‘Escape from Poverty’ and Occupations Paul Lambert, University of Stirling

1. ‘Escape from Poverty’ and OccupationsPaul Lambert, University of Stirling Paper presented to the Scottish Social Survey Network, Seminar 7, University of Stirling, 4 June 2009 Survey Network 4 June 2009

2. ‘Escape from Poverty’ and Occupations Or, ‘Occupational disadvantage and its relation to poverty and poverty transitions’ • Why occupations matter • How an occupational approach to measuring poverty could work • Some preliminary results {for Scotland} Survey Network 4 June 2009

3. Some background • Research on stratification, inequality, poverty • Whole distribution, cf the most disadvantaged • E.g. Poverty as < 50% median; ‘Underclass’ as lacking assets; etc • Direct v’s indirect measures of poverty (e.g. Gordon, 2000, 2006) • Absolute or relative measurements • Sociology – primacy of the occupation • Notion of a latent, underlying, socially embedded occupation as an indirect measure of poverty...? • CAMSIS scales: relative social advantage typically associated with incumbents of occupational positions over lifetime (Stewart et al, 1980) • Non-working have latent occupations by socially significant links (e.g. household sharing; career; parents) • ..this may not be the same as current objective conditions... Survey Network 4 June 2009

4. 1) Why occupations matter Some claims about occupations: • Occupations matter more than other things • Occupational inequality is mostly one-dimensional • Occupational information resources are under-used, and this causes bad science *Quote as highlighted in Coxon and Jones (1978: 10) “Nothing stamps a man as much as his occupation. Daily work determines the mode of life.. It constrains our ideas, feelings and tastes” (Goblot, 1961)* Survey Network 4 June 2009

5. (i) Occupations matter more ‘Gissa job’; ‘I can do that’ From http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2007/10/09/boys_from_the_blackstuff_feature.shtml Survey Network 4 June 2009

6. (i) Occupations matter more • We behave as if they do • Define our lifestyles • Define structures of social inequality b) Lifestyles A large body of sociological evidence on the social meaning of occupations – define friendships, marriage, leisure, consumption, and social reproduction itself (e.g. Devine 2004, Pettinger et al. 2005; Guveli et al. 2007; Archer 2007; Bottero et al. 2009) “A man’s work is as good a clue as any to the course of his life and to his social being and identity” (Hughes, 1958) Survey Network 4 June 2009

7. c) Occupations define structures of social inequality • Occupations are convenient markers of major social inequalities • Occupations (division of labour) are the primary driver of the structure of social inequality Empirical evidence.. • Reaffirms economic significance of jobs • (McGovern et al, 2007; ) • Rejects thesis of diminished structural significance of occupations in modern society • (Blossfeld et al., 2006) • Highlights centrality of occupations in contours of other social divisions • (e.g. immigration - Waldinger and Lichter, 2003) Survey Network 4 June 2009

8. A specially selected table… Source: BHPS 2007, currently employed adults, predictors of smoking (additional controls for age and gender) Survey Network 4 June 2009

9. [Occupational not geographical inequality – cf. Burrows & Crow 2006] Survey Network 4 June 2009

10. ii) Occupational inequality is mostly one-dimensional Survey Network 4 June 2009

11. Histograms go here Survey Network 4 June 2009

12. iii) Occupational information resources are under-used, and this causes bad science • Detailed occupational data is important • e.g. Weeden & Grusky (2005) • Handling of detailed occupational data is generally poor • Re-coding to simplified categorisations • Ignoring complex data (e.g. careers; gender seg.) • For more and more (and more) on this see • www.dames.org.uk • Lambert et al (2007) Survey Network 4 June 2009

13. Survey Network 4 June 2009

14. 2) How an occupational approach to measuring poverty could work (part A) • Apparently straightforward decision to make defining a threshold level… • ..of the average social advantage typically associated with incumbents of the occupational position Survey Network 4 June 2009

15. Survey Network 4 June 2009

16. All jobs, male scale: threshold=38.51Occupational unit groups with > 90 in BHPS sample Remember that these jobs’ scores are cross-classified by employment status

17. Survey Network 4 June 2009

18. Female jobs, female scale: threshold = 38.45Occupational unit groups with > 50 females in BHPS sample

19. 2) How an occupational approach to measuring poverty could work (part B) • ‘For most individuals, their income and social status is derived directly through their employment; when children, through their parents’ employment; for some adults, through their partner’s employment; for retired people, through their and/or their partner’s work histories’ (McKnight, 2009: 91) • An occupational approach to measuring poverty would need to address three critical issues • How to define occupation-based advantage/poverty • The currently non-working • The weighting of occupations linked to people Survey Network 4 June 2009

20. A parsimonious cross-sectional strategy..? • Modified Household ‘dominance’ approach • Use the most advantaged occupation within the household, prioritising ft work (e.g. Erikson, 1984), and recognising gender of occupation-holder • For students, parental jobs used • For those in household without job.. • Retrospective questions on last main job • Parental jobs used for those aged < 30 Survey Network 4 June 2009

21. Valid data on occupations (BHPS wave 17, excluding NI) Survey Network 4 June 2009

22. No occupational data - BHPS wave 17 (2007) Survey Network 4 June 2009

23. Correlations between measures, BHPS, w17 individuals.These low correlations reflect people making 1 threshold and not another Survey Network 4 June 2009

