Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in Britain Since 1851 Jason Long Department of...

Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in Britain Since 1851

Jason Long

Department of EconomicsColby College

September 2007

2

Social Mobility in 19th Century BritainWhy 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 OutcomeMobility → Equality of Opportunity

3

Equality in 19th Century BritainWage 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.

4

Equality in 19th Century EnglandSocial 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 father58% 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

5

Studying Mobility in 19th Century EnglandMarriage 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

6

Research Questions

1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenth-century 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?

7

Studying Mobility in the 19th CenturyLinked Census Data

2% Sample of 1851 Census

Complete-Count 1881 Census

168,130 men in England and Wales

All 12,640,000 men in the census

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

Match Criteria:

•Name (phonetic)•Year of birth•County of birth•Parish of birth

8

Example: William, William, and David Phillips

1851: Eastergate parish, Sussex, England

County Parish First NameLast Name Relation

Marital Status Occupation Sex Age

Birth County

BirthParish

Sussex Eastergate William Phillips Head M Ag Labourer M 42 Sussex ChichesterSussex Eastergate Martha Phillips Wife M - F 37 Sussex WalbertonSussex Eastergate William Phillips Son U Ag Labourer M 17 Sussex WalbertonSussex Eastergate Mary Phillips Daur U Scholar F 13 Sussex West HampnetSussex Eastergate Richard Rewell Lodger W Ag Labourer M 85 Sussex Walberton

1881: Arundel parish, Sussex, England



Birth County

BirthParish

Sussex Arundel William Phillips Head M Blacksmith M 47 Sussex WalbertonSussex Arundel Jane Phillips Wife M Blacksmith wife F 45 Sussex ArundelSussex Arundel George Phillips Son U Bricklayers lab M 15 Sussex ArundelSussex Arundel David Phillips Son U Scholar M 8 Sussex ArundelSussex Arundel Thomas Phillips Son U - M 10mSussex Arundel

1901: Arundel parish, Sussex, England



Birth County

BirthParish

Sussex Arundel David Phillips Head M Gen Labourer M 28 Sussex ArundelSussex Arundel Emily Phillips Wife M - F 21 Hull YorkshireSussex Arundel Patricia Phillips Daur U - F 8 Sussex ArundelSussex Arundel Selina Bolton Visitor U - F 4 Sussex Brighton

9

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

10

Inter-generational Social Mobility, 1851-1881Sons aged 0-19 in 1851, 30-49 in 1881

Son's Class,1881

I II III IV V Total

I: Prof 35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 0.7% 0.7% 3.1%II: Int 24.7 36.2 11.5 6.6 7.8 13.9III: Skilled 31.9 44.3 67.5 37.7 55.9 54.5IV: Semi-S 2.3 8.4 7.7 37.6 15.0 16.0V: Unskilled 6.1 5.4 10.7 17.4 20.7 12.5Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Son's Class,1881

I II III IV V Total Pct.

I: Prof 92 110 157 24 8 391 3.1%II: Int 65 692 690 215 95 1,757 13.9%III: Skilled 84 848 4,056 1,220 684 6,892 54.5%IV: Semi-S 6 160 463 1,216 184 2,029 16.0%V: Unskilled 16 103 643 563 253 1,578 12.5%Total 263 1,913 6,009 3,238 1,224 12,647 100%Percent 2.1% 15.1% 47.5% 25.6% 9.7% 100%

Father's Class, 1851


MOBILITY:

Total: 50.11%

Up: 26.78%

Down: 23.33%

11

Social Mobility 1851-1881Intra- and Inter-Generational Mobility

Own Class,1881

I II III IV V Total

I: Prof 64.5% 10.1% 2.0% 0.8% 1.5% 3.9%II: Int 16.7 46.8 13.1 11.4 9.8 15.5III: Skilled 14.5 33.4 66.9 24.0 39.6 47.9IV: Semi-S 0.5 5.5 8.2 48.7 19.5 20.3V: Unskilled 3.8 4.2 9.8 15.1 29.6 12.5N 186 713 3,962 2,206 723 7,790

Own Class, 1851

MOBILITY:

Total: 43.59%

Up: 25.38%

Down: 18.22%

12

Social Mobility 1851-1881Intra- and Inter-Generational Mobility

Own Class,1881

I II III IV V Total

I: Prof 64.5% 10.1% 2.0% 0.8% 1.5% 3.9%II: Int 16.7 46.8 13.1 11.4 9.8 15.5III: Skilled 14.5 33.4 66.9 24.0 39.6 47.9IV: Semi-S 0.5 5.5 8.2 48.7 19.5 20.3V: Unskilled 3.8 4.2 9.8 15.1 29.6 12.5N 186 713 3,962 2,206 723 7,790

Son's Class,1881

I II III IV V Total

I: Prof 35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 0.7% 0.7% 3.1%II: Int 24.7 36.2 11.5 6.6 7.8 13.9III: Skilled 31.9 44.3 67.5 37.7 55.9 54.5IV: Semi-S 2.3 8.4 7.7 37.6 15.0 16.0V: Unskilled 6.1 5.4 10.7 17.4 20.7 12.5N 263 1,913 6,009 3,238 1,224 12,647


Own Class, 1851

MOBILITY:

Total: 43.59%

Up: 25.38%

Down: 18.22%

MOBILITY:

Total: 50.11%

Up: 26.78%

Down: 23.33%

13

Intergenerational Mobility: Controlling for Life Cycle EffectsLinked Census Data vs Marriage Registry Data

Son's Class1881 I II III IV V Total

I: Prof 35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 1.5% 0.6% 3.1%II: Int 24.7 36.2 11.5 8.8 6.3 13.8III: Skilled 31.9 44.1 67.6 51.8 40.8 54.4IV: Semi-S 1.9 3.8 4.7 22.6 8.4 6.7V: Unskilled 6.5 10.1 13.6 15.4 43.9 22.0N 263 1,910 5,980 753 3,741 12,647

Son's Classat Marriage I II III IV V TotalI: Prof 53.5% 3.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 1.7%II: Int 30.2 52.9 6.4 5.1 2.6 13.3III: Skilled 7.0 23.2 75.2 33.1 19.8 44.7IV: Semi-S 4.7 10.5 8.1 46.7 12.2 13.9V: Unskilled 4.7 9.8 9.9 14.7 65.5 26.5N 43 410 1,034 272 724 2,483Source: Miles (1999)

TABLE P : LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1851-1881

TABLE Q : MARRIAGE REGISTRIES, 1859-1874


Father's Class at Date of Son's Marriage

MOBILITY:

Total: 47.54%

Up: 27.82%

Down: 19.71%

MOBILITY:

Total: 34.80%

Up: 17.72%

Down: 17.08%

14

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,

1/ 22

1 1 1 1

( , )r s r s

ij lm im lj

im lj ij lmi j l m

p p p pd P Q

p p q q

log

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.)

15

Intergenerational Mobility: Controlling for Life Cycle EffectsLinked Census Data vs Marriage Registry Data


I: Prof 35.0% 5.8% 2.6% 1.5% 0.6% 3.1%II: Int 24.7 36.2 11.5 8.8 6.3 13.8III: Skilled 31.9 44.1 67.6 51.8 40.8 54.4IV: Semi-S 1.9 3.8 4.7 22.6 8.4 6.7V: Unskilled 6.5 10.1 13.6 15.4 43.9 22.0N 263 1,910 5,980 753 3,741 12,647

Son's Classat Marriage I II III IV V TotalI: Prof 53.5% 3.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 1.7%II: Int 30.2 52.9 6.4 5.1 2.6 13.3III: Skilled 7.0 23.2 75.2 33.1 19.8 44.7IV: Semi-S 4.7 10.5 8.1 46.7 12.2 13.9V: Unskilled 4.7 9.8 9.9 14.7 65.5 26.5N 43 410 1,034 272 724 2,483Source: Miles (1999)


TABLE Q : MARRIAGE REGISTRIES, 1859-1874


Father's Class at Date of Son's Marriage

MOBILITY:

Total: 47.54%

MOBILITY:

Total: 34.80%

ALTHAM TESTS:

d(P,I) 46.26

G2 2885.98

prob [d(P,I)=0] 0

d(Q,I) 62.56

G2 1680.94

prob [d(Q,I)=0] 0

d(P,Q) 26.26

G2 267.17

prob [d(P,Q)=0] 0

16

Research Questions

1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenth-century Britain, controlling for life cycle?

Higher than previously believed:

Total mobility = 48% versus 35%,Upward mobility = 28% versus 18%


Mobility within work-life was common: 44% changed class from 20s to 50s, 25% of them moving up


What is the long-run trend in mobility?

17

Intergenerational Mobility from 1851 to the PresentLinked Census Data vs Oxford Mobility Study (1972)




I: Prof 32.4% 9.2% 6.2% 3.3% 2.1% 7.0%II: Int 40.0 41.4 23.6 16.4 10.3 26.3III: Skilled 22.9 35.9 52.2 55.8 55.1 48.1IV: Semi-S 4.8 11.0 14.7 21.5 24.3 15.3V: Unskilled 0.0 2.6 3.3 3.1 8.2 3.3N 105 839 1,723 550 243 3,460


TABLE Q : OXFORD MOBILITY STUDY DATA, 1972


Father's Class when Son Age 14

Males Aged 30-49 in 1972


MOBILITY:

Total: 50.11%

Up: 26.78%

Down: 23.33%

MOBILITY:

Total: 59.02%

Up: 35.52%

Down: 23.50%

18

Intergenerational Mobility from 1851 to the PresentLinked Census Data vs Oxford Mobility Study (1972)




I: Prof 32.4% 9.2% 6.2% 3.3% 2.1% 7.0%II: Int 40.0 41.4 23.6 16.4 10.3 26.3III: Skilled 22.9 35.9 52.2 55.8 55.1 48.1IV: Semi-S 4.8 11.0 14.7 21.5 24.3 15.3V: Unskilled 0.0 2.6 3.3 3.1 8.2 3.3N 105 839 1,723 550 243 3,460


TABLE Q : OXFORD MOBILITY STUDY DATA, 1972


Father's Class when Son Age 14


Males Aged 30-49 in 1881MOBILITY:

Total: 50.11%

MOBILITY:

Total: 59.02%

ALTHAM TESTS:

d(P,I) 48.15

G2 2943.77

prob [d(P,I)=0] 0

d(Q,I) 33.26

G2 337.23

prob [d(Q,I)=0] 0

d(P,Q) 21.16

G2 247.37

prob [d(P,Q)=0] 0

19

Cross-Country ComparisonIntergenerational 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

20

Inter-Generational Mobility in Britain and the U.S., 1850-1881Parallel Linked Census Data, Long and Ferrie (2006)

Son's Class1881 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


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 1,370 363 129 2,005Source: Long and Ferrie (2006)

TABLE P : BRITAIN, 1851-1881

TABLE Q : U.S. LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1850-1880



MOBILITY:

Total: 42.99%

Up: 53.33%

Down: 13.48%

MOBILITY:

Total: 45.39%

Up: 81.40%

Down: 8.69%

21

Inter-Generational Mobility in Britain and the U.S., 1850-1881Parallel Linked Census Data


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


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 1,370 363 129 2,005Source: Long and Ferrie (2006)

TABLE P : BRITAIN, 1851-1881

TABLE Q : U.S. LINKED CENSUS DATA, 1850-1880



MOBILITY:

Total: 42.99%

MOBILITY:

Total: 45.39%

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

22

Mobility Trends in Britain and the U.S. since 1850Degree of Association between Fathers’ and Sons’ Occupations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1880 1900 1970

Year

d(P

,I)

Britain

U.S.

23

Research Questions

1. What was the rate of intergenerational social mobility in nineteenth-century Britain, controlling for life cycle?



• 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.

24

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

25

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

1850 1870 1890 1910England n.a. 16.8% 38.5% 54.2%France 35.1% 46.7 56.7 58.8U.S. 47.2 48.4 54.3 59.2Note : "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).

PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTPercentage of School-Age Population

26

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

Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in Britain Since 1851 Jason Long Department of...

Documents

Transcript of Social Mobility Within and Across Generations in Britain Since 1851 Jason Long Department of...