Social Class in Europe

An introduction to the European Socio-economic Classification

David Rose, Eric Harrison

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781134048267
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This timely volume introduces a new social class schema, the European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC), which has been specifically developed and tested for use in EU comparative research. Social Class in Europe aims to introduce researchers to the new classification and its research potential. Since socio-economic classifications are so widely used in official and academic research, this collection is essential reading for all users of both government and academic social classifications. While primarily aimed at researchers who will be using the ESeC, the book's contents will also have a wider appeal as it is suitable for students taking substantive courses in European studies or as a supplementary text for undergraduates studying the EU, Sociology and Economics. Because of its inherent methodological interest, the book should prove a valuable tool for undergraduate and graduate courses that discuss how social scientists construct and validate basic measures. It will also be required reading for policy makers and analysts concerned with social inequality and social exclusion across Europe.

Part I

Introducing the ESeC

1 The European Socioeconomic Classification

A prolegomenon

David Rose, Eric Harrison and David Pevalin

Introduction

In 1999, as part of its Statistical Harmonization Programme, Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Com munities) commissioned an Expert Group to make recommendations for the development of a new statistical tool for understanding differences in social structures and socio-economic inequalities across the European Union (EU). In its subsequent report to Eurostat (Rose et al. 2001) the group recommended the development of a common socio-economic classification for all EU Member States based on the concept of employment relations (see below) and outlined a work programme to achieve this objective.

A research project to develop a prototype version of a harmonized European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC) commenced in 2004, funded under Framework Programme 6, and was completed in 2006. This project involved a consortium of two National Statistical Institutes (NSIs), the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), and academic researchers from six countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Most of the other EU NSIs, as well as additional academic experts from across Europe, participated in the two project conferences and also provided written advice (see below and also the project website for further details: www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/esec). At a Eurostat meeting in Luxembourg in September 2006, it was recommended that NSIs across the EU should seek to implement the classification, subject to the resolution of a number of outstanding statistical issues. These included the need to align the ESeC with changes in national occupational classifications arising through the introduction of the new 2008 version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), the harmonized classification used across the EU for reporting occupational statistics (see Elias and Birch 1994a, 1994b).

While Eurostat has, quite appropriately, taken responsibility for the final stages of the work involved in implementing the ESeC as a harmonized variable within the European Statistical System, the success of this indicator in furthering our understanding of inequalities across the EU depends upon demonstrating its value as an analytical tool. That is the fundamental purpose of this book. The chapters that follow are all written by members of the ESeC consortium and report the findings of their work for the project.

In this chapter we set the scene in terms of both ESeC and the rest of what follows. In the second section, largely for the benefit of non-aficionados, we begin with a discussion of terminology regarding socio-economic classifications (SECs) and the particular form that ESeC takes. This is followed, in the third and fourth sections, by an account of why ESeC is necessary and why a clear conceptual basis is crucial if an SEC is to be a useful statistical and social scientific instrument. In the fifth and sixth sections respectively, we explain the conceptual underpinnings of ESeC and describe its categories, rules and variants. In the final three sections of the chapter we examine validation issues in relation to ESeC as a precursor to explaining the plan of the book, discussing the other chapters and drawing some conclusions. We commence with an explanation of what we mean by a socio-economic classification.

What is a ‘socio-economic classification’?

The term ‘socio-economic classification’ (SEC) is merely a descriptive one; that is, in and of itself it has no theoretical, conceptual or analytic status whatsoever.¹ Consequently it may be applied as a generic term for a variety of different measures designed to reflect how societies are stratified. Social stratification refers to social inequalities that may be attributed to the way a society is organized, to its socio-economic structure. SECs all share in common the idea that in market economies it is market position, and especially position in the occupational division of labour, which is fundamental to the generation of social inequalities. The life-chances of individuals and families are largely determined by their position in the labour market and occupation is taken to be its central indicator; that is, the occupational structure is viewed as the spine of the stratification system. The question then becomes how we use occupation as an indicator of social position in terms of an SEC. Two broad approaches exist, reflecting different aspects of inequality. First there are occupational scales which tend to measure the distributive aspects of inequality, and second, there are categorial schemas intended to measure relational as well as distributive issues.

As Ganzeboom and his colleagues (1992) have noted, social scientists have become divided between those who favour categorial approaches to socioeconomic classification and those who prefer continuous measures. That is, some favour SECs that divide the population into a discrete number of categories or social positions. Others prefer measures that allow for ‘an unlimited number of graded distinctions between occupational groups’ which assume that ‘differences between occupational groups can be captured in one dimension’ represented by a single parameter (Ganzeboom et al. 1992: 3–4). We shall briefly examine these two approaches, while noting that each uses occupational information for its derivation (for further discussions of the different types of SEC see Lareau and Conley 2008: ch. 1; Svallfors 2006: ch. 2; Rose 2005; Ganzeboom and Treiman 2003; Bergman and Joye 2001; Hauser and Warren 1997).

American research post-1945 led to attempts to construct quantitative socio-economic scales, scores or indices, generally referred to under the umbrella term of socio-economic status or SES measures. At first sight, these continuous measures might be seen as more avowedly ‘socio-economic’ in the sense that they combine information on occupation, education and income, i.e. they summarize social and economic variables relating to occupations. Their primary aim is to reveal the distributive aspects of social inequality (see Egidi and Schizzerotto 1996). For example, Duncan’s (1961) ‘Socioeconomic Index’ or SEI brought together ‘social’ (in this case status or prestige) measures of occupations with educational and income measures in an attempt to predict status from information on education and income. In Duncan’s view, the SEI made a link between occupation on the one hand and education and income on the other. Thus, the overall status of each occupation was simultaneously estimated in terms of both its social and economic statuses. Thereby, the correlation of status with education and income became a matter of definition. This type of approach (commonly associated with the status attainment form of mobility research) remains the commonest explicit description of a socio-economic measure (and, confusingly for what follows, is often termed a measure of class position in the USA: see Lareau 2008). An internationally comparable SEI measure has been developed (see Ganzeboom et al. 1992).

However, there is another tradition in socio-economic classification that is rather different from Duncan’s synthetic, unitary approach. Many social scientists would prefer to see occupation, education and income as separate dimensions relating to social stratification. Indeed, it is the synthetic rather than gradational aspects of SES measures that worry many analysts, i.e. the construction of indices that combine education, income and occupation rather than exploring their interconnections via multivariate analysis (see Lareau 2008: 11–12 and passim). Hence, the alternative approach is one which sees individuals as being distributed across a range of positions in the social structure in terms of social and economic power and thus also concentrates on the relational aspects of inequality as well as the distributive ones. In other words, individuals possess certain resources by virtue of the positions they occupy and consequently face a range of possibilities and constraints in terms of their behaviour. Those who share comparable resources, and thus similar structural positions, will share comparable possibilities and constraints in terms of ‘life-chances’ (e.g. chances for educational attainment, health, material rewards, economic security and social mobility). Therefore, they may also be expected to act in similar ways. Accordingly, in this approach, the structural base of social power provides ‘a link between the organization of society and the position and behaviour of individuals’ (Breen and Rottman 1995a: 455, emphasis added; see also Wright 2008; Egidi and Schizzerotto 1996; Goldthorpe and Marshall 1992). While there are many bases of social power, such as race, gender and social status, it is generally agreed among sociologists that the most important in modern market economies is that of social class, i.e. social power based on market or economic power (see e.g. Crompton 2008: ch. 2; Wright 2008, 2005; Marshall 1997: ch.1; Scott 1996; Breen and Rottman 1995b). Thus, we can also see categorial social class measures as being ‘socio-economic’ classifications.

Social class is fundamental to the distribution of life-chances in industrial and post-indus...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• PART I Introducing the ESeC
• PART II Measuring social class
• PART III Using ESeC in comparative research on social class
• PART IV Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Author index
• Subject index