Intergenerational social mobility during industrialization: A micro-level study of a transforming community in southern Sweden 1830-1968 Martin Dribe* (Martin.Dribe@ekh.lu.se) Jonas Helgertz* (Jonas.Helgertz@ekh.lu.se) Bart van de Putte** (Bart.vandeputte@ugent.be) * Centre for Economic Demography and Department of Economic History, Lund University, Sweden ** Department of Sociology, University of Ghent, Belgium This work has been done within the project “Towards the modern family. Socioeconomic stratification, family formation and fertility in a historical perspective,” funded by the Swedish Research Council (VR). We are grateful to seminar participants at the Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen and the Unit of Economic History, University of Gothenburg as well as session participants at the meetings of the Social Science History Association (Boston, 2011), the Economic History Society (Oxford, 2012), and the RC28 (Hong Kong, 2012).

Intergenerational social mobility during industrialization: A micro-level study of a transforming community in southern Sweden 1830-1968 Abstract This article studies class attainment and mobility in a long-term perspective, covering the entire transition from a preindustrial to a mature industrial society. Using longitudinal individual-level data men in a community of southern Sweden we test different hypotheses linking changing social mobility and attainment to the industrialization process. While we find a continuous increase in absolute mobility, relative mobility did not increase until the post-world war II period. By looking at attainment into different segments of the middle class and elite, we also clearly see the increasing role played by formal education and meritocracy for the opportunities of people from low class origin to advance socially. However, this development was more connected with the maturing of industrial society than with industrialization as such.

Introduction The long-term development of social mobility has been a major research issue for a long time within both sociology and economics. A key interest has revolved around the extent to which social mobility regimes differ between countries at different levels of development or with a different institutional structure, and whether these patterns changed during and after industrialization (see, e.g., Bourdieu, Ferrie and Kesztenbaum 2009; Breen 2008; Breen and Jonsson 2007; Erikson 1983; Erikson and Goldthorpe 1985, 1992; Ferrie 2005; Ganzeboom, Luijkx and Treiman 1989; Ganzeboom, Treiman and Ultee 1991; Grusky and Hauser 1984; Hout and DiPrete 2006; Lipset and Bendix 1959; Long and Ferrie 2007; Treiman 1970; Van Leeuwen and Maas 2010). In turn, these questions are also related to issues of social stratification more generally, and the extent to which these patterns are dependent on economic development (see, e.g., Treiman 1976).

It is crucial to distinguish between absolute mobility and relative mobility. Whereas absolute mobility does not seem to have changed to any considerable extent during industrialization, there appear to be considerable differences in mobility rates across industrial societies (Van Leeuwen and Maas 2010). At the same time, Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992) did not find big differences in rates of relative mobility between countries at different levels of development, and their conclusion of the “constant flux” has also been supported by a number of studies, but refuted by others (see, e.g., Breen 2008; Hout and DiPrete 2006).

While most empirical studies have relied on aggregated mobility tables from contexts at different levels of development (e.g., Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992; Featherman, Jones and Hauser 1975; Ganzeboom, Luijkx and Treiman 1989) or historical data from marriage certificates or population registers covering only the onset of industrialization (e.g., Dribe and Lundh 2009, 2010; Dribe and Svensson 2008; Maas and Van Leeuwen 2002, 2004; Maas and Zijdeman 2010; Van Bavel, Peeters and Matthijs 1998; Zijdeman 2009), few studies have examined this issue from a longitudinal perspective, covering the entire period from a preindustrial to a post-industrial society, thereby enabling a more careful control of the setting and of confounding factors (see, however, Van Leeuwen and Maas 1996).

The aim of this article is to study socioeconomic attainment and mobility in a confined geographic area over a period of more than 150 years. More specifically, using longitudinal individual-level data from two parishes in southern Sweden, we study how patterns of intergenerational social mobility and class attainment changed from the early 1800s until about 1970. This enables an examination of an uninterrupted time period in which Sweden transformed from a preindustrial to a mature industrial society. We thereby contribute to what is arguably one of the most central topics in social stratification research, namely how structural changes in the labor market, brought about by industrialization, affected mechanisms of social mobility and attainment. In addition to more traditional analyses of mobility and attainment, we also look at middle class/elite attainment by sector, to find indications of a change from ascription to own achievement as the dominant determinant of socioeconomic status. Theoretical background and previous research Industrialization brought about overwhelming changes in the structure of the labor market, with a massive growth in occupations within both the manufacturing and service sectors (Erikson 1983, Schön 2000). Across the Western world, the growing importance of the industrial sector occurred simultaneously as the share employed in agriculture declined. Hence, the process of industrialization, almost by definition, implied a considerable degree of occupational mobility, as new positions were generated alongside the disappearance of those previously occupied by individuals belonging to older generations (c.f. Lipset and Bendix 1959). However, while changing employment from the agricultural to the industrial sector

implied occupational mobility, the transformation of an unskilled farm worker into an unskilled industrial worker cannot immediately be interpreted as class mobility.

In the analysis of class mobility, a distinction has usually been made between absolute mobility and relative mobility (e.g., Featherman, Jones and Hauser 1975). While absolute mobility may increase simply because the social structure changes, relative mobility is measured net of such structural changes. Whereas an abundance of empirical studies, on several contexts, have shown increasing rates of absolute mobility during industrialization (Erikson 1983, Grusky and Hauser 1984), its influence on relative mobility remains widely debated. Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992) did not find big differences in rates of relative mobility between countries at different levels of development, and similar findings have been made by others (see Hout and DiPrete 2006; Van Leeuwen and Maas 2010; Xie and Killewald 2010). The differences in levels of relative mobility between countries have been argued to mainly be a result of unique characteristics of each country, and not systematically related to the level of economic development, industrialization, etc. Several studies, however, have observed a slow increase of social mobility in industrialized nations, and also identified various economic and political determinants of relative mobility (e.g., Breen 2008; Breen and Jonsson 2007; Featherman and Hauser 1978; Ganzeboom, Luijkx and Treiman 1989; Grusky 1986). Despite this, the overall conclusion remains that while the degree of openness varies across developed countries, the basic patterns of relative mobility over time are basically the same (Hout and DiPrete 2006). It should also be noted than most of the studies finding clear trends in relative mobility over time, look at the development of the past 50 years or so, and not since the beginning of industrialization.

In preindustrial societies, the importance of land for individual socioeconomic status made inheritance and thus parental landholding of prime importance for status attainment (see, e.g., Dribe and Svensson 2008). Similarly, in artisan occupations, sons often followed in their fathers’ footsteps. Despite the strong intergenerational transmission of status, this does not mean that mobility was absent. Instead, studies of preindustrial societies have typically found considerable social mobility, but mainly downwards (e.g., Dribe and Svensson 2008; Lundh 1999). This is believed to be linked primarily to the difficulty of reproducing high social status in rural contexts because of the connection to a rather fixed supply of land (cf. Clark 2007; Mendels 2000).

Overwhelming structural change, such as the industrialization process, typically implies an increase in the rates of intergenerational absolute mobility. As contexts stabilize, intergenerational mobility is, however, expected to slow down. A crucial question for this article is whether the contextual changes during industrialization led to increased upward absolute mobility, at least in the short term? One of the mechanisms underlying such a claim is the emergence of a “new” middle class. A new managerial and administrative class, and qualified technical and professional staff, typically emerged with the rise of big companies and government institutions, implying increased opportunities outside the traditional sectors. Artisans emphasized the commercial dimension of their activities, and the whole trade sector, from the most modest shops to the new big department stores, grew impressively in size and diversity (Van de Putte, Oris, and Matthijs, 2009). In this way, industrialization may have evoked the rise of a new middle class already at an early stage.

This evolution, however, is often counteracted by other developments, particularly in the early-industrial period (Kaeble 1981, 1985). Firstly, the old middle class – the petty bourgeoisie of small industrialists and artisans – experienced unstable conditions (Ericsson, 1993). As a result, the absolute number of available middle class positions may have decreased. Secondly, particularly the early stages of industrialization produced an increasing share of lower class positions within, for example, the iron, textile and mining industries. In this case, the relative number of persons reaching middle class positions decreased. Finally,

the agricultural decline, typically occurring in the late nineteenth century in many European countries, may have had an impact on social mobility. Unable to remain within agriculture, sons and daughters of unskilled farm workers or farmers turned to the newly available industrial positions for employment. While white-collar occupations may have been on the rise even in industrializing provincial towns, previous research suggests that the strength of the process should not be overestimated during early industrialization (see, e.g., Maas and Van Leeuwen, 2002).

The changing mobility patterns during industrialization came about not only through changes in the class structure, but also through changing mechanisms of class attainment. Almost by definition, social reproduction is more difficult in unstable contexts. Consequently, structures of social reproduction can become fluid in periods of contextual change and create societal openness. Lipset and Zetterberg (1956) argued that the most substantial changes in mobility chances occurred at the breakthrough of industrialization. The creation of new positions are, at least theoretically, open for acquisition by anyone. In this way, the change of the occupational composition of classes may encourage a more open recruitment across class and status barriers (Miles 1999: 63). A key argument, proposed by Treiman (1970), suggests persistently increased intergenerational relative mobility rates from the changing context resulting from industrialization. This is partly a result of a more complex labor market and a greater bureaucratization of work, making the intergenerational transmission of status increasingly difficult.

According to the liberal theory of industrialism, economic development promotes increasing relative mobility and encourages equal opportunities. The changing labor market during industrialization implied increasing opportunities for employment outside the agricultural sector, where own achievement was more important than ascription for status attainment (see, e.g., Blau and Duncan 1967). In countries with an early industrialization, the triumphant nineteenth-century bourgeoisie imposed an ideology of individual merit and competition (Kaelble 1981; Van de Putte, Oris and Matthijs 2009), while the growing importance of larger firms and state institutions with more fine-grained hierarchical structures and the need for more formally educated employees also stimulated meritocratic procedures of recruitment and promotion. In this perspective, new occupations in increasingly dominant sectors of the labor market were less dependent on fathers’ skills and prestige (see, e.g., Zijdeman 2009).

Industrialization was associated with the creation of new positions, predominantly in urbanizing areas, e.g., in construction, services, retail and wholesale trades, which were not previously occupied. In these growing sectors of the economy formal education became increasing important for status attainment rather than transfer of status or resources from the parental generation (see Treiman 1970). Thus, necessary skills could be acquired through formal schooling or on-the-job training, which made it accessible to previously unskilled workers, through the expansion of public education. As a result, there was a declining role of the intergenerational transmission of skills (Seccombe 1995: 59). Furthermore, similar difficulties in inheriting the father’s position characterized new supervisory functions (see Western 1994), which were also increasing in numbers. In the later stages of the industrialization process, there was an accentuated increase of white-collar occupations requiring literacy and skills obtained through formal schooling (e.g., Goldin and Katz 1998; Mitch 1999). The expansion of the public school system theoretically also offered individuals from a lower class background the opportunity to acquire educational credentials, increasing rates of intergenerational mobility, possibly granting individuals from disadvantaged origins access to middle class positions. It is the white-collar sector that reflected most clearly the shift towards more formalized and impersonal structures of recruitment (Miles 1999: 134). Indeed, the modern school system has been seen as the most important way for lower class

children to reach white-collar, middle class positions. As a result of the timing of educational expansion in Sweden (c.f. Jonsson 1987), such mechanisms are not likely to have become important until the process of industrialization reached a relatively mature stage.

Despite these processes, social origin could have remained an important determinant of social mobility and attainment through different mechanisms. It has been argued that strategies of social closure and social reproduction did not fade away with industrialization but have remained important in modern societies as well. Bourdieu argues that higher status groups, instead of the straightforward transmittance of land, turned to other forms of influence to maintain the status of their children. Here, the use of occupational networks or wealth (see Grusky 1983), or investing in the educational career of their children by providing economic, social and cultural capital, emerged as potential mechanisms (see Bourdieu and Passeron 1970). In such a situation, higher social status could be expected to have led to higher educational investments in children through better knowledge and information about educational systems, and to better access to economic and intellectual resources, which should have facilitated successful accumulation of human capital on the part of the children.

The chances for individuals from the lower classes to attain middle- and upper-class positions depended on the strength of the barriers, which in turn was related to economic sector. More specifically, there is likely to have been a difference in openness between the agricultural sector, the business sector (further referred to as the proprietary/hierarchical sector) and the educational sector (white-collar work requiring formal education). As already explained, attaining an elevated position in the agricultural sector remained a process largely determined by the intergenerational transmission of resources. Hence, the opportunities for an outsider to achieve a middle-class position in the agricultural sector were slim, usually requiring a considerable amount of financial capital. Turning to the proprietary/hierarchical sector, in the case where industrial activity was small scale, and the required amount of starting capital was not too high, persons with a lower class background may have found opportunities to develop a business from very modest starting positions, for example as bricklayers or carpenters (see Miles 1999). Hout (1984), however, argues that positions characterized by a high degree of autonomy, expressed as a high degree of control over one’s work process, are comparatively easier to transmit across generations. This process occurs through increased access to both material and psychological resources. Children of fathers with their own business or practice have greater access to economic and other resources useful in transmitting class across generations. Lastly, occupations requiring formal training, belonging to the educational sector, are characterized by comparatively low obstacles for entry for individuals from low class origins. Several of the mechanisms typically discussed as symptomatic of an attainment regime based on achievement arguably apply to a disproportionate extent to this sector.

