Collectivist versus Individualist Mobility Regimes? Structural Change and Job Mobility in Four Countries

DiPrete, Th.A.; Graaf, P.M. de; Luijkx, Ruud; Tåhlin, Michael; Blossfeld, Hans‐Peter

doi:10.1086/231210

Cited by 176 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because Germany has a well-developed system of vocational training, parents accumulate considerable occupation-specific skills and will typically view their occupations as important identities, and the family accordingly becomes a site in which such skills or commitments can be conveyed and in which aspirations for occupational reproduction can emerge (e.g., Müller and Gangl 2003;Burkhauser, Holtz-Eakin, and Rhody 1998;DiPrete et al 1997;DiPrete and McManus 1996;Blossfeld and Mayer 1988;Shavit and Müller 1998). At the same time, Germany is also the home ground of big-class structuration, as expressed particularly in the difference in employment regulations for wage earners, employees (Angestellte), and civil servants (Beamte) and the importance of bigclass trade unions in collective bargaining and codetermination (Ebbinghaus and Visser 2000;Kocka 1981).…”

Section: Cross-national Differences In Reproductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microclass Mobility: Social Reproduction in Four Countries

Jönsson

Grusky

Carlo

et al. 2009

American Journal of Sociology

255

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the sociological literature on social mobility, the long-standing convention has been to assume that intergenerational reproduction takes one of two forms, either a categorical form that has parents passing on a big-class position to their children, or a gradational form that has parents passing on their socioeconomic standing to their children. These conventional approaches ignore in their own ways the important role that occupations play in transferring advantage and disadvantage from one generation to the next. In log-linear analyses of nationally representative data from the United States, Sweden, Germany, and Japan, we show that (a) occupations are an important conduit for reproduction, (b) the most extreme rigidities in the mobility regime are only revealed when analyses are carried out at the detailed occupational level, and (c) much of what shows up as big-class reproduction in conventional mobility analyses is in fact occupational reproduction in disguise. Although the four countries studied here differ in the extent to which the occupational form has been institutionalized, we show that it is too prominent to ignore in any of these countries. Even in Japan, which has long been regarded as distinctively "deoccupationalized," we find evidence of extreme occupational rigidities. These results suggest that an occupational mechanism for reproduction may be a fundamental feature of all contemporary mobility regimes.

show abstract

Section: Cross-national Differences In Reproductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microclass Mobility: Social Reproduction in Four Countries

Jönsson

Grusky

Carlo

et al. 2009

American Journal of Sociology

255

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, skills (which largely determine the earning potential on the labour market, see Becker 1993) shall have a greater impact on individual economic risks in a decentralised bargaining context as the UK. Additionally, human capital resources can be assumed to be crucial in the UK as employment relationships are open and market mechanisms are not restricted by EPL (DiPrete et al 1997)…”

Section: Family Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in the Patterns of in-work Poverty in Germany and the UK

Gießelmann

2014

European Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis study analyses differences in individual-level working poverty determinants between Germany and the UK. These differences are linked to institutional patterns at the country level. Here, we observe that the two countries differ especially in bargaining centralisation, employment protection legislation and family policy. At the same time, the levels of decommodification and labour market regulation are no longer core differences in the institutional settings of Germany and the UK, which is interpreted as a consequence of Germany's departure from a traditional conservative regime since the mid-1990s.Adopting economic and sociological approaches, we explain how Germany's closed employment system channels the effects of deregulation policies to the periphery of the labour market. Additionally, we argue that open employment relationships that dominate in the UK put specifically older employees at risk. Finally, we identify country specific differences in the economic dependency of women, resulting from a stronger male breadwinner orientation of family policy in Germany.Accordingly, multivariate analyses based on harmonised versions of the BHPS (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) and the SOEP (2003SOEP ( -2006 reveal that entrants and re-entrants to the labour market, women and-unexpectedly-low-educated persons are particularly affected by inwork poverty in Germany; whereas older workers are more likely to face precarious economic conditions in the UK.

show abstract

“…The aggregate picture just outlined is commonly attributed to the particular 'credential-based occupational structure' of the German labor market (Diprete et al (1997), p.325) 27 . If workers and firms meet randomly in the market and face the same contact rate in Germany and the U.S. but more workers or jobs are rejected either due to missing occupational credentials or for example due to larger moving cost 28 the resulting matching efficiency parameter κ is estimated to be lower in Germany.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%