Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Intergenerational
mobility and socioeconomic inequalityare two well-establishedtopics
in sociology.Althoughclosely linked,these two
aspects of the social distributionof resources
and rewards are conceptually distinct (Hout
2004). Whereasinequalitydescribesthe distributionof resourcesat a particularpoint in time,
mobility measureshow individualsmove with-
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW,2005, VOL. 70 (June:422-45o)
SOCIALMOBILITYIN CHILE
assumingthatthesetwo distributional
phenomenacan move in oppositedirections
(Friedman1962).
At the theoretical level, approacheslinking
mobility and inequalitytend to focus on microlevel mechanisms-the
motivations and
resources affecting individual decision making-connecting these macrostructuralphenomena.Twoperspectivescan be distinguished.
A "resource perspective" indicates that high
inequality will result in decreased mobility
because the uneven distributionof resources
will benefit those most advantagedin the competition for success. In contrast,an "incentive
perspective" argues that inequality will raise
thestakesin thecompetition,
therebyinducing
highermobility.
In the end,the questionaboutthe linkbetween
intergenerationalmobility and socioeconomic
is empirical,
andcurrently,
theempirinequality
a smallpoolofmostlyindustrialized
countries,
423
424
REVIEW
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
ting the core model to the Chileantable, I determine to what extent Chile departs, if it does,
from the assumed internationalhomogeneity
in mobility regimes and what the sources of its
possible departureare. Even if the core model
has become a milestone in comparativeanalysis, it has a numberof undesirableproperties,
discussed laterin the Methodssection.Thus,as
a modelingalternative,I use a hybridmodel that
combines association parametersassuming a
hierarchicalconceptionof the mobilitystructure,
with patternsaccounting for class immobility.
Interpretationof these two models provides a
detailed description of the Chilean mobility
regime, andan evaluationof the main factorshierarchical differences across classes, class
inheritance,barriersacross sectorsof the economy-driving Chileanmobility dynamics.
Second, I compare the level of mobility in
Chile with that of other countries using primary data from France, England, Scotland,
Ireland,Sweden, the United States, and Israel.
All these countrieshave a much more egalitarian income distribution than Chile. Thus, if
mobility is associatedwith inequality,the international comparisonshould show that mobility opportunities in Chile are significantly
differentfromthe opportunitiesin these industrialized nations.
Third,my analysis moves from an international to a temporalcomparison.To explorethe
association between mobility and inequality
further,I studyChileanmobilityratesovertime.
Using a cohort analysis, I examine whetherthe
significant increase in inequality associated
with the market transformationof the 1970s
and 1980s had any noticeableeffect on Chilean
mobility rates.
Advancing some of the major results, the
findings presentan interestingparadox.On the
one hand,the Chileanmobility regime is found
to be driven almost exclusively by the hierarchical distancebetweenclasses, which is determined in turn by the level of inequality in the
country.This finding is consistentwith the negativerelationshipbetweenmobilityandinequality posed by the "resourceperspective."On the
other hand,the internationalcomparisonindicates thatChile is impressivelyfluid despite its
high economic inequality, and the temporal
analysis shows no change in Chilean mobility
overtime despitethe growinginequalityduring
the militaryregime.Therefore,the internation-
al andtemporalcomparisonsseem to contradict
the negativerelationshipbetweenmobility and
inequality,and to suggest that high inequality
may in fact induce mobility.
Solving this apparent paradox, I argue,
requiresswitchingthe analyticalfocus fromthe
level to thepatternof bothmobilityandinequality. When the patternof these two distributive
phenomenais considered,the contradictiondisappears,andthe mechanismsdrivingthe mobility-inequality association can be examined.
The argumentis organizedas follows. Section
2 presents the empirical and theoretical evidence concerning the association of mobility
with inequality.Section 3 describesthe Chilean
context. It discusses the most salientcharacteristics of the Chilean socioeconomic structure
and presents a brief historical description of
the majorchangesin the nationalpoliticaleconomy overthe past few decades. Section4 introduces the dataandanalyticalapproach.Section
5 presentsthe comparativeanalysis of mobility in Chile, including the description of the
Chileanmobilityregime,the internationalcomparison of the fluidity level in Chile, and the
analysisof changeovertime. Section6 presents
a summary of the findings, the conclusions,
and the implicationsof the Chileancase for the
comparativestudy of inequality.
ASSOCIATION BETWEENINEQUALITY
AND MOBILITY:EMPIRICALAND
THEORETICAL
EVIDENCE
Although mobility and inequality"go together
intuitively"(Hout2004:969), they are different
dimensions of the social distributionof advantage. The former refers to the cross-sectional
dimension, which determines the individual
position in a social hierarchy.The latterrefers
to its intergenerationaldimension,specifically
to differentialaccess to these positionsas determined by the position of origin (Marshalland
Swift 1999:243;Marshallet al 1997:13).
At the conceptual level, the differences
between these two distributionalphenomena
are clear. Inequalitydescribes the distribution
of resources at any particularpoint in time.
