Communication presented at 11th European Sociological Association Conference. Torino, 28-31 August 2013.

1. 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

2. • 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)

3.  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 toWeak 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.

4.  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.

5.  EducationalOpportunities
 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).

7.  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).

8.  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.

10.  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.

11. EGP SCHEMA
TIMETRENDS (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.

13. First Cohort
(1939-1950)
Work Maturity
(1969-1980)
Authoritarian
regimes
"ThirdWave" of
democratization.
Second Cohort
(1951-62).
Work Maturity
(1981-1992).
Integration in EU
Socialist parties
"Il sorpaso"
Third Cohort
(1963-1974)
Work Maturity
(1993-2004).
Intense economic
growth.

14. 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)

15. 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.

18.  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)

19. 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)

20. Results

21. 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

22.  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 AFFINITY
PROPERTIE
S
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).

23. COUNTRY N df p rG2 BIC DI X2 G2
G2 (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 54.76
SEC 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:

24. AF1 I+II IIIab IVab IVc VI+VI VIIa VIIb
I+II 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
IIIab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IVab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IVc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VI+VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIIa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIIb 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
AFX I+II IIIab IVab IVc VI+VI VIIa VIIb
I+II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IIIab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IVab 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
IVc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VI+VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIIa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIIb 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
SECVersion of Core Model: Fitted common parameters
Fitted Core
Model Class of destination
Class of origin I+II IIIab IVab IVc V+VI VIIa VIIb
I+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

25.  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.

26.  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.

27.  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.

28. -0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
H1 H2 IN1 IN2 IN3 SE AF1 AF2 AFX
SPAIN ITALY GREECE PORTUGAL
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
H1 H2 IN1 IN2 IN3 SE AF1 AF2
SPAIN ITALY GREECE PORTUGAL FRANCE
CORE MODEL ORIGINAL (CrSF)
MEDITERRANEANVERSION OF CORE