1 / 37

Paper presented to the BHPS Research Conference 9-11 July 2009, University of Essex

‘Escape from Poverty’ and Occupations Paul Lambert, Univ. Stirling Vernon Gayle, Univ. Stirling & ISER, Univ. Essex. Paper presented to the BHPS Research Conference 9-11 July 2009, University of Essex. ‘Escape from Poverty’ and Occupations.

katelyn-hogan
Download Presentation

Paper presented to the BHPS Research Conference 9-11 July 2009, University of Essex

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘Escape from Poverty’ and OccupationsPaul Lambert, Univ. Stirling Vernon Gayle, Univ. Stirling & ISER, Univ. Essex Paper presented to the BHPS Research Conference 9-11 July 2009, University of Essex Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  2. ‘Escape from Poverty’ and Occupations Or, ‘Occupational disadvantage and its relation to poverty and poverty transitions’ • Why occupations matter • How an occupational approach to measuring poverty could work • Some preliminary results Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  3. Some background • Research on stratification, inequality, poverty • Whole distribution, cf the most disadvantaged • E.g. Poverty as < 50% median; ‘Underclass’ as lacking assets; etc • Direct v’s indirect measures of poverty (e.g. Gordon, 2000, 2006) • Absolute or relative measures • Sociology – primacy of the occupation • Economics, Social Policy: primacy of income and work-based income (e.g. UK ‘welfare to work’ policies influenced by income considerations) • Notion of a latent, underlying, socially embedded occupation as an indirect measure of poverty...? Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  4. 1) Why occupations matter Some claims about occupations: • Occupations matter more than other things • Occupational inequality is mostly one-dimensional • Occupational information resources are under-used, and this causes bad science *Quote as highlighted in Coxon and Jones (1978: 10) “Nothing stamps a man as much as his occupation. Daily work determines the mode of life.. It constrains our ideas, feelings and tastes” (Goblot, 1961)* Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  5. (i) Occupations matter more ‘Gissa job’; ‘I can do that’ From http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2007/10/09/boys_from_the_blackstuff_feature.shtml Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  6. (i) Occupations matter more • We behave as if they do • Define our lifestyles • Define structures of social inequality b) Lifestyles A large body of sociological evidence on the social meaning of occupations – define friendships, marriage, leisure, consumption, and social reproduction itself (e.g. Devine 2004, Pettinger et al. 2005; Guveli et al. 2007; Archer 2007; Bottero et al. 2009) “A man’s work is as good a clue as any to the course of his life and to his social being and identity” (Hughes, 1958) Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  7. A specially selected table… Source: BHPS 2007, currently employed adults, predictors of smoking (additional controls for age and gender) Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  8. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  9. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  10. c) Occupations define structures of social inequality • Occupations are convenient markers of major social inequalities • Occupations (division of labour) are the primary driver of the structure of social inequality Empirical evidence.. • Reaffirms economic significance of jobs • (McGovern et al, 2007; ) • Rejects thesis of diminished structural significance of occupations in modern society • (Blossfeld et al., 2006) • Highlights centrality of occupations in contours of other social divisions • (e.g. immigration - Waldinger and Lichter, 2003) Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  11. [Occupational not geographical inequality – cf. Burrows & Crow 2006] Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  12. Occupations ‘stamp’ the life-course… Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  13. ..occupations and life-time lifestyles.. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  14. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  15. ii) Occupational inequality is mostly one-dimensional Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  16. Histograms go here Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  17. iii) Occupational information resources are under-used, and this causes bad science • Detailed occupational data is important • e.g. Weeden & Grusky (2005) • Handling of detailed occupational data is generally poor • Re-coding to simplified categorisations • Ignoring complex data (e.g. careers; gender seg.) • For more and more (and more) on this see • www.dames.org.uk • Lambert et al (2007) Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  18. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  19. 2) How an occupational approach to measuring poverty could work • Notion of a latent, underlying, socially embedded occupation as an indirect measure of poverty...? • CAMSIS scales: relative social advantage typically associated with incumbents of occupational positions over lifetime (Stewart et al, 1980) • Non-working have ‘latent’ occupations easily measured by socially significant links (e.g. household sharing; career; parents) • ..this may not be the same as current objective conditions... • Apparently straightforward decision to make defining a threshold level of the average social advantage typically associated with incumbents of the occupational position Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  20. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  21. All jobs, male scale: threshold=38.51Occupational unit groups with > 90 in BHPS sample Remember that these jobs’ scores are cross-classified by employment status

  22. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  23. Female jobs, female scale: threshold = 38.45Occupational unit groups with > 50 females in BHPS sample

  24. Assigning occupations to all: parsimonious cross-sectional strategy..? • Modified Household ‘dominance’ approach • Use the most advantaged occupation within the household, prioritising ft work (e.g. Erikson, 1984), and recognising gender of occupation-holder • For students, parental jobs may be used • For those in household without job.. • Retrospective questions on last main job • Parental jobs used for those aged < 30 • ?Possible weighting factor for unemployment dur.? Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  25. Valid data on occupations (BHPS wave 17, excluding NI)

  26. No occupational data - BHPS wave 17 (2007) Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  27. Correlations between measures, BHPS, w17 individuals.These low correlations reflect people making 1 poverty threshold and not another Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  28. Selected correlations with binary poverty indicatorsBHPS wave 17 excluding NI, N=12448

