SOC 312: American Society

Stratification

Stratification

• Major area in sociology in the U.S.• How do we explain the nature and types of

social inequality– interpersonal: deference or discrimination– group: in-group/out-group behavior– organizational: distribution of persons/rewards

over positions– institutional: enduring race, class, and gender

inequality

History

• Earliest theory: Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification," ASR 10 (April 1945), pp. 242-249

• But problem of inequality dates back to Emile Durkheim, Division of Labor in Society (1893)– modern (late 19th C) industrial society: achieved

inequality– replacing traditional society of inherited

(ascribed) status

Durkheim (cont.)

• Inequality was inevitable but nature was variable– achieved corresponded to talents and

inclinations: functional in modern industrial society

– functional not because of efficiency (Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith)

– served moral function: organic solidarity

Modern Division of Labor

• could maintain society• reinforce individual commitment to

collective enterprise• reaffirm sense of belonging to larger

community of society• regulate behavior: occupational/industrial

groups establish and enforce standards/ethics

Durkheim Div of Labor (cont.)

• Thus occupational groups and modern division of labor might replace functions of family and religion in traditional society

• Durkheim later realized that both religion and family (and mechanical solidarity) continued to serve important/critical function

• But saw predominance of differentiation and organic solidarity

Durkheim’s Functional Model of the Division of Labor and Mechanical or Organic Solidarity

DivisionOf Labor Solidarity

IncreasingSocial Density

-

+

-

Durkheim (cont.)• Potential conflict between achieved and

ascribed status– ascribed: inherited; sustained simple,

undifferentiated society– achieved: sustained modern differentiated

society

• Impossible to eliminate inheritance– But need to minimize its effect—even

affirmative action, for moral/economic viability

Davis and Moore (1945)• Rooted in functional theory/Durkheim• assumed

– some occupations more important– some occupations more difficult to fill

• talent required• unpleasant nature of work• years of preparation required

These occupations need to confer higher status (honor and money) to attract best and brightest

Davis and Moore’s Functional Model of Stratification

Hierarchy of Rewards

RecruitmentOf Best and Brightest

ExternalThreat

-

+

-

Cold War (1956-1989)Competition between U.S. and U.S.S.R.

– military– industrial– technological– ideological

U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik- inspired space race

- tons of money for eduction

- "rocket science"

Status Attainment and Occupational Prestige

• Weber: status was honor bestowed by community of likeminded persons– celebrated particular lifestyle (e.g. Green or Hip

Hop)– honored the exemplary taste, virtue, dignity or

style of those who followed this lifestyle (gourmet, Catholic, recovering alcoholic)

– gave awards, prizes or simply "esteem"

Weber on Class and Status

• Weber viewed status (lifestyle) and class (life chances) as distinct but related social interests– metro-sexuals honor a particular status– which requires a minimal standard of living

(class-based requirement)– but not all middle class people are or can be

metro-sexuals

Weber on Party (power)

• Weber viewed party as a third independent or at least distinct social base for interest group formation– parties are actively in pursuit of power (ability

to achieve goals despite resistance)– sometimes based on class interests– sometimes based on status interests– sometimes mixture of both– sometimes neither: purely political

Status Attainment

• status attainment literature in the U.S. in 1950s and 1960s– not well rooted in classical theory (or any

theory)– used "status" to refer to prestige that was

accorded a particular position or occupation– developed empirically rather than theoretically

• inductive statistics• rather than deductive theory

Occupational Mobility Tables

• Beginning with the Warner, Yankee City Studies

• sociologists in U.S. have viewed statification by ill-defined social classes– middle class versus working class (Lynds in

Middletown)– upper, middle, lower (and intermediate

categories) used by Warner et al

Featherman and Hauser

• Used manual/nonmanual occupations as major categories

• created categories of upper and lower manual and nonmanual, as opposed to farm

• used these categories to study occupational mobility, father to son

Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, Sixth Edition (2006), p. 373)

Father's

Occup

Son's Current Occupation

Up NonM Lo NonM UpManual LoManual Farm Total

1962 (N=10,550)

