Håkon Leiulfsrud, Ivano Bison & Erling Solheim

Håkon Leiulfsrud, Ivano Bison & Erling Solheim

SOCIAL CLASS IN EUROPE II

The European Social Survey 2002-2008

Department of Sociology & Political Science

Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Norway

and

Department of Sociology and Social Research

University of Trento, Italy

NTNU, Department of Sociology and Political Science, 2010

ISBN 978-82-90217-51-3

Contents

List of Tables

Preface

A. Introduction

B. From social class in general to class schemes

C. Constructing Classes

C.1. EGP Class Scheme

C.2. Wright’s Class Schemes

C.3. Esping-Andersen’s Class Scheme

C.4. ESeC

C.5. Class and isco-88 (ESS round 3)

C.6. Empirical overlap and differences between the five class schemes

C.6.1. EGP (Ganzeboom) vs. Wright (exploitation model)

C.6.2. EGP (Ganzeboom) vs. ESeC

C.6.3. Wright vs. ESeC

D. Classes in Europe – A brief overview

D.1. Results - Europe

D.2. Classes in the Nordic countries - ESS round 3

E. Different filtering criteria and the class structure

F. Conclusion

References

APPENDIX I REFERENCE TABLES (from 2005-report)

APPENDIX II ESS 2002-2008 Class Schemes

APPENDIX III Technical notes regarding the syntax files to create class variables for the ESS data and how the ESS data were weighted

APPENDIX IV - SPSS Class Schemes Programs adjusted to ESS Data

List of Tables

Table 1. Criteria used in constructing alternative class typologies 5

Table 2. EGP Classes 8

Table 3. Wright’s class schemes (early model based on power/control and later

model based on exploitation of skill and organizational assets) 9

Table 4. Wright’s power/control model (original version) and our new

version with additional sub categories based on skill11

Table 5. Esping-Andersen’s post-industrial class scheme12

Table 6. ESeC based upon Goldthorpe’s Class Schema14

Table 7a1. EGP (Ganzeboom) by Wright (WR). Column percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-6417

Table 7a2. EGP (Ganzeboom) by Wright (WR). Row percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-6418

Table 7b1. ESeC by EGP (Ganzeboom). Column percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-64.20

Table 7b2. ESeC by EGP (Ganzeboom). Row percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-64.20

Table 7c1. ESeC by Wright (WR). Column percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-64.23

Table 7c2. ESeC by Wright (WR). Row percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-64.24

Table 8a. EGP Classes in ESS round 3. 18-64 years (Ganzeboom version)26

Table 8b. EGP Classes in ESS round 3. 18-64 years (Trento version)26

Table 9. ESeC Classes in ESS round 3. 18-64 years27

Table 10. Wright’s class scheme (WR) based on skill and organizational assets

(exploitation model) in ESS round 3. 18-64 years27

Table 11. Revised version of Wright’s class scheme based on ownership,

hierarchy and autonomy (WR_P). ESS round 3.18-64 years28

Table 12. Esping-Andersen’s post-industrial stratification scheme (ESP). ESS round 3.

18-64 years29

Table 13. Wright (WR) by gender and country. Column percent. ESS 2006

Nordic countries. Age 18-64.30

Table 14. ESeC by gender and country. Column percent. ESS 2006

Nordic countries. Age 18-64.30

Table 15. EGP (Ganzeboom) by gender and country. Column percent.

ESS 2006 Nordic countries. Age 18-64.31

Table 16. Esping-Andersen class scheme by gender and country. Column percent.

ESS 2006 Nordic countries. Age 18-64.32

Table 17. ESeC with different filtering criteria. Column percent. ESS 2006. Age 18-64.35

Preface

The current publication is a follow up and updated version of Social Class in Europe[1], which was published in 2005 (Leiulfsrud, Bison & Jenberg 2005; hereafter LBJ). The aim of the first report was to promote class- and stratification research in European survey research in general, and the European Social Survey (ESS) in particular. Our goal now and then was also to encourage European researchers to use a broader range of class schemes and to present a guide on how to use these operationalizations or models. Finally, as a result of our project we are able to present an overview of each class scheme spanning the period 2002-2008, representing alternative pictures and interpretations of the European class structure.

The 2005 publication was based upon class syntaxes already developed by Harry Ganzeboom, Ivano Bison and Håkon Leiulfsrud, or adjusted to be in line with the theoretical logic of some of the most promising class schemes used by social scientists today. This is, contrary to what is often taken for granted, not fixed class schemes, but ongoing work in terms of theoretical framework(s) and empirical operationalizations. The current report is primarily referring to class based upon individuals as units of analysis, but it also includes a syntax to create a possible partner’s class position.

For those interested in systematic and reliable comparative data analyses it is hardly a surprise that not only theory but also operationalizations really matters for our understanding of social change related to work and class relations, as well as alternative views of post industrial development. What is surprising, however, is the long lasting neglect among many researchers not to highlight the problems of operationalizing and adjusting data according to the same standards.

When we initially started our work to adjust alternative class schemes to the ESS, the variables included in the data for ESS round 1 were mainly designed to operationalize the Erikson/Goldthorpe/Porocarero (also known as the EGP) class scheme. This lack of variables affected our ability to operationalize the other class schemes as we would have liked to. However, additional questions from Håkon Leiulfsrud and Erik Olin Wright which have been included from ESS round 2 onwards improved the situation considerably, and is the reason why we think that the operationalizations of the Wright class scheme are more robust from 2004 onwards.

Even if we were aware of the work of David Rose with colleagues to develop a new European class and stratification scheme, and at the time exchanged ideas, syntaxes, etc., this new scheme was not included in our first report. After the official release and publication of the new European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC) it makes sense to extend the number of class schemes included in this report from four to five. Including the ESeC is not meant to be another contribution to assess the ESeC, but an addition that will allow for a more comprehensive and up to date comparison of a range of alternative class schemes.

Four class models were highlighted in the first report, including Goldthorpe/Erikson/Portocarero’s, Wright’s, and Esping-Andersen’s class schemes.

The original version of the EGP typology is closely related to Harry Ganzeboom’s spss-syntax used to operationalize this class scheme. Without changing the logic of his spss-syntax, we have done a number of technical adjustments to refrain from an inflation of low-skilled service employees into service class I (i.e. avoiding a problem in several applications of the model in the past). In this report we call this alternative version of the Ganzeboom operationalization for the EGP-Trento version. However, none of the technical adjustments significantly changed the results.

Wright’s typologies were developed to match his original control/power model; based on 1) ownership, authority and work autonomy and 2) his later (exploitation) model where autonomy was replaced with skill and expert assets. The construction of Wright’s typologies is based on a number of second best options and adjustments to the ESS. Nevertheless, we end up with more or less the same results if we compare the original model and our version. It is also argued that our version of Wright’s first class scheme, with additional sub-categories based on skills, enables us to make a number of interesting observations about class relations left out in competing class schemes.

Esping-Andersen’s typology was developed in Barcelona in collaboration between Gøsta Esping-Andersen and Ivano Bison in 2000. The reconstruction and development of Wright’s class schemes has mainly been done in collaboration between Håkon Leiulfsrud and Heidi Jensberg.

Erling Solheim has contributed significantly to our revised and updated version of Social Class in Europe II, including doing all the data analysis, producing tables, writing the technical summary and the new section E, helped editing and commenting the other chapters, as well as editing the overall report.

We believe that the new ESeC operationalization represents an advancement of previous versions of the EGP-scheme, particularly when it comes to classifying those in “intermediate”, “contradictory” or “mixed work contract relations”. This improvement is also a good example of taking the issues of empirical operationalization of class seriously in cross-national research (Rose & Harrison 2010).

Instead of arguing in terms of the supremacy of one class scheme over another, we find it more productive to use the theoretical and empirical strength of each scheme according to the questions asked.

Even if this may sound banal, it is still not one approach to social class, but supplementary models and theories that throw different light of how social inequality is produced and reproduced.

Håkon LeiulfsrudIvano BisonErling Solheim

Trondheim TrentoTrondheim/Helsinki

September 2010

1

A. Introduction

The concept of ‘social class’ has always been contested. Many repudiate the idea of class as an ideological relic of industrial society (Bell 1976; Beck 1992; Lash 1999; Kingston 2000). Others are still truly fascinated with how class continues to shape our lives, our mode of thinking and everyday practices (Bourdieu 1984; Rosenlund 2000; Devine 2004; Devine et al 2004; New York Times 2005).

Those still identifying themselves in class terms may have various interpretations, including primary references to differences in work situation, social background, money, education or simply referring to something people have/don’t have – class (Marshall et al 1988; Skeggs 1997). A common argument among sociologists is that modern citizens may have unequal life chances without a priori constituting social classes as collective actors or institutions (see e.g. Pakulski & Waters 1996; Kingston 2000). Others have problems identifying what used to be traditional class differences with relevant class distinctions of today. Basic questions such as who are workers and/or belong to the middle class today are by no means self-evident. Neither is it self-evident among social scientists what is the primary source of class relations (production, consumption, life chances, or a combination of these factors). For a good overview of class as a theoretical and empirical concept see Calvert (1982) and Scott (2002).

Regardless of these challenges we still find a whole industry of researchers preoccupied with class- and stratification analysis in Europe and elsewhere (Rose & Pevalin 2001). Why? The simple answer is that social class, understood as systematic inequalities in opportunity- and power structures, still matters. Even if welfare capitalism has contributed to equalize the distribution of welfare and life chances this is still highly correlated to social class (c.f. Esping-Andersen 1999: 29-30). The more complex answer is that class- and stratification research is framed in alternative ‘research programs’ with alternative ontological, epistemological and methodological positions (c.f. Guba 1990). Class- and stratification researchers may share a number of common interests in terms of research issues, but they are also divided into different sub-fields and research traditions.

Class- and stratification research today is highly specialized. The statistical and methodological tools are much more advanced than in the 1960s and 1970s. The amounts of data available, including cross-national and national data, are also much more favourable than in the past. The European Union and ESS strives for standardization to harmonize data across countries to enable better cross-national analyses, including standardized measures of socioeconomic status or class. However, we think that it is crucial that we continue to use more than one standard. There are at least five good reasons for this:

1)Most available standards are not simply classifications, but framed in more or less developed theoretical frameworks with specific focus and aims. If we restrict ourselves to just one standard we ignore the merits of the alternative standards.

2)A farewell to previous standards makes it increasingly hard to follow general trends over time and to relate to previous research.

3)It is not self-evident what we gain from one class model unless this is accompanied by a robust empirical and theoretical adjudication. Most of the comparisons between rival models have been rather limited in their focus and scope.

4)Some class models perform better overall than others, but no model is ideal for all kinds of purposes.

5)It is crucial to have alternative models to promote alternative interpretations, particularly if only one standard is institutionalized for the European Union.

The general aim of this report is to facilitate future analyses of social class and social stratification among those using the ESS. The report presents for its readers technical tools on how to use alternative class schemes. It also includes an updated analysis of social class in Europe and gives the reader a first impression of what can be gained using alternative class schemes.

The report is organized in six parts. In the next section (B) we give a brief description of the theoretical discussions and framework of contemporary class analyses.

This is in part C followed up with a description of how we have operationalized the class schemes initially developed by Erikson, Goldthorpe and Portocarero (Ganzeboom version and the Trento version); Wright (his first control/power model and later exploitation model); and Esping-Andersen (post-industrial classification scheme). Even if we bring in ESeC, those interested to use this model are advised to go to the relevant original publications where a more detailed and comprehensive description is outlined (see Rose & Pevalin 2001; Rose & Harrison 2010). Whereas the task to construct the EGP and Esping-Andersen syntaxes are mainly of a technical nature, the reconstruction of Wright’s class schemes is a genuine contribution in its own right. This is particularly true for our development and improvement of Wright’s first class scheme, developed in the 1970s, based on power/control.

Section (D) includes a portrait of the European class structure based upon individuals, i.e. the class structure where the individual is the unit of analysis.

In section (E), which is an extension of the previous report, we look at how different filter criteria affect the class structure.

In the concluding part (F), some general remarks about the value of the ESS-data and the class models are presented. We have deliberately chosen to play down the technical aspects of the class schemes in the first part of the report. Most of the technical information on how we have constructed the class schemes can be found in the appendixes. Status based models may give us valuable information about the nature of class schemes. For this reason and in the interest of many users syntaxes to operationalize the ‘Treiman’s Status Index’ as well as the ‘International Socio-Economic Index’ (ISEI) are included in the final appendix.

Unless otherwise stated, all tables presented in this report have been filtered by including those respondents who had value 1 on the variable mnactic, and were aged 18-64. The data were weighted in accordance with the directives stated by those in charge of the ESS. Further information about class in relation to how data are filtered can be found in section D.3, and more detailed information about how the data were weighted can be found in Appendix III.

B. From social class in general to class schemes

A common aim for those involved in class analysis is to have tools to study general aspects of society, including changes in the economic and social structure. Social class in this perspective refers to social categories formed and lived by individuals, families and organizations in society. What used to be typical institutional and cultural traits of the working and middle classes in the 1950s or 1960s are not necessarily very useful for our understanding of contemporary class distinctions. Class relations have an inherently relational logic that changes over time in the same way as economic relations, including production and technology changes. Major societal changes may also have profound impact on class relations, just as class relations may shape societies very differently over time.

For a number of reasons it may be convenient to stick to official socio-economic standards typically based on occupations or social status or a combination of the two approaches. Official statistics provide researchers and a broader public with a lot of valuable information about inequality and opportunity structures based on official classes. It typically represents, at least within nations, a joint standard that researchers from different research fields easily can relate to despite different theoretical frameworks and research agendas. The standard objection from class researchers is that most of these official class models tend to be ad hoc and relatively weak as theoretical tools. Even if the explanatory power may be relatively high, at least for certain kinds of questions, it is hard to have a classification without some kind of theory guiding the research (c.f. Bourdieu 1990, 1995; Wright 1997, 2005; Erikson & Goldthorpe 1992; Goldthorpe 2000, 2007). One commonality for the class schemes presented in this report is that they all are theoretically derived. Even if some of the models have similarities with previous and official models in the United Kingdom, Sweden and elsewhere (c.f. e.g. the EGP scheme & ESeC), the theoretical framework and questions addressed tend to represent an alternative and more critical perspective of society. Instead of just mapping various aspects of social inequality, including standard of living, and phenomena relating to work conditions, social mobility, issues about social relations, power, exploitation and the reproduction of social cleavages, are systematically researched.

The theoretical focus and vocabulary varies between different schools of class researchers. Scholars rooted in the Marxist tradition tend to put greater emphasis on ownership and class relations where the key distinction is between owners/employers and employees. Since the late 1970s Marxist scholars have paid special attention to the problem of the ‘(new) middle classes’, and class groupings in dual and ‘contradictory’ class positions (Wright 1978; Carchedi 1977). Instead of assuming that managers a priori share the same interests as capitalists, Wright and Carchedi claim that this is an empirical question. In some cases class interests may be homologous, in others it may be quite the opposite. This does not only hold true for managers, but also experts and small employers/self- employees. One of the main reasons why social scientists initially paid so much attention to Wright’s first class model, developed in the late 1970s, was his problematization of the ‘middle classes’ as a sociological category. Even if similar kinds of problematizations can be found among sociologists since the 1930s (e.g. Geiger 1932; Lockwood 1958; Dahrendorf 1959; Bell 1976) it was first introduced into class research in the 1970s (see e.g. Poulantzas 1973, 1975, Przeworski 1977). Instead of thinking of what is the internal, often contradictory dynamic of classes, the interest went back to social classes as common experiences and life chances. It may also be argued that the production perspective, with special emphasis on the labour process, got lost in mainstream class research in the 1990s, but that it has re-emerged via the interest in employment contracts (Goldthorpe 2007; Rose & Harrison 2010).