Mobility describes inequality of opportunity,
the chancesthatsomeonewitha particularsocial
originwill attaina moreratherthana less advantaged destination regardless of the socioeconomic distancebetweenthese destinations.This
SOCIALMOBILITYIN CHILE
425
the
concerning
Empirical evidence
is
scarce.
association
mobility-inequality
Although high-qualitydataon inequalityexist
for a largenumberof countries(e.g., Deininger
and Squire 1996), comparabledata on mobility are availableonly for a few, mostly industrialized nations. The most importantsource of
comparablemobility data is the Comparative
Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrialized
Countries(CASMIN)project,whichincludes15
industrialized nations.' The findings of the
CASMIN project are highly relevant for the
association between mobility and inequality.
The CASMIN project concluded that whereas
absolute mobility varies across countries and
over time because of differences in national
occupationalstructures,relativemobility-the
association between class of origin and destination net of differences in marginal occupationaldistributions-is extremelyhomogeneous
across countriesand over time. These findings
were expressed in the "common" and "constant"social fluidity hypotheses, respectively.
The basic temporal and internationalsimilarity was systematized into a "core model" of
social fluidity (Eriksonand Goldthorpe1987a,
1987b, 1992a; see Featherman, Jones, and
Hauser1975 andHauseret al. 1975a, 1975b,for
countries(England,
1Theseinclude12 European
France,the formerFederalRepublicof Germany,
Northern
Poland,Scotland,
Ireland,
Ireland,
Hungary,
Sweden,the formerCzechoslovakia,
Italy,andthe
counandthreeindustrial
Netherlands)
non-European
tries(theUnitedStates,Australia,andJapan).
426
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the original hypotheses). Common social fluidity is claimed to hold (at least) in industrial
societies with a "marketeconomy and nuclear
family" (Feathermanet al. 1975:340), and it
would be explained by "the substantial uniformity in the economic resources and desirability of occupations" (Grusky and Hauser
1984).
The significant international similarity in
mobility patterns has been confirmed largely
in pairwise or three-countrycomparisons in a
few industrialized countries: Erikson,
Goldthorpe, and Portocarero(1979), Erikson
et al. (1982), and Hauser (1984a, 1984b) for
England,France,and Sweden;McRobertsand
Selbec (1981) for the United States and
Canada; and Kerckhoff et al. (1985) for
Englandand the United States.As more industrialized countries were added to the comparative template, it was shown that Sweden and
the Netherlands are more fluid (Erikson et al.
1982; Ganzeboom and De Graaf 1984), and
that Germany, Japan, and Ireland are more
rigid (Hout and Jackson 1986; Ishida 1993;
Miller 1986). However,the most strikingfinding was the significant similarityacross countries despite the different historical
backgroundsand institutionalarrangements.
On the basis of the CASMIN project, a relative consensus has emerged favoring the
hypothesis of substantial international similarity in mobility patterns.Similaritydoes not
mean complete homogeneity, however. There
certainly exist some national deviations, but,
it is argued, they can be explained by highly
specific, historicallybased institutionalfactors
ratherthanby systematic relationshipto other
variable characteristics of national societies.
There seems to be only one exception to this
"unsystematicfluctuation."Comparisonof the
CASMIN countries found that a small but significant portion of the internationalvariation
in mobility is related to economic inequality,
with higher inequality leading to less fluidity
(Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992a, chapter 12;
also see Tyree, Semyonov, and Hodge 1979
for an earlier analysis).
This finding supportsthe resourceapproach
linking the two distributive phenomena.
Additional evidence consistent with the
resources approachwas presentedby Jonsson
and Mills (1993), who compared Sweden and
England and found higher fluidity in the more
2 Tomyknowledge,
thereis noempirical
evidence
theincentiveapproach.
supporting
SOCIALMOBILITYIN CHILE
427
428
REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL
AMERICAN
AND PATTERNOF
THE CHILEANLEVEL
INEQUALITY
The dark side of this "success story" is economic inequality.Structurallyrooted in a feudal agrarianstructure,the institutionallegacy
of the colonial period, and in the slow expansion of education (Engerman and Sokoloff
1997; World Bank 2003b), inequality has
remained persistently high during the 20th
century.The Gini coefficient reached.58 in the
1990s, which compares with a much lower
Gini of .34 among the industrialized countries, and is large even in the highly unequal
Latin American context, with its averageGini
of .49 (Deininger and Squire 1996; Marcel
and Solimano 1994). As Figure 1 indicates,
Chilean inequalityis almost twice that in most
industrializedcountries, and 1.5 times that in
the United States, the most unequal nation of
the industrializedworld.
Not only the level, but also the pattern of
inequality in Chile significantly departsfrom
that of the industrialized world. With the
wealthiest Chilean decile receiving 42.3 percent of the total nationalincome (MIDEPLAN
2001), the Chilean pattern of inequality is
characterized by high "concentration at the
top."Althoughinequalityis by definitionrelated to concentration, the Chilean case is
extreme, as compared with the industrialized
world, and even with other Latin American
countries. A comparison between the income
of each decile and the income of the preceding (poorer) decile illustrates the point. The
ratio between the wealthiest and the second
wealthiest decile is twice as large in Chile as
in the United States and England, and one of
the largest in Latin America, depicting high
elite concentration. In contrast, the ratio
between the second poorest and the poorest
deciles in Chile is halfthat of the United States
and England,indicating that inequality at the
bottom of the income distribution is much
lower in Chile than in these industrialized
nations (Szekely and Hilgert 1999).