With evident differences between sectors, the likelihood of attaining certain positions, or to be successful in the new system of power source acquisition, is linked to the availability of various forms of capital – financial, human and social/cultural – but also to the transferability of these forms of capital between generations. An important condition in this respect is whether capital is location dependent, to a local social network, or locally fixed capital such as a farm. The similarity in skills, status habits, etc. between different positions (affinity) is also important for the possibility to transfer human capital. Another characteristic that is strongly associated with industrialization is the increasing rate of urbanization. With a larger predominance of migrants, the central question seems to be whether economic, human, cultural and social capital are effective in other locations. Most forms of liquid economic capital are not limited to local boundaries. Fixed economic capital, however, is often not convertible into economic capital in other locations. In the case of land and farm property there are geographical limitations. The local value of a farm, or another locally rooted

business, is more than just a sum of money that could be brought to a new location. Local businesses have their value based on their knowledge of local affairs, local social networks of customers and business partners and are difficult to move without loss of value. Social capital is often local, and the social networks of rural migrants are often simply not present in the city (Ryczkowska 2003). Hence, “enforced” migration is generally disruptive and a stimulator of fluidity (Miles 1999: 63). This is particularly the case for unskilled migrants. Thernstrom (1968) described the mobility cycle as the phenomenon in which newly created jobs of rather low status tend to go to those who previously held jobs of even lower status. Migration may also reduce affinity. Migrants do not always have human and cultural capital which is transferable to other (urban, industrial) locations. If people are raised in an environment in which formal education or non-agricultural skills are not present, this makes it difficult to be prepared for these jobs. However, some migrants have transferable skills. Higher education is typically more abstract and universal and hence applicable in larger regions (e.g., a lawyer). Moreover, migrants are often positively selected in terms of ability and react to labor market incentives (e.g. Chiswick 1978; Long 2005; see, however, also Borjas 1987 and Stewart 2006 for somewhat different views). Taking both processes into account, migration can be expected to be linked to higher degrees of mobility, both upwards and downwards.

Based on the preceding discussion the following hypotheses can be formulated:

a. Absolute mobility - Hypothesis 1: The industrialization process was associated with increasing absolute mobility. Whereas the early stages of industrialization were associated with a predominance of downward transitions, in the maturing stages the chances of upward mobility increased. b. Relative mobility - Hypothesis 2: Especially in the later stages of industrialization relative social mobility increased, as the importance of achievement over ascription grew. - Hypothesis 3: Migrants to urban-industrial contexts experienced higher levels of relative social mobility. c. Middle class/elite attainment - Hypothesis 4: Overall, the chances of middle class/elite attainment did not change during industrialization, because of increasing opportunities in the non-agricultural sectors and decreasing opportunities in the agricultural sector. - Hypothesis 5: The chances of middle class/elite attainment in the educational sector for individuals from low status origins increased relative to higher-status individuals during industrialization, because of the greater importance of achievement over ascription. Data and methods The data consists of micro-level longitudinal information for males living in the parishes of Hög and Kävlinge, located in the southernmost part of Sweden (see Dribe 2000). The study period 1830-1968 covers the entire industrialization process. We use data from the Scanian Economic-Demographic Database (SEDD, Bengtsson, Dribe and Svensson 2012) consisting of information from continuous population registers. They provide information on demographic events, including migration to and from households, for all members of households. Birth and death registers have also been used to adjust for any possible under-recording of events in the population registers. Occupational information is obtained from the population registers, poll tax registers (mantalslängder), and from annual income and taxation registers. The resulting database contains longitudinal information on all individuals born in the selected parishes, or migrating into them.

As we focus on intergenerational processes of attainment and mobility, a necessary condition for being selected into the sample is that social class can be observed for both the individual and his father. High rates of migration imply that this information was lacking for a considerable part of the population. To deal with this shortcoming, all ever-married men residing in the parishes were traced back to their parish of birth in order to complete the information on father’s social class at the individual’s time of birth. As a result we could obtain information about class origin for 64 percent of the individuals in the original sample.

In order to test the hypotheses about changing determinants of social mobility and attainment following industrialization, the sample is divided into five periods, indicating the time when the individuals attained their career peak. The division is intended to capture the preindustrial period (1830-1869), the early industrial period (1870-1894), the breakthrough phase of industrialization (1895-1914), the period of the world wars (1915-1944), and the post-WWII period, representing the maturity phase of the industrialization process when formal education also became of greater importance (1945-1968).

Class attainment is measured using data on individual occupation, recorded at demographic events, when first observed in the population registers, or on an annual basis in the poll tax registers and income registers. Occupations reported in the database have been coded into HISCO (Van Leeuwen, Maas and Miles 2002), and subsequently classified according to SOCPO (Van de Putte and Miles 2005). SOCPO classifies occupations and titles into five different classes based on a notion of social power. Social power indicates the control of resources, which in turn serves as a measure of independence. Independence, in turn, determines the individual’s degree of control, authority and replaceability. Social power is a function of both economic power (income, property, etc.) and cultural power (e.g., prestige, not primarily related to economic power). In addition to occupational information, data on land tenure (manorial, crown, freehold) and the size of landholdings (recorded in mantal) has been used to classify the farming population (Van de Putte and Svensson 2010). The five classes in the scheme are: the elite (SP-level 5, including large agricultural proprietors), the middle class (SP-level 4, including freeholders), skilled workers (SP-level 3), semi-skilled workers (SP-level 2, including smallholders and crofters), and unskilled workers (SP-level 1, including farm workers).

Intergenerational social mobility is measured by comparing the SP-level of father and son at about the same age of their life cycles (the son at age 40 and the father at the birth of the son). For migrants the age closest to these time points is chosen. We also subdivide the middle class/elite into three different groups based on sector: agricultural, educational, and proprietary/hierarchical. The subdivision captures essential differences in their underlying power sources, and is based on the HISCO codes of the occupation. The educational sector is characterized by a dominance of educational skills (HISCO major groups 0, 1, and 3, as well as minor groups 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-9), while the hierarchical/proprietary sector consists of supervisory occupations and those associated with property (HISCO major groups 2, 7, 8, and 9 as well as minor groups 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8). The agricultural middle class/elite group is made up of occupations in HISCO major group 6.