Up NM 56.8% 16.7% 11.5% 13.8% 1.2% 100%

Low NM 43.1% 23.7% 14.6% 17.0% 1.7% 100%

Up Man 24.7% 17.0% 28.6% 28.8% 1.2% 100%

Low Man 17.9% 14.8% 21.9% 43.4% 1.9% 100%

Farm 10.3% 12.3% 19.3% 35.9% 22.2% 100%

Total 24.5% 15.9% 20.2% 31.7% 7.7% 100%

1973 (N=20,850)

Up NM 59.4% 11.4% 12.8% 15.5% .9% 100%

Low NM 45.1% 16.6% 16.4% 20.7% 1.2% 100%

Up Man 30.9% 12.2% 27.7% 28.1% 1.2% 100%

Low Man 22.9% 12.1% 23.9% 40.1% 1.0% 100%

Farm 16.4% 9.0% 22.9% 37.1% 14.5% 100%

Total 31.2% 11.8% 21.9% 31.0% 4.1% 100%

Featherman and Hauser (cont.)

• the diagonal indicates the inheritance of occupation: 57% of sons of upper non-manual fathers find themselves in upper non-manual

• these tend to be the largest numbers (only 10% of farmers' sons in upper non-manual)

• above the diagonal is downward mobility• below the diagonal is upward mobility• lots of upward mobility, increasing 1962-1973

Blau and Duncan's Occupational Prestige Scores

• Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967)– developed ratio (or, at least, interval) scale for

occupational prestige– asked people to rate 45 occupations: excellent,

good, fair, poor; calculated % rated excellent or good (Y)

– matched occupations with 1950 census and computed percent of people in that occupation with high school or more education (X1) and percent in that occupation earning $3500 plus (X2)

Predicting Occupational Prestige

Prestige ofOccupation Y

Average income and education of occupation (X1+X2)

PredictedPrestige Score: Yp

low

High

High

. ....... . . . .................

. .............. . .. . ................. .. .. ............ .... ........... ........ ..... .............. ... .......... .. ... . . .....

.... .Yo observed values

...

...

.

Blau and Duncan

• using ordinary least squares regression– predict prestige for occupations that were not

among the 45– using the percent in each occupation with high

school plus (x1) and percent earning $3500 plus (x2)

– Yp=a+B1X1+B2X2+e

– the line is drawn to minimize the error:

– ∑(Yo-Yp)2/N (N is the number of observations)

Blau and Duncan (cont.)

• the OLS model fit the data extra-ordinarily well (for social science)– Multiple R=.91– that means that 83% of the variance in

occupational prestige was explained by education and income (as measured in this model)

– this was an amazing feat, which made Blau and Duncan famous

Blau and Duncan (cont.)

• they used this model to predict prestige scores for every occupation in the U.S. census– coding education and income– predicting occupational prestige– they then used this wonderful ratio scale

variable to predict mobility from father to son– this became the standard model of status

attainment (and is still popular)

Blau and Duncan's Path Model (Kerbo, p. 394)

Father'sEducation

Father'sOccupation

Son'sEducation

Son'sFirst Job

Son'sOccupation.516

.310

.279.115

.753

X

.224

.440

.394

.281

.818

X

X.859

The Wisconsin School

• social psychologists at U. Wisconsin– attempted to specify the effects of individual

and group differences– included IQ and academic performance– included evaluation by significant others

(teachers, etc.)– including attitudes (educational and

occupational aspirations)

Figure 12-7. Wisconsin School Path Model (Kerbo, p. 396)

ParentalSES

MentalAbility

OccupationalAspirations

Academicperformance

Occupational Status.288

.246

.179.320

.859

X

.589

.152

.808

X

SignificantOthers

Educational Aspirations

EducationalAttainment

.522

.441

.261

.218

.218

.457

.227

.792 .768

X X.627

.508

X

.654

.778

X

Operationalization

• occupational status (Blau & Duncan) (parents average occ and ed)

• IQ measured by standard WI test• aspiration (occ/ed hope in 1957: 7 years

earlier)• peer influence: perceived parental and

teacher encouragement for college and friends college plans

• academic performance is ranking in hs class

Critiques of Status Attainment• Hauser and his students: occupational

mobility largely determined by changes in occupational structure– 1950s and 1960s: creation of well-paid jobs in

manufacturing increased mobility to upper white collar (nonmanual) and blue collar (manual)

– 1970s and 1980s: relative decline of manufactures and rise of sales and service decreased mobility: more lower white and blue collar jobs

Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo, p. 373)

Father's

Occup

Son's Current Occupation

Up NonM Lo NonM UpManual LoManual Farm Total

1962 (N=10,550)

Up NM 56.8% 16.7% 11.5% 13.8% 1.2% 100%

Low NM 43.1% 23.7% 14.6% 17.0% 1.7% 100%

Up Man 24.7% 17.0% 28.6% 28.8% 1.2% 100%

Low Man 17.9% 14.8% 21.9% 43.4% 1.9% 100%

Farm 10.3% 12.3% 19.3% 35.9% 22.2% 100%

Total 24.5% 15.9% 20.2% 31.7% 7.7% 100%

1973 (N=20,850)

Up NM 59.4% 11.4% 12.8% 15.5% .9% 100%

Low NM 45.1% 16.6% 16.4% 20.7% 1.2% 100%

Up Man 30.9% 12.2% 27.7% 28.1% 1.2% 100%

Low Man 22.9% 12.1% 23.9% 40.1% 1.0% 100%

Farm 16.4% 9.0% 22.9% 37.1% 14.5% 100%

Total 31.2% 11.8% 21.9% 31.0% 4.1% 100%

Ross Stoltzenberg and Students

• Argued that both industry and occupation constrain workers and their ability to increase their earnings– Return on education

• Managers and professionals• Research and development• Versus line workers in manufacturing

– Return on experience• White collar/managerial-professional versus manual

Career Earnings

earnings

Years of education

earnings

Years of experience

bluecollar

whitecollar

bluecollar

whitecollar

Randy Hodson and students

• Labor markets are segmented: dual economy– Core sector: large firms, large market shares,

large and stable/predictable profits, offer high pay and benefits, high returns on education and experience

– Peripheral sector: small firms, small market shares, small and unstable profits, low pay and no benefits or job security, low returns on education and experience

Erik Olin Wright and students

• Status attainment and labor market theories ignore exploitation– Value of worker’s labor is appropriated

• Directly, as profit (or reinvested in capital) by employer

• Indirectly, as surplus wages/bonuses, by managers and supervisors

– Employers and managers earn more and receive greater return for education

Wright and Perrone (1977)

earnings

Years of education

workers

managers

employers

low

high

high

Erik Olin Wright and students

• Need to look at Marxist class categories• Need to look at movement of capital and labor

• In and out of industries• In pursuit of windfall/stable profits• In pursuit of high wages/stable employment

• As Hogan (1990) argued, industrial frontiers offer high risk/high profits

– Entrepreneurial labor and capital absorbs risks– Establishes reliable rates of return (or not)

Hogan (1990) continued

• Reliable rates of return (not large but reliable profits) attract big capital– Economies of scale yield higher rates of return

(bigger potential profits)– Only if rate of return is reliable– Otherwise excessive overhead and sunk costs

make it hard to respond to market fluctuations– Which is why entrepreneurs tend to be small

scale and are able to exploit industrial frontiers

Marxist Perspective

• Big (corporate/monopoly) capital and big (unionized) labor yield reliable profits and wages in what Hodson calls the “core” sector

• But proletarianization reduces skill and return on skill as big capital replaces skilled labor with machines and unskilled machine minders

Marxist Perspective (continued)

• The extent to which there are opportunities for higher wages or better jobs depends on the rate of– emerging industrial frontiers (rocket science in

the 1950s, computers in the 1970s, micro computers in the 1980s, the internet.com world of the 21st century)

– and proletarianization within industrial sectors

Wright and his students

• Wright and Perrone (1977) also looked at race and gender differences– In earnings– Within class– Return to education within class

• Findings– Black and white male managers: intercept but

not slope differences– White women managers: intercept and slope

differences

Wright and Perrone (1977)

earnings

Years of education

white female managers

black male managers

white male mangers

low

high

high

Featherman and Hauser : Black Mobility, 1962 and 1973

• Virtually no inheritance of occupation for blacks in 1962– Contrast to whites (see above)– Virtually all black men in lower manual occs

• Some improvement in 1973

Table 12-5. Black Outflow Mobility, Father to Son Occupation, 1962 and 1973 (Kerbo , p. 381)

