The Functional Theory of Stratification: a Test of Some Structural Hypotheses

Abstract

A review of previous attempts to test hypotheses derived from the functional theory of stratification suggests that to test the theory as formulated by Davis and Moore, the unit of analysis must be the position rather than the individual: indices of the theoretical concepts must be measures of the stratification stmcture itself rather than perceptions of that structure: and a universe or representative sample of positions must be used to determine if the relationships specified by the theory are applicable throughout a society's labor force. This paper reports a test of the functional theory that attempts to meet these specifications. Three related models are deduced from the theory and tested: (a) a model in which functional importance and change in skill are presumed to antecede change in reward and change in prestige; (b) a second model in which the dependent variables are additionally influenced by the interaction of functional importance and change in skill; and (c) a third model in which possible reciprocal effects of functional importance and skill are estimated using longitudinal data. The predictions of the functional theory concerning the effects of functional importance are not supported by the data.

Scope Statements: Imperatives for Evaluating Theory

“…Betz et al (1978) found that a scarcity of public school teachers did not result in higher incomes for teachers. Similarly, Wanner and Lewis (1978) failed to find a significant relation of functional importance, measured as an occupation's relative representation in the labor force, to either changes in skill requirements or rewards. Finally, even though Broom and Cushing (1977) found a positive association between company assets (a measure of executive responsibility or functional importance) and executive compensation, their overall findings fail to support the theory.…”

The structure of stratification: A revised bimodal approach

“…In the present study the context of occupational roles was chosen, considering the salience and dominance of occupations in industrial society (see for example, Davis and Moore, 1945, p. 242;Horan, 1978, p. 584;Wanner and Lewis, 1978).…”