In the empirical analysis we first focus on describing the social structure more carefully, in order to better illustrate how the process of industrialization changed the context analyzed. Moreover, patterns of absolute mobility are investigated, applying a purely descriptive approach. We subsequently conduct a series of multivariate analyses, in which models are estimated separately in order to address each of the main issues: social mobility, attaining middle class/elite status, and attaining sector-specific middle class/elite status. Social mobility is analyzed using multinomial and binary logistic regression models. Here, the outcomes are either upward and downward mobility as competing outcomes, or any form of intergenerational mobility. We distinguish relative mobility from absolute mobility by

including a control variable for the relative size of the origin social class at the individual’s time of attainment. Doing so is important, given that relative mobility – unlike absolute mobility – is essentially a zero-sum phenomenon (Grusky and Manwai 2008). Therefore, the model controls for different attainment opportunities in different groups, stemming from the relative size of the origin class. More specifically, it is expected that originating from a large or growing class lowers the chances of ending up in a different class, due to the comparatively greater opportunities within that given group.

Attaining middle class/elite status is analyzed using a binary logistic regression model, where the outcome of interest is attaining SP-level 4 or 5. The base outcome is worker status (SP-levels 1-3). Finally, we look at sector-specific middle class/elite attainment, using multinomial logistic regression. The total sample analyzed consists of about 3,900 men and is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 here

Social and economic structure During the period under study, the community under study changed from being a typical rural area dominated by freeholding farmers and tenants on crown land, primarily engaged in grain production and animal husbandry, into a small industrial town characterized by food and textile industries as well as being a local center for business and administration. The period up until about 1870 was preindustrial but with considerable development in agriculture. Starting in the late eighteenth century, but gaining considerable momentum after 1803, the enclosure of land changed both the countryside and the agricultural economy. The enclosure movement caused a break-up of villages and, together with land reclamation and the introduction of new crops and farming methods, created preconditions for a rapid growth of agricultural production as well as a major change in social structure (see, e.g., Svensson 2006; Dribe and Svensson 2008).

From Table 1 we get a good picture of the structural changes occurring in the labor market during the period under study. The period 1870-1894 showed the first signs of industrialization, which is somewhat later than for some other parts of Sweden, where there was an early industrialization in textiles and later timber from about 1830-1850 onwards (Schön 1979, 2000). The number of workers in HISCO major groups 7-9 rose from 26 to 42 percent. At the same time the percentage of professional, technical and related workers (HISCO 0/1), administrative and managerial workers (HISCO 2), clerical workers (HISCO 3) and sales workers (HISCO 4) increased, but to a much smaller extent, from 2 to 4 percent. These changes in the occupational structure were associated with simultaneous changes in the class distribution. The decline in middle class (SP4) and semi-skilled (SP2) positions was more or less entirely linked to a diminishing share employed within the agricultural sector. Simultaneously, the growing share of individuals with unskilled and skilled occupations was due to increasing opportunities outside of agriculture.

Industrialization continued at a more rapid pace after 1890. Of importance were the establishment of a textile mill (1892 in Furulund), a leather and shoe factory (1896), a glove factory (1898), a brick factory (mid-nineteenth century), meat industry (1918) and a sugar mill (1891) (Billing et al. 1983; Högs by skifteslag 2000). From the end of the nineteenth century, the area also experienced substantial population growth. The population more than quadrupled in size over a period of 50 years, from hovering at around 1,000 inhabitants to approaching 5,000 by the end of the 1960s. The rapid increase of the population in the area after 1890 was also connected to the construction of one of Sweden’s major railway lines, linking Malmö in the south with the nation’s second largest city, Gothenburg. From 1886, Kävlinge became a station on that railway line. In addition, there were also several minor

railroads connecting Kävlinge to other towns and cities in the region. From 1907, Hög also became connected to the railway network. While Kävlinge experienced the bulk of the population growth, Hög retained its rural character longer. However, due to its close proximity to Kävlinge (about 5 kilometers between parish centers), Hög was immediately drawn into the urban field, making it possible to work at the sugar factory or one of the leather mills in Kävlinge, despite residing in Hög.

Naturally, this development also implied a growth in activities related to sales and services, as well as in education and administration. For example, in 1903 there were already a total of 25 different stores in Kävlinge, of which 11 were grocery stores and new larger schoolhouses were built at the same time (Billing et al. 1983). The occupational and class structure changed accordingly, as is clear in Table 1. The percentage of workers (HISCO 7/8/9/9-9) increased dramatically to 65 percent in 1895-1914, while the percentage of professional, technical and related workers (HISCO 0/1), administrative and managerial workers (HISCO 2), clerical workers (HISCO 3) and sales workers (HISCO 4) increased to 14 percent. The lower classes dominated the class structure: 76 percent were skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers. Roughly 90 percent of these workers were employed outside of agriculture, further emphasizing its declining importance alongside industrialization.

Between 1915 and 1944, the economic change slowed down, both in terms of the occupational structure and the class structure. The percentage of workers (HISCO 7/8/9/9-9) decreased somewhat (59 percent), although the percentage of professional, technical and related workers (HISCO 0/1), administrative and managerial workers (HISCO 2), clerical workers (HISCO 3) and sales workers (HISCO 4) increased to about 18 percent. Together with the stagnation of population growth this made the interwar period less volatile than the period before. The likely importance of education as a means of status attainment also became increasingly evident, with about 7 percent employed in that sector.

The changes during the second half of the twentieth century reflect the general development in Sweden towards a maturing industrial economy and the emerging welfare state (see, e.g., Schön 2000). School participation increased considerably in the post-war period. The percentage of all 16-year-olds completing at least nine years of school increased from about 4 in 1930 to about 26 percent in 1965 (Stanfors 2007: 188). This was the first stage of a change which suggests that people were increasingly eager to take up white-collar jobs, as those destined for blue-collar jobs typically left after the mandatory six to seven years (Folkskola). The increasing importance of school participation allowed the use of more meritocratic procedures in recruitment and promotion in the white-collar sectors. The occupational structure in Table 1 shows a further increase of the percentage of professional, technical and related workers (HISCO 0/1), administrative and managerial workers (HISCO 2), clerical workers (HISCO 3) and sales workers (HISCO 4), up to about 24 percent. This period also saw a second phase of population growth, which implies that the higher percentages of new middle class occupations reflected a substantial increase in the absolute number of new middle class occupations. The middle class/elite group also became more diversified, with increasing shares within the educational, hierarchical and proprietary sectors. Social mobility The previous section has illustrated the changing context, from a predominantly agrarian society into a diversified industrialized economy. Table 2 shows rates of absolute mobility, by class origin and period. For all classes combined, absolute mobility was already quite high in the period before 1870, as only 47 percent of all children remained in the class of their father. Consistent with our expectations, the earlier phases of industrialization were associated with increasing absolute mobility, clearly dominated by downward transitions. With the exception of a slight decline during 1915-1944, absolute mobility appears to have continued to increase

over the entire period, peaking at 72 percent during the maturity phase of industrialization. The maturity stage of industrialization was also associated with a changing mobility regime, with upward transitions dominating, reaching 45 percent in the final period.

Table 2 here

While the proportions who were intergenerationally mobile illustrate the dramatic

development of absolute social mobility during industrialization, multivariate modeling is required in order to better understand the observed pattern. Table 3 shows estimates of multinomial logistic regression models on upward and downward social mobility, with no mobility as the base outcome. Model 1 is an absolute mobility model controlling only for age, showing clearly increasing absolute mobility over time. More specifically, subsequent to the preindustrial period, all effects suggest increasing upward as well as downward intergenerational mobility. In terms of downward mobility, the highest risks can be observed during the earliest phases of the industrial breakthrough, between 1870 and 1914, with relative risks being about 60-70 percent higher than in the preindustrial period. For upward mobility the increase was more or less linear, with an accentuated increase visible from the industrial breakthrough, and particularly after 1945. Thus, upward mobility increased substantially during industrialization. Hence, hypothesis 1 is supported, as industrialization indeed appears to have been associated with increased absolute mobility, with a predominance of downward transitions during the earlier stages, followed by a strongly increasing probability of upward mobility after the breakthrough.

Table 3 here

Hypotheses 2 and 3 concerned relative mobility, for which we turn to Table 4, where

the outcome distinguishes between mobility and non-mobility, regardless of the direction. Consistent with the expected change in dominating mechanisms of mobility associated with the maturing stages of industrialization, Model 2 indicates a significantly elevated risk of relative mobility in the post-WWII period. In this period, the odds of relative mobility were 63 percent higher than in the preindustrial period, and no less than 20 percent higher relative to previous periods. Thus, the results appear to support an increased relevance of achievement over ascription emerging during the later stages of industrialization. Model 3 suggests a similar story, while also investigating whether relative mobility differed depending on class origin. The semi-skilled (SP 2) were the most mobile and the elite (SP 5) and the unskilled workers (SP 1) the least mobile. The increased relative mobility in the later stages of industrialization is somewhat mediated by the class origin (OR=1.45). Hence, as suggested by Hypothesis 2, the results lend support to an increasing social fluidity that was associated with industrialization and the presumed greater importance of achievement based mechanisms of attainment.

Model 4 is extended to control for place of birth and confirms that in-migrants had statistically significantly higher relative mobility, compared to otherwise similar individuals who were born in the same parish, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. Migration distance did not seem to matter to any significant extent for mobility chances, as the odds ratios for both migrant groups were largely similar.

Table 4 here Middle class and elite attainment

Next, we turn to the determinants of attaining middle class or elite status. Table 5 presents odds ratios of attaining SP-level 4 or 5, controlling for class origin, migration status and age. Hypothesis 4 postulated that the opposite development in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors left opportunities for middle class/elite attainment unchanged following industrialization. The period effects in Model 5, however, suggest that the societal transformation made it more difficult over time to enter the middle class/elite group. Most of this change had happened already in the transformational, preindustrial period, which points to greater difficulties in becoming a self-sufficient farmer as the main mechanism. In later periods, there was not much change in the chances of middle class/elite attainment, which suggests that new opportunities emerged counteracting the decline of farming, but also that it did not reverse the trend.

Table 5 here In the following models, presented in Table 6, we look at middle class/elite attainment by sector. The models are estimated as multinomial logistic regression models, where the base outcome is low class attainment, regardless of employment sector. The model hence addresses the second part of Hypothesis 4, whether the development over time was characterized by increasing (decreasing) opportunities for middle class/elite attainment outside (within) the agricultural sector. Model 6 confirms that the opportunities for middle class/elite attainment did indeed differ substantially between the sectors, both overall and over time. In the agricultural sector, where ascription is assumed to have been most important, the attainment opportunities declined dramatically over time. From the breakthrough phase of industrialization and onwards, the relative risks were statistically significant and below 0.2.

Table 6 here In contrast, the opportunities for middle class/elite attainment in both the educational and the proprietary/hierarchical sectors increased quite dramatically over time. In the case of education, this became particularly accentuated in the post-WWII period. The greater opportunities for middle class/elite attainment outside the agricultural sector are consistent with increasing reliance on achievement, in line with Hypothesis 4.

In order to test the final hypothesis, we examine the different opportunities for individuals from low class origin in the different sectors. Model 7 shows baseline differences in the probability of attaining middle class/elite status in the different sectors. As expected, the lowest probability was observed for positions within the agricultural sector. This is consistent with the assumption that individuals of low class origin lacked the necessary resources for attaining an elevated position within this sector, because such resources predominantly were transmitted between generations. Model 8 includes interaction effects between class origin and period. Due to an insufficient number of observations, the reference period is extended to include all years preceding the industrial breakthrough, between 1830 and 1894. Looking at the situation during the preindustrial period (base effects of class origin), the disadvantage experienced by individuals of low class origin was, as expected, most accentuated for accessing middle class/elite positions in the agriculture sector (RR=0.17). Also in the educational and proprietary/hierarchical sectors there was a clear disadvantage, but it was not as large. The comparatively favorable situation for attaining a middle/elite class position in the educational sector (RR=0.26) is consistent with the assumed mechanisms of status attainment (achievement rather than ascription).

The changing situation over time in the agricultural sector reflects what has already been observed, with generally declining attainment chances. Calculating net effects, the

chance of attaining middle class/elite status in the agricultural sector remained the lowest in all periods and for individuals of low as well as high status origins. In the proprietary/hierarchical sector, opportunities for individuals from low class origin improved over time, in absolute as well as in relative terms. Indeed, during the maturity phase, the relative risk for this group compared to an individual from a middle class/elite origin was 0.78 compared to 0.21 in the first two periods. Thus, in relative terms, the proprietary/hierarchical sector appears to have been the one whose attainment mechanisms changed the most in favor of those from low class origin, which was particularly accentuated during the maturity phase of industrialization.

In the educational sector, the opportunities of middle class/elite attainment grew dramatically over time for all individuals. While the interaction effects do not support a relative improvement for individuals from low class origin, net effects suggest the highest chance for middle class/elite attainment in this sector, throughout the entire period. Hence, the results of Model 8 partially support Hypothesis 5, identifying occupations belonging to the educational sector as the most important means of attaining middle class/elite status, in absolute terms, also becoming stronger as industrialization took off and eventually matured. A similar, and in relative terms even stronger development, however, occurred in the proprietary/hierarchical sector, which was not predicted by the hypothesis. It should also be noted that low class origin was always associated with lower chances of attaining middle class/elite status, compared to middle class/elite origin.

Conclusions This study contributes to one of the most classical debates in the social stratification literature about the link between industrialization and changing mechanisms of intergenerational social mobility and class attainment. Using longitudinal individual-level data spanning the entire industrialization process, we have empirically assessed several key hypotheses identified in the previous literature. Our findings show increasing absolute mobility throughout the period examined, and thus no indications of returning to lower levels in the later stages of industrialization when changes in the occupational structure slowed down. Consistent with expectations, the initial phases of industrialization were associated with a predominance of downward intergenerational mobility. As a result of the disproportionately larger growth of lower class positions, it illustrates a situation where structural labor market changes during the initial stages of industrialization forced individuals to abandon higher class positions in agriculture. During the later stages of industrialization, a pronounced increase in upward absolute mobility could be observed, which indicates a growth in higher status occupations.

The expanding sectors were characterized by a greater reliance on individual achievement (connected to human capital) over ascription as a selection criterion, consistent with increasing relative mobility during the latter stages of the industrialization process. We interpret this as an increase of societal openness in a period of industrialization and population growth – evolutions which opened up new middle class positions that could be acquired following new, possibly more meritocratic, recruitment procedures. As a final test of the importance of the achievement mechanism of attainment, we studied different labor market sectors separately. The intergenerational transmission of social class appeared strongest in the agricultural sector, which is consistent with the expectations that ascription remained a key mechanism of attainment, combined with considerable obstacles for entry for outsiders. More specifically, entering the agricultural sector required substantial financial capital, which reinforced the disadvantage experienced by individuals from lower class origin. The changing attainment mechanisms during industrialization in the proprietary/hierarchical sector were more unclear. While its growing employment share should have favored recruitment methods other than ascription, entry into this sector was also linked to the possession of economic,

social and cultural capital. The results suggested significant improvements in relative opportunities for individuals of low class origins to reach these positions, which may point to changes in recruitment mechanisms within this sector during industrialization. Within the educational sector, the opportunities to reach middle class/elite positions improved substantially over time, suggesting that the reliance on formal skills as a recruitment mechanism grew increasingly important as industrialization reached maturity.

In conclusion, the industrialization process was clearly associated with increasing absolute, as well as relative, class mobility. Industrialization fundamentally changed the mechanisms of attainment and intergenerational mobility, which to a large extent was linked to an increasing importance of achievement over ascription. While the intergenerational transmission of status became less important over time, it became easier for people from low class origin to enter the non-agricultural middle class. Despite this development, however, the intergenerational reproduction of status far from completely disappeared, as shown by the much lower chances for people from low status origin to attain middle class and elite positions in the post-WWII period.

References Bengtsson, T., M. Dribe, and P. Svensson.2012. The Scanian Economic Demographic

Database. Version 2.0 (Machine-readable database). Lund: Lund University, Centre for Economic Demography.

Billing, J., B. Eklund, L. Hägglund, G. Lagerberg, and A-M. Zettersten. 1983. Kävlinge. Ett skånskt järnvägssamhälle. Stockholm: Konsthögskolans arkitekturskola.

Blau, P. M., and O. D. Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.

Borjas, G. J. (1987). Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review 77(4): 531-553.

Bourdieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron. 1970. La Reproduction: Éléments d'une Théorie du Système d'Enseignement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Bourdieu, J., J. P. Ferrie, and L. Kesztenbaum. 2009. Vive la difference? Intergenerational social mobility in France and the United States during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 39(4):523–557.

Breen, R. (2008). Social mobility in Europe. Pp. 465–480 in Social Stratification. Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective edited by David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Breen, R., and J. O. Jonsson. 2007. Explaining change in social fluidity: Educational equalization and educational expansion in twentieth-century Sweden.” American Journal of Sociology 112(6):1775–1810.

Chiswick, B. R. 1978. The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. Journal of Political Economy 86(5): 897-921.

Clark, G. 2007. A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dribe, M. 2000. Leaving Home in a Peasant Society. Economic Fluctuations, Household Dynamics and Youth Migration in Southern Sweden, 1829-1866. Södertälje: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Dribe, M., and C. Lundh. 2009. Partner choice and intergenerational occupational mobility. The case of nineteenth century rural Sweden. Continuity and Change 24(3):487–512.

Dribe, M., and C. Lundh 2010. Marriage choices and social reproduction. The interrelationship between partner selection and intergenerational socioeconomic mobility in 19th century Sweden. Demographic Research 22(14):347–382.

Dribe, M., and P. Svensson. 2008. Social mobility in nineteenth-century rural Sweden – a micro level analysis. Scandinavian Economic History Review 56(2):122–141.

Ericsson, T. 1993. Social mobility and the urban petite bourgeoisie: Sweden in European perspective. Pp.165-181 in Building European Society. Occupational Change and Social Mobility in Europe. 1840-1940, edited by A. Miles and D. Vincent. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Erikson, R. 1983. Changes in Social Mobility in Industrial Nations: The Case of Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Institute for Social Research.

Erikson, R., and J.H. Goldthorpe. 1985. Are American Rates of Social Mobility Exceptionally High? New Evidence on an Old Issue. European Sociological Review 1(1): 1-22.

Erikson, R., and J.H. Goldthorpe. 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Featherman, D. L., F. L. Jones, and R. M. Hauser.1975. Assumptions of social mobility research in the U.S.: The case of occupational status. Social Science Research 4(4):329–360.

Featherman, D. L., and R. M. Hauser.1978. Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Press.

Ferrie, J. P. 2005. History Lessons: The end of American exceptionalism? Mobility in the United States since 1850. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3):199–215.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., R. Luijkx, and D. J. Treiman. 1989. Intergenerational class mobility in comparative perspective. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 8(1):3–79.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., D. J. Treiman, and W. C. Ultee. 1991. Comparative intergenerational stratification research: Three generations and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology 17:277–302.

Goldin, C., and L. F. Katz. 1998. The origins of technology-skill complementarity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(3):693–732.

Grusky, D. B. 1983. Industrialization and the status attainment process: The thesis of industrialism reconsidered. American Sociological Review 48(4):494–506.

Grusky, D. B. 1986. American Social Mobility in the 19th and 20th Centuries. CDE Working Paper 86-28.

Grusky, D.D., and R.M. Hauser. 1984. Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Models of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Countries. American Sociological Review 49(1): 19-38.

Grusky, D., and C. Manwai. 2008. Social Stratification: Class Race and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hout, M. 1984. Autonomy, and Training in Occupational Mobility. American Journal of Sociology, 89(6): 1379-1409.

Hout, M. and T. A. DiPrete. 2006. What we have learned: RC28’s contributions to knowledge about social stratification. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 24(1):1–20.

Högs by skifteslag. 2000. En bok om Höj. Kävlinge: Högs by skifteslag. Jonsson, J.O. 1987. Educational Resources. Pp. 154-180 in Welfare in Transition. A Survey

of Living Conditions in Sweden 1968-1981, edited by R. Erikson and R. Åberg. Oxford, USA: Clarendon Press.

Kaelble H. 1981. Historical Research on Social Mobility. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kaeble, H. 1985. Social mobility in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: Europe and America in comparative perspective. Leamington Spa, England: Berg

Lipset, S. M., and R. Bendix. 1959. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lipset, S.M., and H. Zetterberg. 1956. A Theory of Social Mobility. Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology. London: International Sociological Association.

Long, J. 2005. Rural-urban migration and socioeconomic mobility in Victorian Britain. Journal of Economic History 65(1): 1–35.

Long, J., and J. Ferrie, 2007. The path to convergence: Intergenerational occupational mobility in Britain and the US in three eras. The Economic Journal 117(519):C61–C71.

Lundh, C. 1999. The social mobility of servants in rural Sweden, 1740–1894. Continuity and Change 14(1):57–89.

Maas, I., and M.H.D. van Leeuwen. 2002. Industrialization and intergenerational mobility in Sweden. Acta Sociologica 45(3):179–194.

Maas, I., and M.H.D. van Leeuwen. 2004. Occupational careers of the total male labour force during industrialization: The example of nineteenth-century Sweden. Pp. 227–258 in Origins of the Modern Career, edited by David Mitch, John Brown, and Marco H.D van Leeuwen. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Maas, I., and R. L. Zijdeman. 2010. Beyond the local marriage market: The influence of modernization on geographic heterogamy. Demographic Research 23(33):933–962.

Mendels, F.F. 2000. Social Mobility and Phases of Industrialization, Pp.125-148 in Social Mobility and Modernization, edited by R.I. Rotberg. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Miles, A. 1999. Social Mobility in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century England. London: Macmillan Press.

Mitch, D. 1999. The role of education and skill in the British industrial revolution. Pp. 241–279 in The British Industrial Revolution. An Economic Perspective, edited by Joel Mokyr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ryczkowska, G. 2003. Access au Mariage et Structures de l’Alliance á Genève, 1800–1880. Unpublished thesis, University of Geneva.

Schön, L. 1979. Från hantverk till fabriksindustri. Svensk textiltillverkning 1820–1870. Kristianstad: Arkiv.

Schön, L. 2000. En modern svensk ekonomisk historia: tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel. Stockholm: SNS.

Seccombe, W. 1995. Weathering the Storm: Working-Class Families from the Industrial Revolution to the Fertility Decline. London: Verso Paperback.

Stanfors, M. 2007. Mellan arbete och familj. Ett dilemma för kvinnor i 1900-talets Sverige. Stockholm: SNS.

Stewart, J. I. 2006. Migration to the agricultural frontier and wealth accumulation, 1860–1870. Explorations in Economic History 43(4): 547–577

Svensson, P. 2006. Peasants and entrepreneurship in the nineteenth-century agricultural transformation of Sweden. Social Science History 30(3):387–429.

Thernstrom, S. 1968. Notes on the historical study of social mobility. Comparative Studies in Society and History 10(2):162–172.

Treiman, D. J. 1970. Industrialization and Social Stratification, Pp. 207-234 in Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970s, edited by E.O. Laumann. Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Treiman, D. J. 1976. A standard occupational prestige scale for use with historical data. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7(2):283–304.

Van Bavel, J., H. Peeters, and K. Matthijs. 1998. Connections between intergenerational and marital mobility. A case study: Leuven, 1830–1910. Historical Methods 31(3):122–134.

Van de Putte, B., and A. Miles. 2005. A social classification scheme of historical occupational data. Partner selection and industrialism in Belgium and England, 1800–1918. Historical Methods 38(2):61–92.

Van de Putte, B., M. Oris, and K. Matthijs. 2009. Marrying out of the lower classes in nineteenth century Belgium. Continuity and Change 24(3):421–453.

Van de Putte, B., and P. Svensson. 2010. Measuring social structure in a rural context. Applying the SOCPO scheme to Scania, Sweden (17th –19th century).” Journal Belgian History 40(1–2):249–293.

Van Leeuwen, M. H. D., and I. Maas. 1996. Long-term social mobility: Research agenda and a case study (Berlin, 1825–1957). Continuity and Change 11(3):399–433.

Van Leeuwen, M. H. D., and I. Maas. 2010. Historical studies of social mobility and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology 36:429–451.

Van Leeuwen, M.H.D., I. Maas, and A. Miles. 2002. HISCO: Historical International Standard Classification of Occupations. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Western, M. 1994. Class structure and intergenerational social mobility. Social Forces, 73(1):101–134.

Xie, Y., and A. Killewald. 2010. Historical trends in social mobility: Data, methods and farming. Research Report, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Zijdeman, R. L. 2009. Like my father before me: Intergenerational occupational status transfer during industrialization (Zeeland, 1811–1915). Continuity and Change 24(3):455–486.

Tables

Table 1: Sample characteristics

1830-1869

1870-1894

1895-1914

1915-1944

1945-1968 Total

Class attainment (%) SP1 Unskilled workers 18.3 22.2 29.8 30.5 21.5 25.2 SP2 Semi-skilled workers 26.5 21.2 19.7 25.3 29.0 25.5 SP3 Skilled workers 9.0 20.6 26.9 19.9 24.7 22.0 SP4 Middle class 42.4 30.4 20.1 20.5 17.8 22.1 SP5 Elite 3.8 5.7 3.5 3.9 7.0 5.2 Middle class/elite attainment (SP 4-5) (%) Agricultural sector 91.1 64.9 44.2 33.7 10.4 39.2 Proprietary/Hierarchical sector 4.4 23.7 31.4 37.2 36.3 29.7 Educational sector 4.4 11.4 24.4 29.1 53.3 31.2 Occupational distribution (%) Professional, Technical and Related Workers (HISCO 0, 1) 1.7 3.5 2.0 2.9 5.6 3.7 Administrative and Managerial Workers (HISCO 2) 0.0 2.5 5.6 5.4 7.2 5.4 Clerical and Related Workers (HISCO 3) 0.3 0.3 3.2 4.2 6.1 4.1 Sales Workers (HISCO 4) 0.3 4.4 3.6 5.4 5.2 4.5 Service Workers (HISCO 5) 7.6 8.9 5.1 3.3 2.5 4.1 Agriculture, Fishing, Hunting (HISCO 6) 64.0 38.6 15.6 20.0 10.9 21.1 Industrial Production and Transport (HISCO 7, 8, 9)* 9.3 20.9 42.5 46.9 56.0 44.2 Workers not Elsewhere Classified (HISCO 9-9) 16.9 20.9 22.4 11.9 6.4 12.7 Class origin (%) SP1 Unskilled workers 4.7 10.1 20.1 32.2 40.1 29.0 SP2 Semi-skilled workers 39.0 25.6 29.7 20.1 17.5 22.9 SP3 Skilled workers 5.2 9.5 15.4 21.8 18.8 17.1 SP4 Middle class 45.9 49.4 33.0 24.1 21.3 28.5 SP5 Elite 5.2 5.4 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.6 Migrant status (%) Born in parish 26.2 21.2 4.5 12.6 14.2 13.7 Migrant, <= 17 km 59.6 51.6 52.0 40.0 43.7 46.1 Migrant, > 17 km 14.2 27.2 43.4 47.4 42.2 40.2 Age (years) 38.1 38.4 36.6 35.6 35.8 36.3 Share in origin SOCPO, at attainment (%) 31.3 25.5 23.3 23.1 20.9 23.2 N 344 316 661 1073 1505 3889

Source: The Scanian Economic-Demographic Database (Bengtsson, Dribe and Svensson 2012)

Note: * Excluding 9-9.

Table 2: Intergenerational class mobility (percent).

1830-1869 1870-1894 1895-1914

Origin SOCPO Downward

No mobility Upward Downward

No mobility Upward Downward

No mobility Upward

SP1 - 25.0 75.0 - 31.3 68.8 - 42.1 57.9 SP2 27.6 34.3 38.1 32.1 29.6 38.3 37.2 26.0 36.7 SP3 27.8 50.0 22.2 40.0 40.0 20.0 40.2 38.2 21.6 SP4 34.8 61.4 3.8 51.9 40.4 7.7 62.4 32.1 5.5 SP5 66.7 33.3 - 76.5 23.5 - 75.0 25.0 - All 31.7 47.1 21.2 41.8 35.8 22.5 39.2 33.1 27.7 N 344 316 661

1915-1944 1945-1968 Origin

SOCPO Downward No

mobility Upward Downward No

mobility Upward SP1 - 43.5 56.5 - 29.1 70.9 SP2 30.6 28.7 40.7 19.7 28.4 51.9 SP3 54.3 24.8 20.9 43.1 26.9 30.0 SP4 53.7 38.2 8.1 65.6 24.7 9.7 SP5 63.2 36.8 - 73.5 26.5 - All 32.1 35.0 32.9 27.2 27.6 45.2 N 1073 1505

Source: See Table 1.

Table 3: Absolute mobility. Relative risks from multinomial logistic regression (no mobility is the base outcome).

Model 1 Downward Upward Period: 1830-1869 ref ref 1870-1894 1.729*** 1.389 1895-1914 1.645*** 1.835*** 1915-1944 1.263 2.085*** 1945-1968 1.367** 3.651*** Control variables: Age YES Prob>chi2 0.000 Log likelihood -4187 Pseudo R2 0.022 Observations 3,899 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Source: See Table 1.

Table 4: Relative mobility. Odds ratios from logistic regression (no mobility is the base outcome).

Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Period: 1830-1869 ref ref ref 1870-1894 1.326 1.18 1.167 1895-1914 1.338* 1.125 1.067 1915-1944 1.222 1.114 1.076 1945-1968 1.631*** 1.453** 1.414** Class origin: SP1 0.566*** 0.563*** SP2 1.247** 1.261** SP3 0.936 0.935 SP4 ref ref SP5 0.374** 0.399*** Migrant status: Born in parish ref Migrant, <= 17 km 1.262** Migrant, >17 km 1.331** Control variables: Age YES YES YES Share in origin SP-level, at attainment YES YES YES Prob>chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -2429 -2400 -2397 Pseudo R2 0.017 0.029 0.030 Observations 3,899 3,899 3,899

Source: See Table 1.

Table 5: Middle class/elite attainment. Odds ratios from logistic regression, (low class attainment is the base outcome).

Model 5 Period: 1830-1869 ref 1870-1894 0.588*** 1895-1914 0.444*** 1915-1944 0.546*** 1945-1968 0.581***

Low class origin (SP 1-3) 0.273***

Control variables: Age YES Migrant status YES

Prob>chi2 0.000 Log likelihood -2064 Pseudo R2 0.0973 Observations 3,899

Source: See Table 1.

Table 6: Middle class/elite attainment, by sector. Relative risks from multinomial logistic regression (low class attainment is the base outcome).

Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

agriculture educational proprietary hierarchical agriculture educational proprietary

hierarchical agriculture educational proprietary hierarchical

Period : 1830-1869 ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref 1870-1894 0.430*** 1.734 3.486*** 0.374*** 1.476 3.071** ref ref ref 1895-1914 0.168*** 2.075* 2.810** 0.212*** 2.164* 2.776** 0.280*** 1.734 1.166 1915-1944 0.148*** 2.553** 3.492*** 0.233*** 2.934*** 3.589*** 0.467*** 2.677*** 1.434 1945-1968 0.044*** 4.682*** 3.352*** 0.073*** 5.539*** 3.556*** 0.111*** 3.509*** 0.849 Low class origin (SP 1-3) 0.153*** 0.299*** 0.466*** 0.169*** 0.256*** 0.214*** Interactions: Low class x 1895-1914 1.505 0.970 1.499 Low class x 1915-1944 0.554* 0.836 1.795 Low class x 1945-1968 0.928 1.474 3.631*** Control variables: Age YES YES YES Migrant status NO YES YES Prob>chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -3086 -2898 -2908 Pseudo R2 0.099 0.154 0.151 Observations 3,889 3,889 3,889

Source: See Table 1.

1