Father's

Occup

Son's Current Occupation

Up NonM Lo NonM UpManual LoManual Farm Total

1962

Up NM 13.3% 10.0% 13.7% 63.0% 0.0% 100%

Low NM 8.3% 14.0% 14.0% 63.7% 0.0% 100%

Up Man 8.2% 10.9% 10.9% 67.0% 3.0% 100%

Low Man 6.7% 9.1% 11.1% 71.0% 2.1% 100%

Farm 1.2% 5.4% 7.1% 66.3 19.9% 100%

Total 4.5% 7.7% 9.4% 67.9% 10.5% 100%

1973

Up NM 43.9% 11.8% 8.3% 36.0% 0.0% 100%

Low NM 19.5% 20.8% 13.4% 45.5% .8% 100%

Up Man 16.3 13.9% 15.8% 53.7% 0.2% 100%

Low Man 12.1 12.2% 13.7% 61.0% 1.0% 100%

Farm 5.1 6.8% 16.5% 63.2% 8.4% 100%

Total 11.6 10.8% 14.7% 59.4% 3.5% 100%

Race and Gender Gaps

• Many studies, 1977-2009– racial differences (black/white male earnings)

interpreted/specified by education and occupation/class

– gender differences remain after controlling for education and occupation/class

– women exceeding men on education and gaining access to managerial/professional jobs

– gender gap in earnings is shrinking

Progress in Reducing Race and Gender Earnings Gaps, 1974-2004

• Gender/racial gap and measurement biases– include all workers, or fulltime, year-round– Mean versus median earnings

• Generally, gender gap declines and racial gap remains the same

• white women earning more than black men? (depends on measurement)

Mean and Median Annual Income in 2004 for Fulltime, Year-round Workers: White and Black Men and Women (with gaps:

percent of white male earnings)

White Men

White Women

BlackMen

BlackWomen

Median $46,986 $34,878(74%)

$31,732(68%)

$29,145(62%)

Mean $62,755 $42,504(68%)

$40,078(64%)

$33,831(54%)

N 41,977 29,121 5,681 5,960

Source: Richard Hogan and Carolyn C. Perrucci, “Gender, Race, and Income Gaps,” in Robert Perrucci and Carolyn Perrucci (eds.), Transformation of Work in the New Economy (Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2007)

Mean Income (in 2003 dollars) for All White and Black Male and Female Workers (With Income Gap: percent of White Males)

YearWhite Males

White Females

BlackMales

BlackFemales

2004(gap)

$46,868 $25,979 (55%)

$29,880(64%)

$22,581(48%)

1994(gap)

$40,334 $20,981(52%)

$24,817(62%)

$18,353(46%)

1984(gap)

$34,925 $16,519(47%)

$20,419(58%)

$14,527(42%)

1974(gap)

$33,842 $13,813(41%)

$20,616(61%)

$12,266(36%)

Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)

Racial and Gender Gaps (Compared to White Men) in Mean Income, 1974-2004

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1974 1984 1994 2004

Black F

Black M

White F

Source: Hogan and Perrucci 2006 (census.gov, 2005)

Race and Gender Gaps (conclude)

• women's irregular labor force participation– caregivers for family– miss on-the-job training and mentoring

• glass ceiling or discrimination– women steered to clerical, service, domestic– denied jobs in mfg, construction, transportation,

and skilled trades and crafts– women occupy lower tier in all industries: el.

ed, admin. prof., Liberal Arts,

Erik Olin Wright (1997)• women have access to managerial and

professional positions• but don't earn as much as comparable men• compared to black men, more self-

employed, expert workers, and unskilled workers; less skilled workers and expert managers

• most women are unskilled workers

Wright (Class Counts 1997, p. 68) Class by Race and Sex

Class White Males White Females Black Males Black Females

Capitalist 3.0% 0.7% 0% 0%

Small employer 8.2% 4.9% 0% 1.3%

Petit Bourgeois 6.4% 8.8% 3.6% 0%

[Tot Self Empl 17.6% 14.4% 3.6% 1.3%]

Expert Mgrs 8.5% 2.8% 5.1% 0%

Skilled Mgrs 5.7% 2.4% 2.0% 0%

Unskilled Mgrs 2.3% 3.9% 1.0% 6.3%

Expert Super 4.2% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7%

Skilled Super 7.9% 4.3% 7.5% 2.0%

Unskilled Supr 5.0% 9.3% 4.6% 7.7%

Experts 3.2% 3.5% 2.9% 1.8%

Skilled Worker 17.4% 7.7% 23.3% 10.9%

Unskilled Wkr 28.2% 50.0% 47.7% 68.4%

Hogan and Perrucci• looking at older persons and retirees

– substantial gender and racial differences in employment earnings from longest held job

• effect of self-employment (for whites)• especially for professionals (for whites)• effect of marriage

– employment (white men)– retirement (white women)

– gender gap greater in employment earnings– racial gap greater in retirement earnings

Tilly, Durable Inequality (1998)

• Categorical Inequality: unequal relations between mutually exclusive categories of individuals: "black/white, male/female, married/unmarried, and citizen/noncitizen" (p. 8).

• relationships rather than positions or distribution of resources

• Exploitation: derriving profit or benefit from relations through which "powerful, connected people command resources from which they draw significantly increased returns by coordinating the efforts of outsiders whom they exclude from the full value added by that effort" (p. 10).

Tilly (cont)

• Opportunity Hoarding: limiting access to the potentially profitable: means through which "members of a categorically bounded network acquire access to a resource that is valuable, renewable, subject to monopoly, supportive of network activities, and enhanced by the network's modus operandi" (p.10).

• Tilly argues that familiar and enduring relations of social inequality, including “class, gender, race, ethnicity” (p. 4), although qualitatively different, are established through "exploitation" and "opportunity hoarding" and then generalized through "emulation" and institutionalized through "adaptation."

Applying Tilly to the Analysis of Class, Race, and Gender Inequality (Hogan 2001)

Class, Race, Gender, and Patronage Relations Distinguished by Mechanism of Surplus Appropriation and Locus of Relations

Locusof

Relations

Mechanism of Surplus Appropriation

ExploitationOpportunity

Hoarding

Production Class Patronage

Reproduction Gender Race

How Do We Explain Inequality?

• Functional

– necessary but variable

• ascribed/inherited

• achieved

• status attainment

• Weberian/Labor market

– inevitable but multi-faceted: class, status, party

– unequal distribution of resources

– competition and hoarding

How Do We Explain Inequality? (cont.)

• Marxist– imposed and unnecessary/unnatural

• exploitation of labor

• accumulation of capital

– investment/accumulation• frontiers

• proletarianization

• Tilly offers synthesis or combination of Weberian and Marxist

• Oliver and Shapiro offer a Weberian model of inequality– but argue that white hoard wealth

– focus on racial gap in wealth rather than income

Oliver and Shapiro

• There is little racial difference in income, once we control for occupation, education, and marital status– racial earnings gap for dual-income couples is

only 85%– typo in table 5.2 (p. 99)

• black white collar income should be $24,320• so ratio is 70%

• but racial gap is wealth is huge

Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)

• racial gap in wealth is huge even for– upper middle class professionals– married– dual income– children of middle class blacks

• blacks lack assets, especially financial assets (capital)

Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)

• racial gap cannot be explained by status attainment models– high status blacks lack assets– no evidence this is due to differences (p. 138)

• in savings• In consumption

• much of difference is due to housing values– FHA. real estate, banking practices– white flight and discrimination

Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)

• indirect evidence of inherited inequality (pp. 154-159)

• Hogan and Perrucci (1998) cite Smith (1993), "for every dollar of inherited wealth, total net worth increases by 36¢

• estimate that black inheritance is only 18% of white inheritance (on average)

Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)

• Also argue against Weberian labor market, life-chances, competition model– use occupational mobility tables (p. 160)

• whites more likely to experience upward mobility in upper nonmanual class (.364 from LBC exceeds occupational inheritance of UWC blacks)

• blacks more likely to experience downward mobility (.234 LBC black children of UWC parents)

– claim discrimination at work; lack of access to quality education and social networks (p. 162)

Oliver and Shapiro (cont.)

• challenge Marxist or class approach– use Weberian/Hauser mobility model– wealth/income for mobile (p. 166)– income is "earned" while wealth is

"transmitted" (p. 166-7)– but this finding does not hold up for blacks (p.

169)

Median Income and Net Worth for White Families and Other Families in 2001(From Dollars & Sense, The Wealth Inequality Reader, 2004, p. 14)