In fact, as Figure 2 indicates, Chile is the
fourth most unequal country in the most
unequal region of the world. However, if the
wealthiest decile is excluded, Chileaninequality is dramaticallyreduced,and Chile becomes
the most equal Latin American country,even
more equal than the United States (InterAmerican Development Bank 1999).
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 429
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Jap
Swe
Ita
Ger
Neth
Fra
Ire
Eng
US
Chile
Countries
Figure 1. IncomeInequalityin ChileandIndustrializedCountriesCirca2000
Note: Jap = Japan; Swe = Sweden; Ita = Italy; Ger = Germany; Neth = Netherlands; Fra = France; Ire = Republic
of Ireland;Eng = England.Source:WorldBank2001.
0.7
0.6
0.5
" 0.4
0.3
S0.2
0
0.
0
Par
Bra
Ecu
Ven
Bol
US
Arg
LatinAmericanCountriesandUS
Uru
Chile
Uruguay.Source:Inter-American
DevelopmentBank 1999.
430
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
AMERICAN
0.7
.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1992
2000
Years
MARKET
LATEINDUSTRIALIZATION,
ANDTHECHILEANCLASS
REFORM,
STRUCTURE
The "commonsocial fluidity"hypothesisasserts
that all internationalvariationin mobility patterns is attributableto highly specific, historically formed national characteristics. In the
Chileancase, these factorsmay be relatedto the
marketreformof the 1970s and 1980s and the
rapid economic growth since the late 1980s.
National mobility studies suggest that countriesexperiencingrapidindustrialization
maybe
characterized
weaker
sector
barriers
to
mobilby
barriers
between
the
selfity, specifically
and
and
between
employed
employees
agricultural and nonagricultural classes
(Goldthorpe,Yaish,and Kraus 1997 andYaish
2004 for Israel;Ishida,Goldthorpe,andErikson
1991 for Japan;Park2004 for Korea;andCostaRibeiro 2003 for Brazil).
In addition,two components of the Chilean
markettransformationmay have contributedto
the weaknessof mobilitybarriersacrosssectors
of the economy. The first component is the
agrarianreformand subsequentcounterreform
undertakenby the militaryregime.The second
one is the opening of the economy to international trade and the retrenchmentof the state,
which led to a decline in formal employment
SOCIALMOBILITYIN CHILE
431
DATAAND ANALYTICAL
APPROACH
This study uses the 2001 Chilean Mobility
Survey (CMS). The CMS is a nationallyrepresentative,multistage, stratifiedsample of male
heads of householdages 24 to 69. The sampling
strategyincludes the following stages. First,87
primary sampling units (PSUs) (counties) are
selected. Then blocks within the PSUs are
selected, and finally, households within blocks
are chosen. Countiesare stratifiedaccordingto
size (fewer than 20,000; 20,000 to 100,000;
100,000 to 200,000; and more than 200,000
inhabitants) and by geographic zone (North,
Center,South).All PSUs in the large size stratum are includedin the sampleto increase effi-
432
REVIEW
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
ciency.The fieldwork,conductedbetweenApril
and June 2001, consists of face-to-face interviews in the respondent'shouseholdcarriedout
by trained personnel. The survey excludes
non-head-of-householdmales, which represent
17 percent of the male population of the relevant age (MIDEPLAN 2001). Among those
excluded, 86.5 percentare the sons of the head
of the household, 12.4 percent are anotherrelative of the head,and 1.1 percentare othernonrelated males. Their occupationaldistribution,
with controlused for age, is almost identicalto
that of the heads of household. The small proportionrepresentedby this groupandtheirsimilar occupationaldistributionsuggest thattheir
inclusionwould not significantlyalterthe findings presented in this article. Excluding the
households not eligible for the survey, the
response rate is 63 percent. Although nonresponse ratesusuallyarenot reportedin Chilean
surveys, exchange with Chilean experts indicates thatthe nonresponserateis about20 to 25
percentfor face-to-facehouseholdsurveys.The
higher nonresponse rate of the CMS is likely
attributableto the difficulty contacting male
heads of household.4The total sample size is
3,544. I exclude individuals outside the age
range of 25 to 64 years, which is conventionally used in comparativemobility research and
cases with unusabledata.After this exclusion,
the usable sample size is 3,002.
CLAssSCHEMA
This study uses a class perspectiveto describe
the Chileansocial structure.It utilizesthe sevencategory version of the classification developed by the CASMIN project. This
classification is widely used in international
comparativeresearch,and describes the basic
4 Thenonresponse
ratecanyieldbiasif thosewho
differfrom
wereunreachable
orrefusedtoparticipate
thoseincludedin the sample.To estimatethe magof key
nitudeof thisbias,I compared
thedistribution
variableswiththe CASEN2000 survey.CASENis
a largesurvey(n= 252,595)conducted
bytheChilean
government,andhas a refusalratelowerthan 10
percent.The comparison(availableuponrequest)
agrisuggeststhattheCMSslightlyunderrepresents
culturalworkersandtheupperclass.Overall,however,thereis no indicationof majornonresponse
bias.
5 Analyseswerereplicated
usingthedetailed12class table,and no differencein substantivefindingswas found.
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 433
Table 1. Seven-ClassIntergenerational
MobilityTablefor ChileanMen
Classof Destination
I-II. ServiceClass
III. RoutineNonmanual
IVab.Self-employed
IVc. Farmers
V-VI.SkilledManual
VIIa. SemiskilledandUnskilledManual
VIIb.FarmWorkers
N
%
I-II
III
229
61
123
42
91
49
28
623
21%
49
15
37
16
33
43
16
209
7%
%
14%
5%
19%
11%
19%
17%
15%
METHODS
I fit two alternativemodelsto the Chileanmobility table.Thefirstis the "coremodelof socialfluidity' whichclaimsto capturebasicinternational
similarityin mobility.Althoughthe core model
has become a benchmarkfor mobilityresearch,
and currentlyis the only model that providesa
comparativeframeworkfor mobility analysis,
analystshave drawnattentionto a numberof its
limitations.The model has been criticized for
inadequatelyrepresentinghierarchicalmobility
effects, for being tailoredto a few industrialized
countries,for the ad hoc natureof some effectsit
includes (specifically the affinity effects), and
for lacking a criterionto determinehow much
divergence is necessary for it to be rejected
(Ganzeboom,Luijkx, and Treiman1989; Hout
and Hauser 1992; Sorensen 1992; Yamaguchi
1987).I thereforealso test an alternative"hybrid
model"thatcombinesthe row-column(II)associationmodel (Goodman1979) with parameters
accountingforclassimmobility.Theinternational
and temporalcomparisonof Chilean mobility
patternsuses the uniform-difference
(UNIDIFF)
model, also known as the multiplicativelayer
effect model (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992a;
Xie 1992). Model comparisonand selection is
based on the Bayesian InformationCriterion
(BIC) statistic(Raftery1995).
ANALYSISOF CHILEANMOBILITY
IN
COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
THECOREMODELOFSOCIALFLUIDITY
434
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
AMERICAN
1987b,and1992a,chapter4).
THEMOBILTY
PATIERN
INCHILE:
ORDIVERGENCE?
CONVERGENCE
Table2 presentsthe fit of severalmodelsapplied
to the Chilean data, and Table 3 displays the
parameterestimates for each of these models.
Model 1 in Table2 indicatesthat the fit of the
originalcoremodel to the Chileantableis unsatisfactory understandardstatisticalcriteria,but
it explains a significant 77.5 percentof associationunderindependence.Toassess the strength
of the differentfactorsdrivingmobility opportunities,I comparethe Chileancoefficientswith
those obtained for the CASMIN countries.
Coefficients from the original core model fitted to the Chileantable arereportedin row 1 of
Table3; CASMIN coefficients are reportedin
row 2; and differences in coefficients' magnitude and the statistical significance of the differences are reportedin row 3.8
All Chilean coefficients are significant and
have the same sign as for the CASMIN countries. Comparisonof the magnitudeof the coefficients, however,shows significantdepartures
from the core for five effects, which reveal
interesting differences between Chile and the
CASMIN countries.The hierarchycoefficients
indicate that whereas the short-rangehierarchical barriersare somewhat weaker in Chile
8CASMINcoefficientswereobtainedfromfitting
thecoremodelto thecombinedtableof Franceand
England, standardizingboth tables to have 10,000
cases, as recommendedby Eriksonand Goldthorpe
(1992a: 121). The coefficients obtainedare virtually
identical to those presented by Erikson and
Goldthorpe(1992a, Table4.4).
BIC df
Association
Explained
CoreModel
77.5%
137.5 28.5 28 .000
1. CoreModel,Original
86.0%
108.1 -0.8 28 .000
2. CoreModel,EHE
90.6%
3. Chileanversionof CoreModel([Model2] + ChileanParameters) 72.4 -32.6 27 .000
.000
AssociationModels
90.5%
73.4 -16.1 23 .000
4. HeterogeneousQuasi-RC(II)Model
89.6%
80.3 -28.7 28 .000
5. HomogeneousQuasi-RC(II)Model
79.8%
6. Quasi-Linearby LinearAssociation(SES rowandcolumnranking)a 156.3 27.9 33 .000
Note: EHE= empiricalhierarchicaleffects;SES = eocioeconomicstatus.
a Linear-by-linear
associationmodelusing socioeconomicstatusscoresas presentedin AppendixFigureAl to
rankoriginanddestinationclasses.
HI1
HI2
IN1
IN2
IN3
SE1
.68**
.41***
-.38***
-.65***
.39***
-.12*
(.10)
(.24)
(.08)
(.07)
(. 11)
(.05)
.84***
1.01***
.43***
-1.06***
2. CoremodelCASMINb
-.22***
-.45***
(.04)
(.11)
(.03)
(.05)
(.04)
(.02)
-.68***
.20 t
3. Difference,CASMIN--Chilec-.10 t
.45***
Insig.
Insig.
(.11)
(.08)
(.12)
(.06)
.31*
-.42***
.37***
-.74***
4. CoremodelEHEd
-.03
.61"
(.13)
(.24)
(.07)
(.07)
(.09)
(.07)
.48*
-.20*
-.09 t
5. Chileanversionof coree
.34***
-.47***
(.23)
(.07)
(.08)
(.10)
(.06)
EHE
in
standard
errors
hierarchical
with
effect
are
model
estimates
Data
shown
=
Note:
empirical
parentheses.
parameter
a Model 1 fromTable2.
b OriginalCoreModelfittedto the
EnglishandFrenchmobilitytables.See text for details.
