1 Sorokin, P., Social and cultural mobility (New York, 1959; first published 1929), 152–4.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 152.

3 Ibid., 458.

4 Ibid., 418.

5 Glass, D. V., Social mobility in Britain (London, 1954)Google Scholar; Lipset, S. M. and Zetterberg, H. L., ‘A theory of social mobility’, in Lipset, S. M. and Bendix, R. eds., Social mobility in industrial society (Berkeley, 1959; first published 1956).Google Scholar

6 Lipset, and Zetterberg, , ‘A theory of social mobility’, 13.Google Scholar

7 Fukumoto, I. K. and Grusky, D. B., ‘Social mobility and class structure in early- industrial France’, in Miles, A. and Vincent, D. eds., Building European society: occupational change and social mobility in Europe 1840–1940 (Manchester, 1993)Google Scholar; see also Lipset, and Zetterberg, , ‘A theory of social mobility’, 38 and 112.Google Scholar

8 Kerr, C. et al. , Industrialism and industrial man (New York and Oxford, 1973, first published 1960), 41–56, 97, 106–7, 175Google Scholar; Inkeles, A., ‘Industrial man: the relation of status to experience, perception and values’, American Journal of Sociology 66 (1960), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Form, W., ‘Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypothesis’ Annual Review of Sociology 5 (1979), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 The same happened in historical research as well; see Kaelble, H., Historical research on social mobility: Western Europe and the USA in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (London, 1981)Google Scholar; Kaelble, H., Social mobility in the 19th and 20th centuries: Europe and America in comparative perspective (Leamington Spa, 1985)Google Scholar; and Schüren, R., Soziale Mobilität: Muster, Veränderungen und Bedingungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (St Katharinen, 1989).Google Scholar For other reviews, see Ganzeboom, H. B. G., Treiman, D. J., and Ultee, W. C., ‘Comparative intergenerational stratification research; three generations and beyond’, Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991), 277–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fukumoto, and Grusky, , ‘Social mobility and class structure’, 40–67Google Scholar; and Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. H., The constant flux: a study of class mobility in industrial societies (Oxford, 1992), 1–27.Google Scholar

10 Featherman, D. L., Jones, F. L., and Hauser, R. M., ‘Assumptions of social mobility research in the U.S.: the case of occupational status’, Social Science Research 4 (1975), 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Later research on circulation mobility does suggest some change over time and differences between industrialized countries: see Hauser, R. M., Koffel, J., Travis, H., and Dickenson, P., ‘Temporal change in occupational mobility: evidence for men in the United States’, American Sociological Review 40 (1975), 279–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hauser, R. M., Dickinson, P. J., Travis, H. P., and Koffel, J. N., ‘Structural changes in occupational mobility among men in the United States’, American Sociological Review 40 (1975), 585–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grusky, D. B. and Hauser, R. M., ‘Comparative social mobility revisited: models of convergence and divergence in 16 countries’, American Sociological Review 49 (1984), 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hauser, R. M. and Grusky, D. B., ‘Cross-national variation in occupational distributions, relative mobility chances, and intergenerational shifts in occupational distributions’, American Sociological Review 53 (1988), 723–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hout, M., ‘More universalism, less structural mobility: the American occupational structure in the 1980s’, American Journal of Sociology 93 (1988), 1358–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Simkus, A., ‘Structural transformation and social mobility: Hungary 1938–1973’, American Sociological Review 49 (1984), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 For a review of these advances in log–linear modelling, see Goodman, L. A., ‘Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 74 (1979), 537–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hout, M., Mobility tables (Beverly Hills, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hauser, R. M., ‘Some exploratory methods for modelling mobility tables and other cross-classified data’, in Schuessler, K. F. ed., Sociological methodology 1980 (San Francisco, 1980), 413–58.Google Scholar For a review of mobility indices, see Featherman, D. L. and Hauser, R. M., Opportunity and change (New York, 1978).Google Scholar

13 Erikson, and Goldthorpe, , Constant flux, 367.Google Scholar

14 A collaborator of Goldthorpe, Hope, had tried earlier to test the FJH-hypothesis by applying log–linear models to two British surveys, one from Glass (Social mobility in Britain) and another from Goldthorpe dating from 1972. Hope's conclusion was that openness had increased, assuming the data were trustworthy. In that case, however, the association between the occupation of father and son in the older age group in the 1972 survey should have been more or less the same as that of the younger age group in the 1954 survey (disregarding selective mortality or migration processes). This turns out not to be the case, perhaps due to incompatibility in the way in which individuals have been assigned to occupational groups. Hope believed that, if the two surveys were made compatible, ‘the conclusion…is that any change in mobility patterns…since…1880…is so slight as not to be detectable’ (Hope, K., ‘Trends in the openness of British society in the present century’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 1 (1981), 161).Google Scholar

15 Ganzeboom, H. B. G., Luijkx, R., and Treiman, D. J., ‘Intergenerational class mobility in comparative perspective’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 8 (1989), 3–84.Google Scholar

16 For a different point of view, see Erikson, and Goldthorpe, , Constant flux, 53.Google Scholar

17 Ganzeboom, , Luijkx, , and Treiman, , ‘Class mobility in comparative perspective’, 45.Google Scholar

18 Daumard, A., ‘Les relations sociales à l'époque de la monarchie constitutionelle d'après les registres paroissiaux des manages’, Population 12 (1957), 445–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daumard, A., ‘Une source d'histoire sociale: l'enregistrement des mutations par décès: le XIle arrondissement de Paris en 1820 et 1847’, Revue d'Histoire Economique et Sociale (1957), 52–78Google Scholar; Daumard, A., ‘Structures et relations sociales: Paris au milieu du XVIIIe siècle’, Cahiers des Annales 18 (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar; Daumard, A. and Furet, F., ‘Méthodes de l'histoire sociale: les archives notariales et la méchanographie’, Annales ESC 14 (1959), 676–93.Google Scholar

19 Dupâquier, J. and Kessler, D., ‘L'enquête des 3000 familles’, in Dupâquier, J. and Kessler, D. eds., La société française au XIXe siècle, tradition, transition, transformations (Paris, 1992), 23–61, especially p. 25Google Scholar; Dupâquier, J. and Pelissier, J.-P., ‘Mutations d'une société: la mobilité professionelle’, in Dupâquier and Kessler, La société française au XIXe siècle, 121–235Google Scholar; Gribaudi, M., ‘Itinéraires personelles et stratégies familiales: les ouvriers de Renault dans l'entre-deux-guerres’, Population 44 (1989), 1213–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gribaudi, M. and Blum, A., ‘Des catégories aux liens individuelles: l'analyse statistique de l'espace social’, Annales ESC 45 (1990), 1365–402Google Scholar; Pinol, J.-L., Les mobilités de la grande ville: Lyon fin XIXe–début XXe siècle (Paris, 1991)Google Scholar; Pinol, J.-L., ‘Occupational and social mobility in Lyon from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century’, in Miles and Vincent, Building European society, 116–37.Google Scholar

20 Thernstrom, S., Poverty and progress: social mobility in a nineteenth-century city (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

21 Thernstrom, S., The other Bostonians: poverty and progress in the American metropolis (Cambridge, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 As testified by the works of Blumin, S., ‘Mobility and change in ante-bellum Philadelphia’, in Thernstrom, S. and Sennet, R. eds., Nineteenth-century cities: essays in the new urban history (New Haven, 1969), 165–208Google Scholar, Hershberg, T., Work, space, family, and group experience in the 19th century (Oxford, 1981) on PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar; Bouchard, G., ‘L'analyse de la mobilité socio-professionelle au Saguenay à l'aide de la reconstitution automatique des familles’, in Evolution et éclairement du monde rural: structures, fonctionnement et évolution différentielle des sociétés rurales françaises, et Québecoises (Paris, 1986), 89–103, on French CanadaGoogle Scholar; Glasco, L., ‘Migration and adjustment in the nineteenth-century city: occupation, property, and household structure of native-born whites, Buffalo, New York, 1855’, in Hareven, T. K. and Vinovskis, M. eds., Population in nineteenth-century America (Princeton, 1978), 123–75, on BuffaloGoogle Scholar; Griffen, C. and Griffen, S., Natives and newcomers: the ordering of opportunity in mid-nineteenth-century Poughkeepsie (Cambridge, 1978) on PoughkeepsieCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knights, P. R., The plain people of Boston, 1830–1860: a study in city growth (New York, 1971)Google Scholar and Yankee destinies: the lives of ordinary nineteenth-century Bostonians (Chapel Hill, 1991) on BostonGoogle Scholar; Katz, M., The people of Hamilton, Canada West (Cambridge, 1975) on HamiltonCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broadman, A. E. and Weber, M. P., ‘Economic growth and occupational mobility in nineteenth century urban America: a reappraisal’, Journal of Social History XI (1977), 52–74, on Warren, Michigan. In Europe, too, mobility studies have taken root.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In overviews Kaelble (Historical research on social mobility and Social mobility in the 19th and 20th centuries) cites many studies (see in addition Miles and Vincent, Building European society).

23 Kaelble, Social mobility in the 19th and 20th centuries.

24 Conzen, K. N., ‘Quantification and the new urban history’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13 (1983), 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 In addition to the studies mentioned below, see Grusky, D. B. and Fukumoto, I. K., ‘A sociological approach to historical social mobility’, Journal of Social History 22 (1989), 221–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kousser, J. M., Cox, G. W., and Galenson, D. W., ‘Log-linear analysis of contingency tables: an introduction for historians with an application to Thernstrom on the “Floating proletariat”’, Historical Methods 15 (1982), 152–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landale, N. S. and Guest, A. M., ‘Generation, ethnicity, and occupational opportunity in late 19th century America’, American Sociological Review 55 (1990), 280–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Leeuwen, M. H. D. and Maas, I., ‘Log-linear analysis of changes in mobility patterns: some models with an application to the Amsterdam upper classes in the second half of the nineteenth century’, Historical Methods 24 (1991), 66–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Upton, G. J. G., ‘A note on “log- linear analysis of contingency tables’, Historical Methods 18 (1985), 147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Furthermore, a small group of historical studies exist in the status-attainment tradition of mobility research following the example of Blau, P. M. and Duncan, O. D., The American occupational structure (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

26 Grusky, D. B., American social mobility in the 19th and 20th centuries (University of Wisconsin at Madison: Working Paper 86–28, 1986), 43–5 and 54ff.Google Scholar

27 Guest, A. M., Landale, N. S., and McCann, J. C., ‘Intergenerational occupational mobility in the late 19th century United States’, Social Forces 68 (1989), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Fukumoto, and Grusky, , ‘Social mobility and class structure’.Google Scholar

29 Penn, R. D., Skilled workers in the class structure (Cambridge, 1985), 158–82Google Scholar; Penn, R. D. and Dawkins, D. C., ‘Structural transformations in the British class structure: a log-linear analysis of marital endogamy in Rochdale 1856–1964, Sociology 17 (1983), 200–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Mitch, D., ‘Inequalities which everyone may remove: occupational recruitment, endogamy, and the homogeneity of social origins in Victorian England’, in Miles and Vincent, Building European society, 142–3.Google Scholar

31 Miles, A. and Vincent, D., ‘A land of “boundless opportunities”? Mobility and stability in nineteenth-century England’, in Dex, S. ed., Life and work history analysis: qualitative and quantitative developments (London, 1991), 57.Google Scholar

32 Miles, A., ‘How “open” was nineteenth-century British society? Social mobility and equality of opportunity’, in Miles, and Vincent, eds., Building European society, 28.Google Scholar

33 Kleining, G., ‘Struktur und Prestige-mobilität in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 23 (1971), 1–33Google Scholar; Kleining, G., ‘Die Veränderungen der Mobilitätschancen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 23 (1971), 789–807.Google Scholar

34 Mayer, K. U. and Müller, W., ‘Trendanalyse in der Mobilitätsforschung: Eine Replik auf Gerhard Kleining’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 23 (1971), 761–88Google Scholar; Mayer, K. U. and Müller, W., ‘Die Analyse von Mobilitätstrends: Anmerkungen zu einer Kontroverse über Forschungsdesign und Datenanalyse’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 24 (1972), 132–9.Google Scholar

35 Kaelble, H., Soziale Mobilität und Chancengleichheit im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1983), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Allerbeck, K. R. and Stork, H. R., ‘Soziale Mobilität in Deutschland 1833–1970. Eine Reanalyse’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 32 (1980), 103.Google Scholar

37 The same conclusion was drawn by Rishoy, T., ‘Metropolitan social mobility 1850–1950: the case of Copenhagen’, Quality and Quantity 5 (1971), 131–40, on the basis of three sets of data: military enrolment, marriage registers, and survey material. He looked at total mobility and studied two mobility indices.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Goldthorpe, J. H., ‘On economic development and social mobility’, British Journal of Sociology XXXVI (1985), 564.Google Scholar

39 Treiman, D. J., ‘A standard occupational prestige scale of use with historical data’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7 (1976), 283–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Treiman, D. J., Occupational prestige in comparative perspective (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

40 Sharlin, A., ‘From the study of social mobility to the study of society’, American Journal of Sociology 85 (1979), 338–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hauser, R. M., ‘Occupational status in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’, Historical Methods 15 (1982), 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Guest, et al. , ‘Mobility in the late 19th century United States’, 369–70 and 375.Google Scholar