24. Selected correlations with binary poverty indicatorsBHPS wave 17 excluding NI, N=12448 Survey Network 4 June 2009

25. Methodological issues • Handling categorical data (on occupations) • Scoring occupations: supports standardisation approach for longitudinal data and other comparability issues • Categorisation of occupations: could be harder to establish in terms of relative occupational advantage over time/place • Change over time (escape from poverty) • Long term and short term change? • Macro-economic shocks? • Current measures ignore current situation, such as unemployment • Further occupational measures • Average of occupations over the previous career? • Average of occupations within household (rather than dominance) • Consider weighting occupation score by working status / unemployment? Survey Network 4 June 2009

26. 3) Some preliminary results for Scotland Survey Network 4 June 2009

27. ..preliminary results for Scotland.. Survey Network 4 June 2009

28. (Additional controls for age, gender) Survey Network 4 June 2009

29. (Additional controls for age, gender) Survey Network 4 June 2009

30. Survey Network 4 June 2009

31. 5) Conclusions ‘Escape from social disadvantage’ and occupations • Occupational measures as feasible indirect indicators of relative poverty/disadvantage for the whole population • Reduce demographic/life-stage influence cf. income measures • Measurement challenges • Reflecting current circumstances [vulnerability to poverty, Gordon 2006] • The concept of poverty • Implicitly absolute concept? • Implicitly longitudinal (a thing to escape), but is this over-optimistic? • What determines social disadvantage/poverty? • Disadvantage is more stable than income-based measures show • Education and social background matters more than is recognised • Family status / demographics matter less Survey Network 4 June 2009

32. Data sources • University of Essex, & Institute for Social and Economic Research. (2009). British Household Panel Survey: Waves 1-17, 1991-2008 [computer file], 5th Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], March 2009, SN 5151. • Minnesota Population Center. (2008). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series - International: Version 4.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. • Prandy, K., & Bottero, W. (1998). The use of marriage data to measure the social order in nineteenth-century Britain. Sociological Research Online, 3(1), U43-U54. • Office for National Statistics. Social and Vital Statistics Division and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Central Survey Unit, Quarterly Labour Force Survey, January - March, 2008 [computer file]. 2nd Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], October 2008. SN: 5851. • General Register Office for Scotland, 2001 Census: Standard Area Statistics (Scotland) [computer file]. ESRC/JISC Census Programme, Census Dissemination Unit, Mimas (University of Manchester) Survey Network 4 June 2009

33. References • Archer, M. S. (2007). Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Blossfeld, H. P., Mills, M., & Bernardi, F. (Eds.). (2006). Globalization, Uncertainty and Men's Careers: An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Bottero, W., Lambert, P. S., Prandy, K., & McTaggart, S. (2009). Occupational Structures: The Stratification Space of Social Interaction. In K. Robson & C. Sanders (Eds.), Quantifying Theory: Pierre Bourdieu (pp. 141-150). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands. • Burrows, R., & Crow, G. (2006). Geodemographics, Software and Class. Sociology, 40(5), 793-812. • Coxon, A. P. M., & Jones, C. L. (1978). The Images of Occupational Prestige: A Study in Social Cognition. London: MacMillan Press. • Devine, F. (2004). Class Practices: How parents help their children get good jobs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Erikson, R. (1984). Social Class of Men, Women and Families. Sociology, 18(4), 500-514. • Goblot, E. (1961). Class and Occupation. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Theories of Society. New York: Free Press. • Gordon, D., Pantazis, C., & Townsend, P. (2000). Absolute and overall poverty: A European history and proposal for measurement. In D. Gordon & P. Townsend (Eds.), Breadline Europe : The measurement of poverty (pp. 79-106). Bristol: The Policy Press. • Gordon, D. (2006). The concept and measurement of poverty. In C. Pantazis, D. Gordon & R. Levitas (Eds.), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain: The Millenium Survey. Bristol: The Policy Press. • Guveli, A., Need, A., & De Graaf, N. D. (2007). Socio-political, cultural and economic preferences and behaviour of the social and cultural specialists and the technocrats. Social class or education? . Social Indicators Research, 81(3), 597-631. • Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their Work. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. • Lambert, P. S., Tan, K. L. L., Turner, K. J., Gayle, V., Prandy, K., & Sinnott, R. O. (2007). Data Curation Standards and Social Science Occupational Information Resources. International Journal of Digital Curation, 2(1), 73-91. • McGovern, P., Hill, S., Mills, C., & White, M. (2007). Market, Class and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Pettinger, L., Parry, J., Taylor, R., & Glucksmann, M. (Eds.). (2005). A New Sociology of Work? London:: Blackwell. • Stewart, A., Prandy, K., & Blackburn, R. M. (1980). Social Stratification and Occupations. London: MacMillan. • Tsakloglou, P., & Papadopoulos, F. (2003). Poverty, material deprivation and multi-dimensional disadvantage during four life stages: Evidence from the ECHP. In M. Barnes, C. Heady, S. Middleton, J. Millar, F. Papadopoulos, G. Room & P. Tsakloglou (Eds.), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Waldinger, R., & Lichter, M. I. (2003). How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley: University of California Press. • Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The Case for a New Class Map. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 141-212.