C Differencein parameter
magnitudebetweenoriginalcoremodelfittedto the Chileantable(row 1) andto the CASMINt
d Model2 fromTable2.
e Model3 fromTable2.
t P <.1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
1.Coremodeloriginala
436
REVIEW
SOCIOLOGICAL
AMERICAN
9EriksonandGoldthorpe(1992a,
Table2.2)presenttheaveragerankingof classesbasedonstandard
statusmeasures,buttheydo notshowtheempirical
rankingof classesfor eachcountry.If the occupationalcomposition
of classesvariesacrosscountries,
in
theremaybe significantinternational
differences
thehierarchical
rankingof classes.
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 437
438
SOCIOLOGICAL
AMERICAN
REVIEW
OFTHECORSMODEL
VERSIONS
AlthoughChileanmobilitydynamicsseemto be
driven by inequality across classes in a very
unequal society, the fitting of the core model
providesno indicationthatChileis significantly
less fluid than depicted by the core model. As
a preliminaryanalysisof the Chileanlevel of fluidity, I comparethe predictedpropensitiesfor
mobility andimmobilitybetweenspecific pairs
of classes in Chile with those in the CASMIN
countries. Propensities are obtained from the
originalandChileanversionsof the coremodel,
respectively (models 2 and 5 of Table3).
IN CHILE 439
SOCIALMOBILITY
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
CO-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Service
(I+II)
Farm
Routine
SelfSkilled Unskilled Farmers
Non- Employed Manual Manual
Workers
(IVc)
manual
(VIIb)
(IVab)
(V+VI)
(VIIa)
(III)
Social Classes
- - - SES Scores (1)
44o
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
I Dataon England,France,Sweden,theUnited
States,Ireland,andScotlandwereobtainedfromthe
CASMINdataset.Dataon Israelwereobtained
from
the 1991 IsraeliSocialMobilitySurvey.Samples
arereducedto menages25 to 64 yearsin theCASMIN countries,andto Jewishmen ages 25 to 64
yearsin Israel.
12 Note thatthisis notthe coremodelof fluidity
estimatedin theprevioussection,buta fullinteractionmodel,whichusesone parameter
foreachcell
of the table, but constrainsthe parametersto be
acrosscountries.
homogeneous
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 441
Table4. Fit Statisticsfor MobilityModelsin EightCountries
1. Conditional
Indendence
Model
L2
df
BIC
AssociationExplained
16971.7
288.0
13823.0
0.0%
Israel
Chile
USA
Sweden
4 England
4 France
4 Ireland
Scotland
2. Common
Social Fluidity
987.2
252.0
-1767.8
94.2%
3. UNIDIFF
639.7
245.0
-2038.8
96.2%
.25
.26
.30
.31
.39
.41
.42
.43
Fijk
7=
7i0
D TkC 7ikOC
TjkDC exp(ij4k),
foreachcombination
of originanddestination
ordering (GoodmanandHout1998;Xie 1992).
14FollowingXie's(1992)formulation,
thescaleof
the 4k parametersis normalizedso thatXj4k2equals 1.
442
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
assumes no origin-destinationassociationand,
as expected,fits the datapoorly.The key model
comparison is between the constant fluidity
model, assuming no variationacross historical
periods,andthe UNIDIFFmodel, whichpostulates a significant change in the level of fluidity over time. A comparisonof models 3 and 2
indicates that allowing the origin-destination
associationto vary acrosscohortsdoes not lead
to a significant improvementof fit overthatof
the constant fluidity model. The model comparison, therefore, indicates that mobility did
not decline as a result of the growth in economic inequality during the market transformation,nor is thereany change associatedwith
the slightreductionof inequalityand significant
economic growth duringthe growthand redemocratizationperiod.
Toprovidea morerobustassessmentof trends,
a replicate analysis is presented in panel B,
which replacescurrentclass positionwith class
positionin firstjob as class destination.Because
firstjob identifies the same life cycle stage for
all respondents, this formulation presents an
alternative way of controlling for the confoundingof age andperiod.Findingsareinsensitiveto the specificationof class of destination.
As panelB shows,themodelallowingforchange
in fluidityacross cohorts(model 3) fits the data
significantly worse than the model assuming
constantfluidity over time (model 2).
