De-Industrialization and Occupational Mobility

Abstract

Lovatt and Ham (BJS 1984) have argued that changes in the industrial and occupational structure do not modifjz patterns of inequality as measured by occupational mobility, but instead conMirm existing patterns. However, a careful examination of their evidence shows that their data are not in a form which makes comparison with other mobility studies easy, nor do they provide an unequivocal basis for generalizations. This review of their argument helps to remove some potential points of confusion and to clarify substantive differences between the modification and the confirmation theses. New evidence about mobility in five industrial sectors is presented, which illustrates the relationship between growth of sector, growth of non-manual employment, and mobility opportunity. In particular it is demonstrated, contrary to Lovatt and Ham's view, that female mobility does not 'counterbalance' changes in male mobility, and that mid and late career mobility do not counterbalance trends in intergenerational mobility at first job. It follows that, although there has been little change in mobility trends in the 1970s and early 1980s, the main trend has indeed been to modify patterns of inequality in favour of the non-manual class. In a valuable contribution to the debate about the consequences of deindustrialization, Lovatt and Ham have suggested that recent changes in the labour market 'have afXirmed an existing and stable pattern of inequality' rather than leading 'to some modification to the pattern of social inequality'.l In particular they argue that rates of class mobility do not change as a result of the dedine of manufacturing industry and the growth of service industry. They identify Payne and Payne, inter alia, as exponents of the 'modification' thesis, examining with considerable care but ultimately rejecting the case which had been outlined in an earlier article in this Journal.2 The purpose of the