  29. 3) Some preliminary results Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  30. ..preliminary results.. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  31. (Model shows coefficient B and t statistics for logit models predicting whether individuals are in poverty by alternative measures. BHPS waves 9-17 with HW standard error adjustment. Additional controls for age, gender). Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  32. (Model shows coefficient B and t statistics for random effects logit models (xtlogit) predicting whether individuals leave poverty given they were in the previous year, by alternative measures. BHPS waves 9-17. Additional controls for age, gender). Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  33. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  34. 4) Conclusions ‘Escape from social disadvantage’ and occupations • Occupational measures as feasible indirect indicators of relative poverty/disadvantage for the whole population • Reduce demographic/life-stage influence cf. income measures • Measurement challenges • Reflecting current circumstances [vulnerability to poverty, Gordon 2006] • Other alternative measures (e.g. using Unemployment data) • The concept of poverty • Implicitly absolute concept? • Implicitly longitudinal (a thing to escape), but is this over-optimistic? • Measurement & social science disciplines [Grusky & Kanbur 2007] • What determines social disadvantage/poverty? • Disadvantage is more stable than income-based measures show • Education and social background matters more than is recognised • Family status / demographics matter less • ‘Welfare to work’ is flawed? Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  35. The bottom line… • There are a core of people who experience social disadvantage which is often longer term & fairly stable • We ought to identify and provide welfare support to the disadvantaged • If we use income based poverty indicators we often identify the wrong people • ..and make poor policy decisions.. • E.g. of the UK’s ‘Working Families Tax Credits’ • Occupational data might be parsimoniously used as an alternative indicator of social disadvantage Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  36. Data sources • University of Essex, & Institute for Social and Economic Research. (2009). British Household Panel Survey: Waves 1-17, 1991-2008 [computer file], 5th Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], March 2009, SN 5151. • General Register Office for Scotland, 2001 Census: Standard Area Statistics (Scotland) [computer file]. ESRC/JISC Census Programme, Census Dissemination Unit, Mimas (University of Manchester) • Halpin, B. (2006). British Household Panel Survey Combined Work-Life History Data, 1990-2005 [computer file]. 5th ed. Colchester, Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research, [original data producer(s)]. UK Data Archive [distributor], November 2006. SN: 3954. . • Minnesota Population Center. (2008). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series - International: Version 4.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. • Office for National Statistics. Social and Vital Statistics Division and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Central Survey Unit, Quarterly Labour Force Survey, January - March, 2008 [computer file]. 2nd Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], October 2008. SN: 5851. • Prandy, K., & Bottero, W. (1998). The use of marriage data to measure the social order in nineteenth-century Britain. Sociological Research Online, 3(1), U43-U54. Lambert: BHPS conf July 2009

  37. References • Archer, M. S. (2007). Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Blossfeld, H. P., Mills, M., & Bernardi, F. (Eds.). (2006). Globalization, Uncertainty and Men's Careers: An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Bottero, W., Lambert, P. S., Prandy, K., & McTaggart, S. (2009). Occupational Structures: The Stratification Space of Social Interaction. In K. Robson & C. Sanders (Eds.), Quantifying Theory: Pierre Bourdieu (pp. 141-150). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands. • Burrows, R., & Crow, G. (2006). Geodemographics, Software and Class. Sociology, 40(5), 793-812. • Coxon, A. P. M., & Jones, C. L. (1978). The Images of Occupational Prestige: A Study in Social Cognition. London: MacMillan Press. • Devine, F. (2004). Class Practices: How parents help their children get good jobs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Erikson, R. (1984). Social Class of Men, Women and Families. Sociology, 18(4), 500-514. • Goblot, E. (1961). Class and Occupation. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Theories of Society. New York: Free Press. • Gordon, D., Pantazis, C., & Townsend, P. (2000). Absolute and overall poverty: A European history and proposal for measurement. In D. Gordon & P. Townsend (Eds.), Breadline Europe : The measurement of poverty (pp. 79-106). Bristol: The Policy Press. • Gordon, D. (2006). The concept and measurement of poverty. In C. Pantazis, D. Gordon & R. Levitas (Eds.), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain: The Millenium Survey. Bristol: The Policy Press. • Guveli, A., Need, A., & De Graaf, N. D. (2007). Socio-political, cultural and economic preferences and behaviour of the social and cultural specialists and the technocrats. Social class or education? . Social Indicators Research, 81(3), 597-631. • Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their Work. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. • Lambert, P. S., Tan, K. L. L., Turner, K. J., Gayle, V., Prandy, K., & Sinnott, R. O. (2007). Data Curation Standards and Social Science Occupational Information Resources. International Journal of Digital Curation, 2(1), 73-91. • McGovern, P., Hill, S., Mills, C., & White, M. (2007). Market, Class and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Pettinger, L., Parry, J., Taylor, R., & Glucksmann, M. (Eds.). (2005). A New Sociology of Work? London:: Blackwell. • Stewart, A., Prandy, K., & Blackburn, R. M. (1980). Social Stratification and Occupations. London: MacMillan. • Tsakloglou, P., & Papadopoulos, F. (2003). Poverty, material deprivation and multi-dimensional disadvantage during four life stages: Evidence from the ECHP. In M. Barnes, C. Heady, S. Middleton, J. Millar, F. Papadopoulos, G. Room & P. Tsakloglou (Eds.), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • Waldinger, R., & Lichter, M. I. (2003). How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley: University of California Press. • Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The Case for a New Class Map. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 141-212.

More Related