In summary,the cohort analysis shows no
significant change in mobility rates over time
despite a growth in inequalityduringthe market reform.This findingsuggestsno association
betweenmobility and inequality.An alternative
explanation can be offered, however. I have
shown that economic inequality significantly
increased during the market transformation
(1974-1988). At the same time, some components of the marketreformmay have weakened
the traditionalbarriersacrosssectorsof theeconomy. The agrariancounterreformand consequent marketizationof the countryside likely
reducedthebarriersseparatingagricultural
classes, and the growth and diversification of the
self-employedsectorlikely weakenedthebarriers separatingthe self-employedclassesfromthe
restof the Chileanclass structure.Theseprocesses may have induced two types of mobility
changegoing in oppositedirections.Onthe one
hand,an increasein economic inequalitywould
have heightenedhierarchicalbarriersto mobil-
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 443
Table5. Goodnessof Fit Statisticsfor ChileanMobilityModelsacrossCohorts
1. Conditional 2. Common
Independence Social Fluidity
3. UNIDIFF
*
PanelA. Father'sClassPosition CurrentClassPosition
130.0
L2
822.1
137.4
72.0
70.0
df
108.0
-431.9
-424.4
-31.3
BIC
84.0%
83.0%
Associationexplained
0.0%
.57
Redistributive
period
.51
Marketreformperiod
.66
Growthandredemocratization
period
(
*
PanelB. Father'sClassPosition ClassPositionFirstJob
112.1
1234.7
116.0
L2
70.0
72.0
df
108.0
-441.3
-453.2
BIC
380.9
90.6%
90.6%
0.0%
Associationexplained
.55
Redistributive
period
.54
Marketreformperiod
.63
period
d Growthandredemocratization
association(see text for details)
Note: = Country-specificdeviationfromoverallorigin-destination
Model
444
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 445
by a macro-levelunderstandingof the topography of inequalityandmobilitywithin the country to determine the precise distance across
classes in terms of the resources enjoyed by
each, and consequently,the differentialincentives involved in the competitionfor success.
Shifting the focus from the level to the pattern of mobility and inequalityalso can illuminate othernationalcases. Forinstance,the case
of the U.S. has puzzled researchersbecause of
its high level of fluidity despite its statusas the
most unequalcountryin the industrializedworld
(Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992a:381).
Attempting to explain this finding, some
researchers have argued for the incentive
approach, claiming that inequality promotes
individualattemptsto "get ahead,"thus leading
to enhanced fluidity.An alternativeinterpretation, however,would take into accountthe pattern of American inequality and mobility.
Despite all the recent concern about "the rich
gettingricher"(Mishel et al. 2005; Wolff 1995),
the U.S. patternof inequality is exactly opposite that of Chile. The United States is unequal
because the poor receive an extremely small
portion of the national income (Alesina and
Glaeser 2004:47; Atkinson 1996, Table 2;
Smeeding and Rainwater2002). Consistently,
examinationof mobility patternsin the United
States reflects significant barriersto upward
mobility for the lower class, and more fluidity
in the rest of the table,which might resultin an
overall high level of fluidity (see Gottschalk
and Danziger 1998, Tables 2 and 3, for evidence based on long-termincome mobility,and
FeathermanandHauser1978,Table4.12, for an
early analysis of class mobility).
Combining a careful analysis of class rankings-to evaluatethe consequence of different
barriersto mobility-with a detailed examination of specific barriersbetween classes will
entitledInconsequential
pletinga bookmanuscript
The
in Comparative
Chilean
Case
Mobility:
Perspective.Otherprojectsincludea comparative
analysis of educational stratification in Latin
America, and a comparative analysis of access to
homeownership.
APPENDIX
FOR
CLUSTER-ANALYTIC
TECHNIQUE
COLLAPSING
CLASSES
INTOHIERARCHICAL
STRATA
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
446
2.0
1.5
1.0
r
0.5
C0.0
-1.5
-4--Schooling
S-0.5Schooling
FigureAl.
TableAl.
]
Earings
"-UQ--Earnings
Standardized
Valuesof MeanSchoolingandEarningsacrossClasses:Chile 2001
Rankingof Classes
Comparisonof CASMINandChileanEmpirically-Obtained
Stratum
CASMIN
1 Upper
ServiceClass(I+II)
2 Middle
RoutineNon-manual(III)
Self-Employed(IVab)
SkilledManual(V+VI)
Farmers(IVc)
RoutineNon-manual(III)
Self-Employed(IVab)
3 Lower
UnskilledManual(VIIa)
FarmWorkers(VIIb)
SkilledManual(V+VI)
UnskilledManual(VIIa)
Farmers(IVc)
FarmWorkers(VIIb)
REFERENCES
Alesina,AlbertoandEdwardGlaeser.2004. Fighting
Povertyin the USandEurope.Oxford,UK: Oxford
University Press.
Arum, Richard and WalterMiiller, eds. 2004. The
ReemergenceofSelf-Employment:A Comparative
Study of Self-EmploymentDynamics and Social
Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Atkinson, Anthony. 1996. "Income Distribution in
Europe and the United States."OxfordReview of
Economic Policy 12:15-28.
Behrman, Jere. 1999. "Social Mobility: Concepts
and Measurements."Chapter4 in New Markets,
New Opportunities?: Economic and Social
Mobility in a Changing World,edited by Nancy
Chilean-Empirical
ServiceClass(I+II)
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 447
Europe, edited by Richard Breen. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
. 2004b. "Social Mobility in Europebetween
-1970 and 2000." Chapter3 in Social Mobility in
Europe, edited by Richard Breen. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Costa-Ribeiro, Carlos. 2003. The Brazilian
Occupational Structure. Ph.D. dissertation,
Departmentof Sociology, Columbia University,
New York,NY.
Deininger, Klaus and Lyn Squire. 1996. "A New
Data Set MeasuringIncomeInequality."TheWorld
Bank Economic Review 10:565-91.
Edwards, Sebastian and Alejandra Cox-Edwards.
1991.MonetarismandLiberalization:TheChilean
Experiment.Cambridge,MA: Ballinger.
Ellworth, Paul T. 1945. Chile: An Economy in
Transition.New York:Macmillan.
Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff. 1997.
"FactorEndowments,Institutions,andDifferential
Paths of Growthamong New WorldEconomies."
Pp. 260-304 in How LatinAmerica Fell Behind,
edited by StephenHaber.Stanford,CA: Stanford
University Press.
Erikson, Robert and John Goldthorpe. 1987a.
"CommonalityandVariationin Social Fluidity in
IndustrialNations:PartI. A Model for Evaluating
the FJH Hypothesis." European Sociological
Review 3:54-77.
. 1987b. "Commonality and Variation in
Social Fluidity in IndustrialNations: PartII. The
Model of Core Social FluidityApplied."European
Sociological Review 3:145-66.
. 1992a. The Constant Flux. Oxford, UK:
ClarendonPress.
. 1992b. "The CASMIN Project and the
AmericanDream."EuropeanSociological Review
8:283-305.
Erikson, Robert, John Goldthorpe, and Lucienne
Portocarero. 1979. "Intergenerational Class
Mobility in Three WesternEuropean Societies."
BritishJournal ofSociology 30:415-41.
. 1982. "Social Fluidity in Industrial
Nations: England, France and Sweden." British
Journal of Sociology 33:1-34.
Featherman, David and Robert Hauser. 1978.
Opportunityand Change. New York:Academic
Press.
Featherman, David, Lancaster Jones, and Robert
Hauser. 1975. "Assumptionsof Social Mobility
Research in the US: The Case of Occupational
Status."Social Science Research 4:329-60.
Friedman,Milton. 1962. Capitalismand Freedom.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Galbraith,James.2002. "APerfectCrime:Inequality
in theAge of Globalization."
Daedalus 131:11-24.
Ganzeboom, Harry and Paul De Graaf. 1984.
"IntergenerationalOccupationalMobility in the
Netherlands in 1954 and 1977: A Log-Linear
448
SOCIOLOGICAL
AMERICAN
REVIEW
Approach." Sociological
Methodology
28:175-230.
Gottschalk, Peter and Sheldon Danzinger. 1998.
"Family Income Mobility. How Much is There
andHas it Changed?"Pp. 92-111 in TheInequality
Paradox, edited by JamesAuerbachand Richard
Belous. Washington, DC: National Policy
Association.
Grusky, David and Robert Hauser. 1984.
"ComparativeSocial Mobility Revisited:Models
of ConvergenceandDivergencein 16 Countries."
AmericanSociological Review 49:19-38.
Gwynne, Robert. 1996. "DirectForeignInvestment
and NontraditionalExport Growthin Chile: The
Case of the Forestry Sector."Bulletin of Latin
AmericanResearch 15:341-57.
Hauser, Robert. 1978. "A StructuralModel of the
Mobility Table."Social Forces 56:919-53.
. 1984a. "Vertical Class Mobility in
England, France and Sweden."Acta Sociologica
27:87-110.
. 1984b. "Vertical Class Mobility in
England,France and Sweden."Acta Sociologica
27:387-90.
Hauser,Robert,JohnKoffel, HarryTravis,andPeter
Dickinson. 1975a. "Temporal Change in
OccupationalMobility: Evidence for Men in the
United States." American Sociological Review
40:279-97.
Hauser,Robert, PeterDickinson, HarryTravis,and
John Koffel. 1975b. "Structural Changes in
OccupationalMobility among Men in the United
States."AmericanSociologicalReview40:585-98.
Heath, Anthony and Clive Payne. 1999. Twentieth
Century Trends in Social Mobility in Britain.
Working Paper 70 CREST. National Centre for
Social Research and Department of Sociology
University of Oxford,Oxford,UK.
Hofman,Andre. 2000. TheEconomic Development
of Latin America in the Twentieth Century.
Cheltenham,UK: EdwardElgar.
Hopkins, Terenceand ImmanuelWallerstein.1982.
"Patternsof Development in the Modem WorldSystem." Pp. 41-82 in WorldSystemsAnalysis:
TheoryandMethodology,editedby T.Hopkinsand
I. Wallerstein.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hout, Michael. 1983. MobilityTables.BeverlyHills,
CA: Sage.
1988. "MoreUniversalism,Less Structural
-I.
Mobility"The American OccupationalStructure
in the 1980s." American Journal of Sociology
93:1358-1400.
. 2004. "How Inequality Might Affect
IntergenerationalMobility."Pp. 969-87 in Social
Inequality, edited by KathrynNeckerman. New
York:Russell Sage Foundation.
Hout,Michael andRobertHauser.1992. "Symmetry
and Hierarchy in Social Mobility: A
MethodologicalAnalysis of the CASMIN Model
of Class Mobility."EuropeanSociologicalReview
8:239-65.
Hout,MichaelandJohnJackson.1986. "Dimensions
of Occupational Mobility in the Republic of
Ireland."EuropeanSociologicalReview2:114-37.
ILO. 1990. InternationalStandardClassificationof
Occupations:ISCO-88.Geneva,Switzerland:ILO.
INE. 2002. CompendioEstadistico 2002 (Statistical
Yearbook2002). Santiago,Chile: INE.
Infante,RicardoandEmilio Klein. 1995. "TheLatin
AmericanLaborMarket1950-1990." Pp. 315-32
in Latin America's Economic Development:
Confronting Crisis, edited by James Dietz.
Boulder,CO: Lynne Rienner.
Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank. 1999. Facing
Up to Inequality in Latin America: 1998-99
Report. Washington,DC: IADB and The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Ishida, Hiroshi. 1993. Social Mobility in
ContemporaryJapan. Stanford, CA: Stanford
UniversityPress.
Ishida,Hiroshi,JohnGoldthorpe,andRobertErikson.
1991. "Intergenerational
ClassMobilityin Postwar
AmericanJournalofSociology 94:952-92.
Japan."
Jonsson,JanandColin Mills. 1993. "SocialMobility
in the 1970s and 1980s: A Study of Men and
Women in England and Sweden." European
Sociological Review 9:229-48.
Kaufman, Leonard and Peter Rousseeuw. 1990.
FindingGroupsin Data:An Introductionto Cluster
Analysis. New York:Wiley and Sons.
Kay, Cristobal.2002. "Chile'sNeoliberal Agrarian
Transformationand the Peasantry."Journal of
Agrarian Change 2:464-501.
Kerckhoff,Alan, RichardCampbell,and IdeeLaird.
1985. "Social Mobility in Great Britain and the
United States."American Journal of Sociology
91:281-308.
Klein, Emilio and Victor Tokman. 2000. "Social
StratificationunderTensionin a GlobalizedEra."
CEPALReview 72:7-29.
Larranaga,Osvaldo. 1999. "Distribucionde Ingresos
y Crecimientoen Chile"(IncomeDistributionand
Growth in Chile). Santiago, Chile: Serie Ref.
Economicas 35. MIDEPLAN.
Whelan.2004. "Class
Layte,RichardandChristopher
Transformation
andTrendsin Social Fluidityin the
Republic of Ireland 1973-1994." Chapter 7 in
Social Mobility in Europe, edited by Richard
Breen. Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversity Press.
Leon, Arturo and Javier Martinez. 2000. "Social
Stratification in Chile at the Close of the 20th
Century."Pp. 283-308 in Chile in the Nineties,
edited by Cristian Toloza and Eugenio Lahera.
Santiago,Chile: Dolmen.
Luxembourg, Rosa. 1951. The Accumulation of
Capital.London,UK: Routledgeand KeganPaul.
Mamalakis,Markos.1976. TheGrowthandStructure
SOCIALMOBILITY
IN CHILE 449
of the Chilean Economy. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Marcel, Mario and Andres Solimano. 1994. "The
Distribution of Income and Economic
Adjustment."
Pp. 217-55 in TheChileanEconomy:
Policy Lessons and Challenges, edited by Barry
Bosworth, Rudiger Dornbusch,and Raul Laban.
Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution.
Marshall,Gordon and Adam Swift. 1999. "On the
Meaning and Measurementof Inequality"Acta
Sociologica 42:241-50.
Marshall,Gordon,Adam Swift, andStephenRoberts.
1997. Against the Odds? Social Class and Social
Justice in IndustrialSocieties. Oxford:Clarendon
Press.
Martinez,Javierand Alvaro Diaz. 1999. Chile: The
Great Transformation. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution,and Geneva, Switzerland:
UN ResearchInstitutefor Social Development.
McRoberts,Hugh and Kevin Selbec. 1981. "Trends
in OccupationalMobilityin Canadaandthe United
States: A Comparison."American Sociological
Review46:406-21.
Meller,Patricio.1991. "Adjustmentand Social Costs
in Chile During the 1980s." WorldDevelopment
19:1545-51.
. 1996. Un Siglo de Economia Politica
Chilena (One Century of Political Economy in
Chile). Santiago,Chile: Andres Bello.
MIDEPLAN.2000. Pobreza, Indigencia e Impacto
del Gasto Social en la Calidad de Vida(Poverty,
Indigenceand Impactof Social Spendingon Life
Quality). Informe EjecutivoN1, Encuesta Casen
2000. Santiago,'Chile:MIDEPLAN.
. 2001. Socioeconomic Characterization
Survey (CASEN) Year 2000. Codebook and
Technical Report. Santiago, Chile: Ministry of
PlanningChile. MIDEPLANChile [producerand
distributor].
Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia
Allegreto. 2005. The State of WorkingAmerica
2004-05. Ithaca,NY: ILR Press.
Miiller, Walter. 1986. "Soziale Mobilitdit: Die
Bundesrepublik im internationalen Vergleich"
(Social Mobility: The Federal Republic in
ComparativePerspective).Pp. 339-54 in Politische
WissenschaftundpolitischeOrdnung,editedby M.
Kaase.Opladen,Germany:WestdeutscherVerlag.
Munoz,Oscar.1968. CrecimientoIndustrialen Chile
1914-1965 (Industrial Growth in Chile
1914-1965). Santiago, Chile: Universidad de
Chile.
Noorderhaven,Niels, RoyThurik,SanderWennekers,
across
andAndreVanStel. 2003. Self-Employment
15 EuropeanNations: TheRole ofDissatisfaction.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Mimeo Faculty of
Economics ErasmusUniversity.
Park, Hyunjoon. 2004. "IntergenerationalSocial
Mobility among Korean Men in Comparative
45o
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW