Erikson, Robert

Goldthorpe, John H.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI) 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Stockholm University 
 
________________________________________________________________________ 
 
WORKING PAPER 13/2007 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MCINTOSH AND MUNK’S SUPPOSED TEST OF THE VALIDITY 
OF THE E-G CLASS SCHEMA:  
A COMMENT 
 
 
 
by 
 
 
 
Robert Erikson and John H. Goldthorpe  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
McIntosh and Munk’s Supposed Test of the Validity of the E-G Class Schema: 
A Comment 
Robert Erikson and John H. Goldthorpe   2 
 
McIntosh and Munk (forthcoming) claim that the class schema that we have 
developed (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992) lacks validity and should not be taken as a 
basis for studies of intergenerational social mobility. Their paper is founded on a 
serious - and surprising - misconception of why the schema is in fact used by 
sociologists in mobility research and, for this reason, their test of its validity is 
essentially misdirected. Moreover, the test itself is so ineptly carried out as to be in 
any event of little value. We restrict ourselves to making the three following points. 
 
1. McIntosh and Munk (M&M) correctly recognise that the class schema aims to 
make operational the idea that class positions are defined by employment relations 
and more specifically, in the case of employees, by the differing forms of their 
employment contracts (see further Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992 Goldthorpe 2007, 
vol. 2, ch. 5). But they then quite mistake the aim of analyses of intergenerational 
social mobility - our own and those of others - that apply the class schema. The aim 
is, they believe, to demonstrate that it is factors directly associated with individuals’ 
class positions that determine their mobility or immobility - to the neglect of such 
other factors as individuals’ ability, education, skills or motivation. Thus, they write 
(pp. 13-14, our emphasis), ‘…when we ask what actually determines the type of 
employment contract an individual is likely to obtain when he or she enters the labour 
market … Erikson and Goldthorpe tell us that this depends only on the type of labour 
contract that the individual’s father had.’  We claim nothing of the kind. And we note 
that M&M fail to back this (mis)representation of our position with any specific 
reference to our work. Our own and other sociologists’ concern with intergenerational 
class mobility is primarily motivated by the fact that class - and in particular as   3 
measured by our schema - has been shown to have a substantial association with a 
wide range of individuals’ life-chances: for example, in regard to economic insecurity 
(risk of unemployment) and economic prospects (Elias and McKnight 2003; 
Goldthorpe and McKnight 2006; Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007), mortality (Erikson 
2006; White et al. 2007) and children’s educational attainment (Breen et al. 2007; 
Jackson et al. 2007). Interest thus in turn arises over the degree of intergenerational 
continuity or discontinuity that exists among individuals in the class positions that 
they hold, and over whether this continuity is changing over time or differs across 
societies. However, once empirical regularities in these respects have been 
established, the focus of attention moves on to the various processes through which 
class immobility or mobility is generated; and, at this stage, the mediating roles of 
ability, education etc. are given full recognition. We find it remarkable that M&M 
should at one point refer to Breen and Goldthorpe (2001), which is as clear an 
example as could be wished of this research procedure - though among many others 
that could be cited - and yet still miss what should be entirely obvious: i.e. that 
separating out the direct and the many possible indirect effects that are involved in 
the dependence of class destinations on class origins is a central concern of mobility 
analyses that use the E-G schema. 
 
2. Since M&M’s supposed test of the validity of the E-G class schema rests on the 
misconception indicated in the foregoing, it is rendered largely irrelevant from the 
start. But even if the test were to be taken on its own - mistaken - terms, the results to 
which it leads would still be of little consequence since M&M do not in fact work with 
any established version of the schema. They rely, rather, on a home-made 
construction that is entirely inadequate and provides no serious basis for evaluating 
Deleted: morbidity and 
Deleted: Mackenbach et al. 
1997;   4 
the real thing. In sociological research, the E-G schema is implemented by coding 
detailed occupation-by-employment-status units - typically numbering in hundreds - 
into the classes of the schema by means of publicly available algorithms. And 
algorithms, we would add, that have by now been widely tested for their criterion 
validity: i.e. in order to ensure that occupation and employment status can thus be 
used as effective proxies for employment relations, so that the class schema does to 
an acceptable degree capture what, conceptually, it is intended to capture (for the 
British case, see e.g. Evans 1992; Evans and Mills 1998; Rose and O’Reilly 1998; 
Rose, Pevalin and O’Reilly 2005; and for the development of the schema so as to 
provide a common EU socio-economic classification, Rose and Harrison, forthcoming 
and www.iser.essex.ac.uk/esec). However, M&M entirely fail to follow this practice. 
They first (p. 8) group the occupational data  that they draw on in their mobility 
analyses  into a limited number of very crude categories - 16 in the case of fathers 
but, it seems, only 11 in the case of children - and in a way that they do not explain.
1 
They then aggregate these categories (Table 2) into an - alleged - five-class version 
of the E-G schema, likewise without any satisfactory account of the procedures they 
apply. They claim (p. 8) that in this regard they follow ‘the rule’ of the E-G schema ‘as 
closely as possible’. But we are at a loss to know what they might mean by this. To 
repeat, the schema can only be properly applied on the basis of detailed and explicit 
algorithms of the kind referred to. As might then be expected, the class schema 
produced by M&M in various ways departs, and sometimes quite grossly so, from all 
known instantiations of the E-G schema. For example, routine nonmanual employees 
and also ‘ordinary’ state employees (clerks? postmen?) are included in M&M’s Class 
I alongside higher-grade and independent professionals; wage-workers in agriculture 
are lumped together in their Class III with self-employed workers in agriculture,   5 
presumably farmers; and the disposition of managers of different kinds remains 
totally mysterious since they seem not to figure in any of the occupational categories 
listed. We do not, therefore, find it in any way surprising that M&M should be able to 
show that the classes they construct display undue heterogeneity. But this, we must 
stress, says nothing whatever about the E-G schema. 
 
3. As well as devising a test of the validity of the E-G schema that has little relevance 
to its actual use in mobility research and failing to produce anything like an adequate 
version of the schema for the purpose of their test, M&M base their empirical work on 
a data-set with various features that can only be described as bizarre. For example, 
according to their Tables 2 and 3, over 40% of men and women in their sample when 
interviewed in 2000 were self-employed - i.e. in M&M’s Class II - as compared with 
only 18% of their fathers who were in this class in 1976; and this shift is then largely 
compensated for in that less than 2% of those interviewed in 2000 were unskilled 
workers - i.e. in M&M’s Class V - as compared with 23% of their fathers. Is there, we 
wonder, any confirmation for these remarkable figures - implying, as they do, an 
extraordinary structural transformation of Danish society - in census or labour force 
statistics? And, still more astonishingly,  M&M report (p.9) that, according to their 
Table 3, not only does Denmark have higher mobility than all other countries included 
in Björklund and Jäntti’s review (2000) but further shows a rank correlation between 
respondent’s class and father’s class that is significantly negative. This is a result 
never previously reported in the literature. M&M seem themselves to have - passing - 
doubts as to its credibility. However, we would suggest that for researchers less 
concerned to make out a case at all costs, findings of the kind in question would have 
served as strong danger signals regarding the general adequacy of the data being   6 
used and/or of the classificatory procedures being followed, and would have led to 
some serious re-consideration before any publication was envisaged. As things stand, 
we would think it unwise to take seriously any of the results of M&M’s econometric 
analyses. 
Intergenerational social mobility is a research field in which a promising constructive 
engagement between sociologists and economists is now developing. In this context, 
we regret the entirely negative nature of this response to M&M’s contribution. Its 
quality leaves us little alternative.   7 
 
References 
[1] Björklund, A. and Jäntti, M. 2000. Intergenerational Mobility of Socio-economic 
Status in Comparative Perspective. Nordic Journal of Political Economy 26, 3-32. 
 [2] Breen, R. and Goldthorpe, J.H. 2001. Class, Mobility and Merit:  the Experience 
of Two British Birth Cohorts. European Sociological Review. 17, 81-101.  
[3] Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W. and Pollak, R. 2007. Non-Persistent Inequality in 
Educational Attainment: Evidence from Eight European Countries. Department of 
Sociology, Yale University. 
[4]  Elias, P. and McKnight, A. 2003. Earnings, Unemployment and the NS-SEC. In 
Rose, D. and Pevalin, D. (Eds), A Researchers Guide to the National Statistics 
Socio-economic Classification. Sage, London. 
[5] Erikson, R. 2006. Social class assignment and mortality in Sweden. Social 
Science and Medicine. Vol. 62:9, pp. 2151-60. 
[6]  Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. H. 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class 
Mobility in Industrial Societies. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
[7] Evans, G. 1992. Testing the Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Scema. European 
Sociological Review. 8, 211-32. 
[8]  Evans, G. and Mills, C. 1998. Identifying Class Structures: A Latent Class 
Analysis of the Criterion-Related and Construct Validity of the Goldthorpe Class 
Schema. European Sociological Review. 14, 87-106. 
Formatted: Swedish  8 
[9] Goldthorpe, J.H. 2007. On Sociology, 2nd. ed., 2 vols. Stanford University Press, 
Stanford. 
[10] Goldthorpe, J. H. and McKnight, A. 2006. The Economic Basis of Social Class. 
In Morgan, S. L., Grusky, D. B. and Fields, G. S. (Eds.). Mobility and Inequality: 
Frontiers of Research in Sociology and Economics, Stanford University Press, 
Stanford.  
[11] Hansen, E. J. 2000. ’Social mobilitet’ in B. Hjort Andersen (ed.): Udviklingen i 
befolkningens levekår over et kvart århundrede. København: 
Socialforskningsinstituttet. 
[12] Jackson, M., Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H. and Yaish, M. 2007. Primary and 
Secondary Effects in Class Differentials in Educational Attainment: The Transition to 
A-Levels in England and Wales. Acta Sociologica. 50, 221-229. 
[13] McIntosh, J. and Munk, M. D.  Forthcoming.  Social Class, Family Background 
and Intergenerational Mobility’. European Economic Review. 
[14] Rose, D. and Harrison, E. (Eds.). Forthcoming. Social Class in Europe: An 
Introduction to the European Socio-Economic Classification. Routledge, London. 
[15] Rose. D. and O’Reilly, K. 1998. The ESRC Review of Government Social 
Classifications. ONS and ESRC, London. 
[16] Rose, D., Pevalin, D. and O’Reilly, K. 2005. The National Statistics Socio-
Economic Classification: Origins, Development and Use. Palgrave, London. 
Formatted: Swedish  9 
[17] White, C., Glickman, M., Johnson, B. and Corbin, T. 2007. Social Inequalities in 
Adult Male Mortality by the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, 
England and Wales, 2001-03.  Office for National Statistics, London. 
                                                 
1 The positions of the parents seem to have been decided by asking the respondents to place their parents in one 
of 16 predetermined categories (Hansen 2000), while we could find no information on how the positions of the 
respondents themselves were determined. 
Deleted: [1] Björklund, A. and 
Jäntti, M. 2000. 
Intergenerational Mobility of 
Socio-economic Status in 
Comparative Perspective. 
Nordic Journal of Political 
Economy 26, 3-32.¶
 [2] Breen, R. and Goldthorpe, 
J.H. 2001. Class, Mobility and 
Merit:  the Experience of Two 
British Birth Cohorts. European 
Sociological Review. 17, 81-
101. ¶
[3] Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, 
W. and Pollak, R. 2007. Non-
Persistent Inequality in 
Educational Attainment: 
Evidence from Eight European 
Countries. Department of 
Sociology, Yale University.¶
[4] Chan, T-W. and Goldthorpe, 
J. H. 2007. Class and Status: 
The Conceptual Distinction and 
its Empirical Relevance. 
American Sociological Review. 
72, 512-532.¶
[5]  Elias, P. and McKnight, A. 
2003. Earnings, Unemployment 
and the NS-SEC. In Rose, D. 
and Pevalin, D. (Eds), A 
Researchers Guide to the 
National Statistics Socio-
economic Classification. Sage, 
London.¶
[6]  Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, 
J. H. 1992. The Constant Flux: 
A Study of Class Mobility in 
Industrial Societies. Clarendon 
Press, Oxford.¶
[7] Evans, G. 1992. Testing the 
Validity of the Goldthorpe Class 
Scema. European Sociological 
Review. 8, 211-32.¶
[8]  Evans, G. and Mills, C. 
1998. Identifying Class 
Structures: A Latent Class 
Analysis of the Criterion-
Related and Construct Validity 
of the Goldthorpe Class 
Schema. European Sociological 
Review. 14, 87-106.¶
[9] Goldthorpe, J.H. 2007. On 
Sociology, 2nd. ed., 2 vols. 
Stanford University Press, 
Stanford.¶
[10] Goldthorpe, J. H. and 
McKnight, A. 2006. The 
Economic Basis of Social 
Class. In Morgan, S. L., Grusky, 
D. B. and Fields, G. S. (Eds.). 
Mobility and Inequality: 
Frontiers of Research in 
Sociology and Economics, 
Stanford University Press, 
Stanford.¶
[11] Jackson, M., Erikson, R., 
Goldthorpe, J.H. and Yaish, M. 
2007. Primary and Secondary 
Effects in Class Differentials in 
Educational Attainment: The 
Transition to A-Levels in 
England and Wales. Acta 
Sociologica. 50, 221-229.¶
[12] Mackenbach J.P., Kunst, 
A. E., Cavelaars, A. E., 
Groenhof, F. and Geurts, J. J.  ... [1]Page 9: [1] Deleted  robert 2007-12-05  09:34:00 
[1] Björklund, A. and Jäntti, M. 2000. Intergenerational Mobility of Socio-economic 
Status in Comparative Perspective. Nordic Journal of Political Economy 26, 3-32. 
 [2] Breen, R. and Goldthorpe, J.H. 2001. Class, Mobility and Merit:  the Experience 
of Two British Birth Cohorts. European Sociological Review. 17, 81-101.  
[3] Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W. and Pollak, R. 2007. Non-Persistent Inequality in 
Educational Attainment: Evidence from Eight European Countries. Department of 
Sociology, Yale University. 
[4] Chan, T-W. and Goldthorpe, J. H. 2007. Class and Status: The Conceptual 
Distinction and its Empirical Relevance. American Sociological Review. 72, 512-532. 
[5]  Elias, P. and McKnight, A. 2003. Earnings, Unemployment and the NS-SEC. In 
Rose, D. and Pevalin, D. (Eds), A Researchers Guide to the National Statistics 
Socio-economic Classification. Sage, London. 
[6]  Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. H. 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class 
Mobility in Industrial Societies. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
[7] Evans, G. 1992. Testing the Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Scema. European 
Sociological Review. 8, 211-32. 
[8]  Evans, G. and Mills, C. 1998. Identifying Class Structures: A Latent Class 
Analysis of the Criterion-Related and Construct Validity of the Goldthorpe Class 
Schema. European Sociological Review. 14, 87-106. 
[9] Goldthorpe, J.H. 2007. On Sociology, 2nd. ed., 2 vols. Stanford University Press, 
Stanford. [10] Goldthorpe, J. H. and McKnight, A. 2006. The Economic Basis of Social Class. 
In Morgan, S. L., Grusky, D. B. and Fields, G. S. (Eds.). Mobility and Inequality: 
Frontiers of Research in Sociology and Economics, Stanford University Press, 
Stanford. 
[11] Jackson, M., Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H. and Yaish, M. 2007. Primary and 
Secondary Effects in Class Differentials in Educational Attainment: The Transition to 
A-Levels in England and Wales. Acta Sociologica. 50, 221-229. 
[12] Mackenbach J.P., Kunst, A. E., Cavelaars, A. E., Groenhof, F. and Geurts, J. J. 
1997. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Morbidity and Mortality in Western Europe’. 
Lancet. 7, 349(9066):1655-9. 
[13] McIntosh, J. and Munk, M. D.  Forthcoming.  Social Class, Family Background 
and Intergenerational Mobility’. European Economic Review. 
[14] Rose, D. and Harrison, E. (Eds.). Forthcoming. Social Class in Europe: An 
Introduction to the European Socio-Economic Classification. Routledge, London. 
[15] Rose. D. and O’Reilly, K. 1998. The ESRC Review of Government Social 
Classifications. ONS and ESRC, London. 
[16] Rose, D., Pevalin, D. and O’Reilly, K. 2005. The National Statistics Socio-
Economic Classification: Origins, Development and Use. Palgrave, London. 
[17] White, C., Glickman, M., Johnson, B. and Corbin, T. 2007. Social Inequalities in 
Adult Male Mortality by the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, 
England and Wales, 2001-03.  Office for National Statistics, London. 
 
 

[1]Page 9: [1] Deleted robert

Class and Status: The Conceptual Distinction and its Empirical Relevance.

Class, Mobility and Merit: the Experience of Two British Birth Cohorts.

Earnings, Unemployment and the

Identifying Class Structures: A Latent Class Analysis of the Criterion-Related and Construct Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Schema.

Identifying Class Structures: A Latent Class Analysis of the CriterionRelated and Construct Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Schema.

Intergenerational Mobility of Socio-economic Status in Comparative Perspective.

Non-Persistent Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence from Eight European Countries.

NonPersistent Inequality in Educational Attainment: Evidence from Eight European Countries.

On Sociology, 2nd. ed., 2 vols.

Primary and Secondary Effects in Class Differentials in Educational Attainment: The Transition to A-Levels in England and Wales.

Social class assignment and mortality in Sweden.

Social Class in Europe: An Introduction to the European Socio-Economic Classification.

Social Class, Family Background and Intergenerational Mobility’. European Economic Review.

Social mobilitet’

Testing the Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Scema.

The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies.

The Economic Basis of Social Class. In

The ESRC Review of Government Social Classifications. ONS and ESRC,

The National Statistics SocioEconomic Classification: Origins, Development and Use.

McIntosh and Munk's Supposed Test of the Validity of the E-G Class Schema: A Comment

http://www.sofi.su.se/content/1/c6/03/09/74/WP07no13.pdf

McIntosh and Munk's Supposed Test of the Validity of the E-G Class Schema: A Comment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics