The Social Mobility Agenda- Revisited

By Professor Cecile Wright

We recently saw the launch of the Conservative Liberal Democratic government’s version of a social mobility strategy (1st April, 2011). Social mobility has been the policy goal of successive post-war governments- exemplified by the creation of the Welfare State in 1945. Over the decades we have seen the post- war consensus connected to this goal dismantled during the Thatcher/Major years and attempts by the Blair/ Brown governments to resurrect the rhetoric of social mobility (eg Alan Milburn Report, 2009).
It is observed that current discussions on social mobility or more aptly referred to by Simon Jenkins as an “another national debate on Britain’s favourite sociological topic, the class system”( Guardian(6th April ,2011,p33),and are often conducted without a rigorous assessment of the significance of its cognate term. Perhaps, an apparent assessment of the term may lead to the recognition that, even though research continue to show that large inequalities of wealth and income within a society damages the social fabric and quality of live for everyone (e.g the most recent Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level,2009),social immobility is inherent in the structure of British society.

In my recent co-authored book – “Black Youth Matters: Transitions from School to Success”(2010), raises the issue of how some individuals overcome their negative school experiences and “succeed”( regarding educational success and/or success in the labour market). This raises the issue of whether each marginalised group can necessarily succeed- the educational system and labour market are structured so this isn’t required. Hence social mobility is only possible for limited numbers. Are the 1 million young people currently unemployed to be regarded as surplus to requirement? At the same time a certain level of social mobility does occur.

This also raises the wider issue of the prominence that education is frequently given as being the major route for social mobility/social/economic advancement. Does greater access to Higher Education, such as we have seen in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years, result in greater social mobility?
There has not been a corresponding increase in social mobility matching the increase in numbers in Higher Education. The economic structuring of the job market appears not to be changing so fundamentally that graduates are required in vastly increasing numbers. No matter how much is invested in education financially without corresponding change in the job market ,social mobility will remain relatively unchanged.


This raises the issue as to an understanding of the meaning of social mobility. For economists it is a primarily a matter of increasing income. For sociologists it is a rise in occupational status. As such a useful definition is that provided by Aldrige(2003), “the movement of opportunities for movement between different social classes or occupational groups”. However, this raises further questions. For whom is social mobility possible? What are the possibilities for those living in a deprived inner city location? Who within the class structure can be given “opportunities for movement”? Are we referring to the traditional white working class, the so called “ underclass” or just the better off lower middle class? One suspects that the mindset of those with a social mobility agenda means little more than small numbers of non-middle class individuals gaining middle class social/economic status. What about those born into middle class families who become part of the top 10% of earners via ownership or professional group status? Is this social mobility of the type we are seeking to promote?

When one examines social mobility in both the USA and US Blanden et al (2005) find that of the eight highly developed countries the UK and US have the lowest levels of social mobility. The UK has similar levels of social mobility to the US but the UK position relative to the USA has declined over recent decades. It is suggested that social mobility in the UK has become limited. Blanden et al (2005) reveals a strong correlation between social mobility and income, inequality- i.e countries with longer income differences tend to have lower social mobility. In the later twentieth century social mobility in the US declined as income differences widened. But the issue is not only one of income inequality in the UK and USA but static real wages in the USA where real wages have not increased for many years. Increase in family incomes has occurred through either multiple jobbing or more family members entering the job market. So although family income may have increased in real terms with apparent improvement in social mobility this may not be the case for individuals. The last few years have seen no increase in real wages in the UK with a prediction from the Bank of England that this will continue for some years. Will social mobility grind to a halt? Income inequality looks destined to widen with the vast majority of the wealth created in recent years going to the richest 10%. An economic system that inherently leads to this situation cannot but allow only limited social mobility.

Such data may suggest that anyone may not be able to achieve a better social/economic position for themselves and their families by their own merits and hard work. Equality of opportunity essentially means the possibility of social mobility.

Merit, agency, self determination are important in social mobility but for relatively disadvantaged groups merit based factors are not sufficient in determining opportunities for social mobility. There are structural constraints/factors involved. The class structure is clearly a significant factor for many sociologists. Goldthorpe(2004) suggests that there is little evidence of changes in social openness in the UK despite a vast investment in education aimed at improving equality of opportunity. Despite this, it has been found that there has been downward movement for some groups in the class structure in the UK. Blanden et al (2005) demonstrate that expansion of higher education in the UK has largely benefitted people with richer parents but overall has led to a fall in social mobility. Furthermore as long as low pay dominates much of the service sector- millions of people are required as part time, temporary or casual workers- the chances for escaping from this type of work would appear to be minimal.

We therefore are led to the conclusion that “social mobility” is an unclear term and would appear to mean little more than certain individuals moving upwards through occupational/ class structure. Providing more opportunities in the education system does not appear to have any marked improvement in income inequality in the UK or USA with the economic system ebbing and flowing in and out of recession and public spending being cut for those in greatest need and benefitting those already wealth, clearly, issues of social mobility are not part of the government’s serious agenda.


References


Aldridge, S (2003). The facts about social mobility: A survey of recent evidence on social mobility and its cause. New Economy, 10, (4), 189-193.

Blanden , J, Gregg, P& Machin, S (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance.

Goldthrope, J. (2004). Trends in intergenerational mobility in Britain in the late twentieth century. In R. Breen (Ed.) Social mobility in Europe(pp. 195-225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milburn, A(2009) Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel of Fair Access to the Professions, Pub: Cabinet Office

Wilkinson, R, Pickett, K(2009) The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Penguin Books Ltd.

Wright, C; Standen, P; Patel, T , “Black Youth Matters- Transitions from School to Success(2010), Routledge, New York.