Types of Social Mobility

Most people, particularly in Western societies, experience a change in social status during their lifetimes. Sociologists study social mobility because it helps them understand how individuals move between and among social strata within a society. Horizontal and vertical mobility describe movement among and between strata. Intragenerational mobility describes and an individual's movement during his or her lifetime, while intergenerational mobility describes the movement that takes places across a family's generations. Circulation mobility describes movement that can be attributed to an individual's personal traits, abilities, efforts, or opportunities, and structural mobility describes movement that happens as a result of changes in an individual's environment. Sociologists disagree on just how independent circulation and structural mobility are.

Keywords Circulation Mobility; Downward Mobility; Horizontal Mobility; Intergenerational Mobility; Intragenerational Mobility; Stratification; Structural Mobility; Upward Mobility; Vertical Mobility

Types of Social Mobility

Overview

Many people, particularly in Western societies, experience some kind of change in social status during their lifetimes. Whether that shift occurs through one's career path, a change in income level, or the influence of economic forces, social mobility is a major feature of modern society.

Social mobility can move individuals either horizontally or vertically across social strata. Vertical mobility describes a change that moves an individual either up into a higher social stratum or down into a lower social stratum. Horizontal mobility describes a change that moves an individual into a new position that is of the same status as his or her previous position.

Change in social status can be traced using two critical indices—intergenerational and intragenerational mobility. In the former case, an individual's movement is compared to the status of his or her parents in order to determine how mobile a family is across generations. In the latter case, the individual's statuses at various points in time are compared to determine his or her individual mobility across his or her lifespan.

In all of these types of social mobility, changes in social status can be ascribed to either personal or environmental factors. Circulation mobility describes the former case in which changes in an individual's status are attributable to his or her personal traits, abilities, efforts, or opportunities. Structural mobility describes the latter case in which an individual's status changes not as a result of his or her own pursuit of change, but because his or her environment has changed. As an economy changes, for example, and creates a new demand for a certain skill or product, an individual may move into a different income bracket not because of his or her actions, but as the result of a change in his or her industry or profession.

Further Insights

Horizontal Mobility

Social mobility does not always describe a shift between levels of income or status. In some situations, individuals' statuses change without a corresponding shift within the social hierarchy. The term “horizontal mobility” describes this lateral change.

Horizontal mobility can be caused by a variety of factors. An individual may feel that his or her present position can no longer satisfy his or her personal needs and choose to seek another position, though one that is of similar status. Geographical preference, disinterest in one's industry or profession, and social networking may all play a role in fostering horizontal mobility. Health and physical limitations can further prod individuals to make a lateral shift. Even a person's dissatisfaction with the pace at which advancement is likely to occur in his or her present environment may drive him or her to seek a lateral move into a position of similar status in a different industry or profession.

It is likely that a person's potential for horizontal mobility cannot be determined by the direct benefits of a lateral move. Rather, fringe benefits that appeal to an individual's personal preferences may play a stronger role. Long-term benefits, investment opportunities, social interactions, and corporate growth are among some of the benefits that may or may not be offered to encourage an employee to make a transition. At the very least, these benefits offer the worker incentives to consider moving (Brissenden, 1955).

Vertical Mobility

Vertical mobility describes movement up or down the social strata. For most Americans, the desire to advance upward into a higher social stratum is a natural urge. Among members of certain strata, this pursuit is far more intensive, for it means departing from a life of poverty, vulnerability to crime and frequent hunger, and otherwise poor living conditions. This upward shift does not occur easily in modern society, for many of the resources, services, and programs that might assist people in making such a move are difficult to obtain or afford.

In a 2005 study, working-class and middle-class African Americans were polled on the resources available to them to foster upward mobility. Interestingly, many of the social programs and services offered by nonprofit community organizations and government agencies did assist a number of people within the study group in moving into a higher income bracket. However, the study also revealed that access to social capital, such as information about loans, grants, scholarships, and employment opportunities, was not as prevalent among many of those sampled. Without the aid and social capital offered by social programs, the authors concluded, the simple availability of financial, educational, and employment opportunities did not make a strong impact on the group's vertical mobility potential (Parks-Yancy, DiTomaso & Post, 2005).

This study is demonstrative of an important point concerning vertical mobility: upward movement is often dependent upon both knowledge of and access to resources such as educational degrees, business grants and loans, job training programs, and even the basic amenities through services like homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

Intragenerational Mobility

Sociologists recognize two other forms of mobility: intragenerational mobility and intergenerational mobility. Intragenerational mobility describes the changes in status that occur over an individual's lifetime. These changes, either vertical or horizontal, can be ascribed to an individual's particular traits or opportunities as well as overall social or economic forces. Sociologists measure intragenerational mobility by comparing an individual's statuses at multiple points over the course of his or her life. A person who begins her career as a fast food worker and later becomes a dentist is a good example of intergenerational mobility, as is a person who begins his career as a lawyer and later becomes a store clerk (Covington, 1997).

Intergenerational Mobility

Intergenerational mobility describes the differences in social status between family members across generations. It is measured by comparing the occupations and adjusted incomes of parents and their children. If, for example, a father is a coal miner and his son becomes a bank manager, it can be said that the family has experience upward intergenerational mobility (Covington, 1997).

As with intragenerational mobility, two factors contribute to intergenerational mobility. The first of these are the traits and opportunities that are particular to an individual. He or she may have certain skills or personal attributes that enable him or her to seize on the professional opportunities that arise, or alternatively, he or she may have a particular disadvantage that limits the number of available opportunities.

Also influencing intergenerational mobility are the structural forces external to the individual, such as the society or economy in which he or she lives. As time passes between the period of a father's or mother's employment and a son's or daughter's, an economy or society can change. Wages may increase and benefits may be improved, or alternatively, wages may decrease and benefits may be cut (McMurr, Condon & Sawhill, 1997). All of these external structural forces can affect a family's social mobility. For sociologists, intergenerational mobility can paint an important picture of the state of mobility in a given economy.

Circulation Mobility

Circulation mobility, also called exchange mobility, is the kind of mobility typified by the American dream. It describes a change in social status that is attributable to an individual's traits, abilities, efforts, or opportunities, rather than to changes in the individual's environment. Circulation is also called exchange mobility because, in this type of mobility, as some people move into higher social strata, other people move into lower social strata. As opposed to structural mobility, no new strata are created—people simply exchange their positions within the existing strata (Tepperman, 2008).

This type of mobility may be brought on by a number of factors that are particular to an individual. For instance, an individual may have a particular aptitude for a lucrative occupation, such as professional basketball, or work especially hard in order to practice a prestigious profession. On the other hand, a serious health condition may limit another person's income.

Sociologists generally recognize societies that have high degrees of circulation mobility as societies with high degrees of equality. Individuals within these societies are more likely to able to achieve their statuses based on their own merits rather than factors like into which family they were born.

Structural Mobility

According to the American dream, most forms of social mobility occur because of an individual's desire and ability to improve upon his or her status. However, sociologists also recognize that, in many cases, social mobility occurs not because of an individual's ability to effect a change, but because the environment itself has changed. As an economy changes, so too do the strata of that economy's labor base. Jobs that previously paid little may become highly sought-after positions when this shift occurs. Individuals may move upward or laterally simply because their professional environment has transformed. Sociologists refer to this form of movement that is brought on by environmental changes as structural mobility.

Structural mobility occurs in a variety of forms. At the industrial level, such changes occur quite frequently. For example, the explosive manner in which the Internet has grown from a relatively localized technological resource in the mid-twentieth century to an essential part of any business in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century has meant that computer programmers who are trained in web development and the various forms of software applications are in much higher demand than they would have been in the 1980s.

Similarly, farmers, who have grown corn for human consumption all of their lives, have become increasingly in demand among environmental activists and politicians. The reason for this shift is that corn is a necessary component of one form of alternative, environmentally friendly fuel: ethanol. This relatively new demand for corn means that farmers may see greater profits and become upwardly mobile without any conscious effort on their part to ascend to a higher social stratum.

An industry's changes may instigate a degree of structural mobility. However, a much larger example of this theoretical framework occurs on a national level. Previously underdeveloped economies that find a niche in a global economy may experience a high degree of horizontal and vertical mobility. Up until the late 1980s, Hungary, for example, was cast behind what Churchill termed "the Iron Curtain" of the Soviet Union. The nation became a limited-party industry with an industrial economy of immense factories and plants that provided the bulk of the country's output. When that nation separated from the Soviet Union in 1989, however, it also began its own economic evolution. With diversified businesses, including an increasing complement of the self-employed and business entrepreneurs, Hungary's residents saw larger incomes and a better way of life (Robert and Bukodi, 2000) due to the country's change in employment opportunities.

A 2011 study found that while Hungary’s transition from state-controlled to free-market enterprise, a structural change to its economy, opened up new opportunities, individuals’ level of self-confidence, a personal trait, played a significant role in their intragenerational mobility between 1992 and 2007 (Keller, 2011), indicating how different types of mobility can work in concert to produce societal effects.

Viewpoints

Structure vs. Circulation

There is a growing debate in sociology as to whether circulation and structural mobility should be considered independently of each other.

In the minds of many traditional sociologists, circulation and structural mobility do not appear to be linked. Individual movement on a spectrum of stratification and individual or group movement that occurs as a result of environmental changes, these sociologists maintain, are two separate issues. Progressive theorists assert that the definitions that have been applied to this framework are far too rigid to give rise to claims of complete independence. Indeed, more questions seem to surface when overlaps between social mobility and structural mobility become manifest.

Traditionalists view the notion of "structure" (the social environment) as divergent. Their perspective is that, using linear models, there are frequencies in which structural mobility and circulation mobility become manifest, but that these frequencies are distinct. Independent-minded sociologists also acknowledge that while there do appear to be some areas of common ground among the two fields, the commonalities exist on a theoretical plane and not on an empirical level (Krauze & Slomczynski, 1986).

The alternative viewpoint is that there are a number of circumstances in which the notions of circulation mobility and structural mobility seem not just concurrent, but intertwined. One leading sociologist asserts that, in many situations, the environmental conditions that are inherent to the notion of structural mobility often overlap many of the key elements that comprise circulation mobility—namely, stratification and the definitions of social class. In other words, there are far too many commonalities between the two elements for them to be considered minor and theoretical (Sobel, 1983).

At the issue at the center of this debate is the question of definitional flexibility. Both traditional adherents and progressive theorists are struggling with the definitions of structural mobility as well as circulation mobility.

Conclusions

It is likely that famed comedian Jackie Gleason, who reportedly once skipped out on a boardinghouse when he could not afford the rent, had no idea of his potential to become "the greatest." He simply applied his skills and unique talents to take advantage of every opportunity he could to move up the social ladder. However, although Gleason seized on every resource he could to rise to stardom, other factors also came into play. The public's taste for Gleason's brand of comedy, along with the increase in the number of households that could view Gleason's hilarity on their televisions, undoubtedly helped ensure that Gleason would remain dear to American popular culture for decades to come.

Jackie Gleason, along with hundreds of other television, film, and music stars, is certainly among a relative minority of Americans. Not many individuals in the United States share Gleason's experience of rising from a low-income, relatively unheard-of performer to become one of the most beloved faces on television. But while most Americans cannot relate to Gleason's success, his story can help them understand the variety of factors that influence an individual's social mobility.

Terms & Concepts

Circulation Mobility: Describes changes in an individual's status that are attributable to his or her personal traits, abilities, efforts, or opportunities.

Downward Mobility: An individual's or group's movement into a lower social stratum.

Horizontal Mobility: Describes a change that moves an individual into a new position that is of the same status as his or her previous position.

Intergenerational Mobility: Describes the differences in social status between family members across generations.

Intragenerational Mobility: Describes the changes in status that occur over an individual's lifetime.

Stratification: Division of a society based on a culturally- and economically-based class system.

Structural Mobility: Describes changes in an individual's status that are brought on by environmental changes.

Upward Mobility: An individual's or group's movement into a higher social stratum.

Vertical Mobility: Describes a change that moves an individual either up into a higher social stratum or down into a lower social stratum.

Bibliography

Brissenden, P. F. (1955). Labor mobility and employee benefits. Labor Law Journal, 6, 762–768.

Covington, P. (1997). Social mobility. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www.sociology.org.uk/pcsocmob.doc

Dribe, M., Van Bavel, J., & Campbell, C. (2012). Social mobility and demographic behavior: Long term perspectives. Demographic Research, 26, 173–189. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77051560

Hillmert, S. (2011). Occupational mobility and developments of inequality along the life course. European Societies, 13, 401–423. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61460495

Jackie Gleason: Gleason's ghost. (2008). Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=2647.

Jaffe, R., Klaufus, C., & Colombijn, F. (2012). Mobilities and mobilizations of the urban poor. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 36, 643–654. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77351055

Keller, T. (2011). Intra-generational social class mobility in Hungary between 1992 and 2007—the role of self-confidence. Polish Sociological Review, 175, 373–392. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67428533

Krauze, T., & Slomczynski, K. (1986, February). Structural and circulation mobility in the linear programming framework. Sociological Methods and Research, 14 , 285–201.

Lui, L. (2013). A comparative study of intergenerational mobility. Sociological Research, 52, 16–27. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86457294

McMurrer, D. P., Condon, M., & Sawhill, I. (1997). Intergenerational mobility in the US. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www.urban.org/publications/406796.html

Parks-Yancy, R., DiTomaso, N., & Post, C. (2005). Social capital resources and social programs. Michigan Sociological Review, 19, 115–137. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18615922&site=ehost-live

Robert, P., & Bukodi, E. (2000). Who are the entrepreneurs and where do they come from? Transition to self-employment before, under, and after communism in Hungary. International Review of Sociology, 10 , 147–171. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3514554&site=ehost-live

Sobel, M. E. (1983). Structural mobility, circulation mobility and the analysis of occupational mobility: A conceptual mismatch. American Sociological Review, 48 , 721–727. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14846972&site=ehost-live

Tepperman, L. (2008). Social Mobility. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007526

Types of social mobility. (2006). Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.sociologyguide.com/social-mobility/types-of-mobility.php

Suggested Reading

Charvat, F. (1972). To the theory of quantitative expression of social mobility. International Review of Sociology (Series 1), 8, 41–60.

Council of Europe. (2012). Fostering social mobility as a contribution to social cohesion. Strasbourg, Germany: Author.

DiPrete, T. A., & Krecker, M. L. (1991). Occupational linkages and job mobility within and across organizations. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 10, 91–131.

Faulkner, C. L. (2011). Economic mobility and cultural assimilation among children of immigrants. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Pub. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=520546&site=ehost-live

Muller, W. (2003). Comparative analyses of intergenerational "inheritance": Introduction. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/projects/ChangeQual/papers/public/themes/2/theme_5_301_intro.doc

Ringen, S. (2006). The truth about class inequality. Czech Sociological Review, 42, 475–491. Retrieved March 18, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22711472&site=ehost-live

Yamaguchi, K. (1987). Models for comparing mobility tables. American Sociological Review, 52 , 482–494. Retrieved March 17, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14789852&site=ehost-live