2370 intergenerational mobility: core model of social fluidity

notably, Erikson & Goldthorpe 1992), though
with some influential exceptions (Ganzeboom
et al. 1989; Breen 2004).
The FJH hypothesis refers to a genotypical
pattern of fluidity, and Erikson and Goldthorpe
(1987a, 1987b, 1992) developed the core model
of social fluidity as an attempt to characterize
this genotypical pattern. Having done this, they
could test whether the purported pattern was
indeed the same in industrial societies with a
market economy and nuclear family system.
The data that they used comprise mobility tables
having seven classes of both origin and destina
tion, defined according to the Goldthorpe or
EGP (Erikson, Goldthorpe, and Portocarero)
class schema (for details, see Erikson &
Goldthorpe 1992: ch. 2). The seven classes are
denoted by Roman numerals as follows:

1 Classes III: professionals, administrators
and officials; managers
2 Class III: routine non manual employees
3 Class IVab: small proprietors and artisans
4 Class IVc: farmers
5 Classes VVI: technicians, supervisors, and
skilled manual workers
6 Class VIIa: semi and unskilled workers not
in agriculture
7 Class VIIb: semi and unskilled workers in
agriculture

Erikson and Goldthorpe developed the core
model as a theoretically informed account of the
fluidity patterns of England and France (which
were taken as the two nations whose fluidity
patterns most closely corresponded to some
putative common pattern). The model consists
of eight components, usually expressed through
a set of eight matrices, in each of which the cells
of the table are assigned to one of two categories.
These rows and columns of the matrices are
ordered according to the ordering of origin and
destination classes as they are listed above.
The first element of social fluidity in the
core model concerns hierarchical movement;
and in the first dimension of this (called HI1)
the value 2 indicates movement between three
ordered (from most to least desirable) groups of
classes: (a) class III; (b) classes III, IVab and
c, and VVI; and (c) VIIa and b. (Erikson and
Goldthorpe (1992: 46, 124) treat class IVc
(farmers) as lying at the lowest hierarchical
level (c) in class origins, but at the second level
(b) in destinations.) In other words, the value
2 is assigned to cells of the mobility table
which indicate an origin in one group but a
destination in another. The value 1 is applied
to cells in the same group in both origins and
destinations:
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Another matrix, called HI2, is defined dis
tinguishing movement across two levels:
1 1 1 1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Here the value 2 is applied to cells with an
origin in a class in group (a) and a destination
in a class in group (c), and vice versa. This
element of the model thus distinguishes
long range mobility (as opposed to the
short range mobility captured by H1).
The second component concerns the inheri
tance of class position; that is, the tendency for
men to enter the same class as their father a
tendency which is more marked in some classes
than in others. The first inheritance matrix,
IN1, distinguishes cells in which origin and
destination are in the same class:
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 2 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 2
The second inheritance matrix, IN2, distin
guishes three classes in which inheritance is
more pronounced than elsewhere: these are
classes III, Ivab, and IVc: