pattern of economic modernization due to their

limited transition from agriculture to industrialization. Crisis of rural areas caused by their own depletion rather than

the attraction of a strong demand of industries. “Black market” larger due to Weak public institutions. The importance of Political Capital and Political clientelism

(Bourdieu, 2000). Twofold segmentation of Labour Market (Adam and Canziani,

1998):1. Equipped with a high protection level. Big firms and public sector.2. Subjected to great volatility and seasonality. Small agriculture,

construction, hospitality and touristic business.

Social Structure of SEC

The social structures of Southern European countries bear some differences from their neighbours.

Considerable size of the petty bourgeoisie (Leiulfsrud,

Bison, and Jensberg, 2005; Themelis, 2013) and a bigger agricultural sector.

Nonetheless, some areas of Northern Italy and Spain are to some extend quite industrialized but the technology investment of firms are limited though.

This has generated a “bipolar market”. Economic boom periods in which companies reach a large trading volume alternate with depressive periods in which a multitude of workers are fired.

Social Structure (II)

Educational Opportunities Southern European countries (including

Malta and Cyprus) have the lowest rates in Upper Secondary Education (ISCED-3 level).

Social origins have a significant impact on the educational attainment (Contini and Scagni, 2011; Themelis, 2013) even stronger than their central-european counterparts (Breen, 2004; Breen et al., 2009).

HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS.

H1. Invariance Hypothesis. - The relative rates have kept

constant over time (FJH) H2. Increase of social fluidity

hypothesis.- The relative rates have

experienced a growth over time (Lipset).

HYPOTHESIS.

H3. Convergence Hypothesis for Southern European Countries (SEC). The specific relation between social

classes fits adequately to the European Core Social Fluidity Model (CrSF).

H4. Specificness Social Mobility Pattern for Southern European Countries. Some adjustments for an appropiated fit

of the CrSF in SEC are needed.

DATA AND METHODS

The Extend of the Survey European Survey on Incomes and

Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2005, Eurostat.

Spain=14540; Italy=22289;Portugal=4910; Greece=5745.

Our survey covers three cohorts that accessed to work maturity between the end of the sixties and the beginnings of the current century.

Social Class Schema. EGP

EGP SCHEMA

TIME TRENDS (H1 and H2)

I+II Service class

III Routine non-manual class

IV Petty bourgeoisie (incluiding farmers)

V+VI Skilled workers

VII Unskilled workers (incluiding farm workers)

CrSF (H3 and H4)

I+II Service class

III Routine non-manual class

Ivab Petty bourgeoisie

Ivc Farmers

V+VI Skilled workers

VIIa Unskilled workers

VIIb Farm workers.

RESULTS (H1 and H2)

From the Old to the New Southern Europe: From the Output of the Dictatorships to the European Convergence Process.

Cohorts: Date of birth, work maturity and milestones.

First Cohort(1939-1950)

Work Maturity(1969-1980)

Authoritarian regimes"Third Wave" of

democratization.

Second Cohort(1951-62).

Work Maturity(1981-1992).

Integration in EUSocialist parties

"Il sorpaso"

Third Cohort(1963-1974)

Work Maturity(1993-2004).

Intense economic growth.

Unsconstrained Association Models(between tables)

1) INDEPENDENCE. Any relationship. 2) CONDITIONAL INDEPENDENCE. CO and

CD but not OD. Only time has an impact.

3) CONSTANT SOCIAL FLUIDITY. OD. Not OD or CD. No time influence only OD. Social mobility is constant.

4) UNIFORM DIFFERENCES. It is allowed to change the as sociation by cohort. (BxOD)

Constrained Association Models(Within tables)

5) ROW AND COLUM MODEL. Ordinal scalings. a) Heterogenous simple with free diagonals.- It is allowed to change the diagonals. The

diagonals may have a diferent trend (they usually behave in a different way)

b)Heterogeneous simple with equal diagonals.- Diagonals are the same as off-diagonals.

SPAIN AND ITALY

GREECE AND PORTUGAL

RESULTS I (MALES)

Two different conclusions seem to be found.

1. Excepting Portugal, where there was an improvement from the second to the third cohort, the relative rates of male social mobility have kept constant for the cohorts who were born in the period 1939-1974. (H1 confirmed)

RESULTS II (FEMALES)

2. For females, relative rates increased in all analyzed countries. Apart from Italy, where the increase of social fluidity is monotonic, the temporal trend towards an improvement of the distribution of opportunities occurs in women who have adquired the work maturity between 1993 y 2004. (H2 confirmed for women though)

Core Social FluidityResults

The fit of CrSF

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

Alta Media baja

Alta 2 2 1

Media 2 2 1

baja 1 1 1

High Mid Low

High 2 2 1

Mid 2 2 1

Low 1 1 1

= Perfect Fit: G2 < 40

Adjustments

Fathers

Sons

Topological Model: multi-matrix model of social fluidity. Differences in particular effects between classes: Dicotomic cell effects.

1. Desirability: “the relative desirability of different class positions, considered as destinations”;

2. Advantages: “the relative advantages affored to individuals by different class origins-in the form of economic, cultural, and social resources”;

3. Barriers: “the relative barriers that face individuals in gaining access to different class positions”.

CORE SOCIAL FLUIDITY MODEL (Erikson and Goldthorpe. 1992)

HIERARCHY INHERITANCE SECTOR AFFINITYPROPERTIES

Three strata relative differences in resources (origins) and accessibility (destinations). Social distances:

1. Upper stratum: I+II. 2. Middle stratum: IIIab, IVab and V+VI. 3. Lower stratum: VIIa, VIIb and IVc.

Greater propensity for individuals to be found in their class of origin than in any other.

Barriers between the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors of the economy.

Reinforces or offsets the overall effects of hierarchy and sector matrixs.

 MATRIXS HI1 (-) HI2 (-) IN1 (+) IN2 (+) IN3 (+)  SE (-) AF1 (-) AF2 (+)

EFFECTS Short range vertical movements (1 step).Hierarchical movement.

Long range vertical mobility (2 steps).

Inmobility across all classes (diagonal)

Higher inmobiliy in small owners and service classes.

Highest inmobility in farmers.

Reinforces the barriers of hierarchy: I+II and VIIb

Offsets he barriers to mobility (HI/SE).

COUNTRY N df p rG2 BIC DI X2 G2G2 (S) (2432)

CORE MODEL ORIGINAL

SPAIN 7657 28 0.00 93.4 -143.3 4.1 108.8 107.1 53.12

ITALY 11915 28 0.00 81.8 -16.7 5.2 253.9 246.1 72.51

GREECE 3155 28 0.00 83.8 -167.5 4.8 58 58.1 51.2

PORTUGAL 2432 28 0.00 89.4 -152.5 5.4 64.8 65.8 65.8

FRANCE 4861 28 0.00 91.6 -156.2 3.2 79.9 81.5 54.76SEC VERSION OF CORE

SPAIN 7657 27 0.00 95.6 -170 3.5 74.1 71.4 41.1

ITALY 11915 27 0.00 88.4 -97.2 4.2 161.2 156.2 53.37

GREECE 3155 27 0.18 90.5 -183.7 3.2 33.5 33.9 32.31

PORTUGAL 2432 27 0.07 93.6 -170.7 4.3 38.5 39.8 39.8

Fitting SEC to the Core Model:

AF1 I+II IIIab IVab IVc VI+VI VIIa VIIbI+II 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

IIIab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IVab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IVc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VI+VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VIIa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VIIb 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

AFX I+II IIIab IVab IVc VI+VI VIIa VIIbI+II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IIIab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IVab 0 0 0 1 0 0 0IVc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VI+VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VIIa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VIIb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AF1 (1-5): Barrier in downward mobility from service class to skilled workers

AFX (3-4): Additional Fluidity from petty bourgeoisie to small farmers

SEC Version of Core Model: Fitted common parameters

Fitted Core Model Class of destination

Class of origin I+II IIIab IVab IVc V+VI VIIa VIIbI+II IN1+IN2 HI1+AF2 HI1+AF2 HI1+SE HI1+AF1 HI1+HI2 HI1+HI2+SE+AF1

IIIab HI1+AF2 IN1 SE HI1 HI1+SE

IVab HI1+AF2 IN1+IN2 SE+AF2+AFX HI1 HI1+SE

IVc HI1+HI2+SE HI1+SE HI1+SE+AF2 HI1+IN1+IN2+IN3 HI1+SE SE+AF2

V+VI HI1 SE IN1 HI1+AF2 HI1+SE

VIIa HI1+HI2 HI1 HI1 HI1+SE HI1+AF2 IN1 SE

VIIb HI1+HI2+SE+AF1 HI1+SE HI1+SE HI1 HI1+SE SE+AF2 IN1

H3 and H4 Conclusions

SEC model regime hihglighsts.

Italy has the worst fit however the adjustement is close to SEC model. Deeper industrialization and earlierdemocratisation. The Italian welfate state is a corporist one and as a Germany

(Esping-Andersen. 1990) the social fluidity is far from the core model.

Remarkable effects of hierarchy, inheritance, non-afinity and positive afinitive. Big gap between white and blue collar workers (Class closure). Paramount importance of agricultural sector. Lack of fluidity

between nonagricultural and agricultural classes. High fluidity between the petty bourgeoisie and farmers due to

the spread of small shops in rural areas.

Future research

We can explore a mixed hypothesis according to the dissimilarities between gender.

The test of H3 and H4 for women is needed to be made. We have some indication of a significant lower fit for women that we must to confirm with further research.

Thank you very much for your attention

You can find this presentation at: www.slideshare.net/herrerausagre

How to cite this communication: Marqués-Perales, I., Gil, C. J., Herrera-

Usagre, M., Echavarren, J.M. 2013. “The Long Road from Periphery to Convergence: Social Mobility in Southern European Countries”. 11th ESA Conference, Torino, 28-31 August.

H1 H2 IN1 IN2 IN3 SE AF1 AF2 AFX

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

SPAIN ITALY GREECE PORTUGAL

H1 H2 IN1 IN2 IN3 SE AF1 AF2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

SPAIN ITALY GREECE PORTUGAL FRANCE

CORE MODEL ORIGINAL (CrSF)

MEDITERRANEAN VERSION OF CORE