42 Fukumoto, and Grusky, , ‘Social mobility and class structure’, 40–67.Google Scholar

43 Grusky, , American social mobility, 47 and 72–6.Google Scholar

44 Katz, , The people of Hamilton, 9.Google Scholar

45 Miles, and Vincent, , ‘Land of “boundless opportunities”?’, 52.Google Scholar

46 Grusky, and Fukumoto, , ‘Sociological approach to historical social mobility’, 221–32.Google Scholar

47 Kocka, J., ‘Family and class formation: intergenerational mobility and marriage patterns in nineteenth-century Westphalian towns’, Journal of Social History 17 (1984), 411–33Google Scholar; Kocka, J., ‘Problems of working-class formation in Germany: the early years, 1800–1875’, in Katznelson, I. and Zolberg, A. R. eds., Working-class formation: nineteenth-century patterns in Western Europe and the United States (Princeton, 1986), 279–351.Google Scholar

48 Aminzade, R. and Hodson, R., ‘Social mobility in a mid-nineteenth-century French city’, American Sociological Review 47 (1982), 441–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Fukumoto, and Grusky, , ‘Social mobility and class structure’, 40–67. But compare Grusky, American social mobility, 72–4, on the distance between craftsmen and labourers in the USA.Google Scholar

50 Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘The labour aristocracy in nineteenth-century Britain’, in Hobsbawm, E. J. ed., Labouring men (London, 1964), 53, see also pp. 273–4Google Scholar; for assessments of the debate see Penn, and Dawkins, , ‘Structural transformations in the British class structure’, 200–376,Google Scholar and Miles, and Vincent, , ‘Land of “boundless opportunities”?’, 43–72.Google Scholar

51 Kaelble, Social mobility in the 19th and 20th centuries, chapter 3.

52 Leeuwen, and Maas, , ‘Log-linear analysis of changes in mobility patterns’, 66–79.Google Scholar

53 Zimm, A., Die Entwicklung des industriellen Standorts Berlin (Berlin, 1959)Google Scholar; Schmieder, E., ‘Wirtschaftsgeschichte Berlins im 19./20. Jahrhundert’, in Gandert, O. F. et al. eds., Heimatchronik Berlin (Cologne, 1962), 663–762Google Scholar; Thaiheim, K. C., ‘Berlins wirtschaftliche Entwicklung nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’, in Gander et at., Heimatchronik Berlin, 763–866, and Schüren, Soziale Mobilität.Google Scholar

54 Schüren, , Soziale Mobilität, 42.Google Scholar

55 Calculated after the map in Zimm, Entwicklung des industriellen Standorts Berlin, 28.Google Scholar

56 Calculations based on Zimm, Entwicklung des industriellen Standorts Berlin.

57 Ibid., 125.

58 Thalheim, , ‘Berlins wirtschaftliche Entwicklung’, 802.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., 782.

60 Schüren, , Soziale Mobilität, 243Google Scholar; Schüren, R., ‘Intergenerational occupational and marital mobility in German cities in the nineteenth and early twentieth century’, in Miles and Vincent, Building European society, 68–91.Google Scholar

61 Kaelble, H. and Federspiel, R., Soziale Mobilität in Berlin 1825–1957 – Tabellen zur Mobilität, zu Heiratskreisen und zur Sozialstruktur (St Katharinen, 1990).Google Scholar

62 Other data sources exist, such as (auto)biographies (Roy, W. G., ‘Institutional governance and social cohesion: the internal organization of the American capitalist class, 1886–1905’, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 3 (1984), 147–71Google Scholar; Miles, , ‘How “open” was nineteenth-century British society?’, 18–39Google Scholar; Vincent, D., ‘Mobility, bureaucracy and careers in early-twentieth-century Britain’, in Miles and Vincent, Building European society, 217–39)Google Scholar; company records with information on careers (Gribaudi, , ‘Itinéraires personelles et stratégies familiales’, 1213–32Google Scholar; Savage, M., ‘Career mobility and class formation: British banking workers and the lower middle classes’, in Miles and Vincent, Building European society, 206–16)Google Scholar; catechetical examination records (Kronborg, B. and Nilson, T., ‘Social mobility, migration and family building in urban environments’, in Akerman, S. et al. eds., Chance and change: social and economic studies in historical demography in the Baltic area (Odense, 1978), 227–37)Google Scholar; city directories and electoral and tax registers (B. de, Vries, Electoraat en elite: Sociale structuur en sociale mobiliteit in Amsterdam 1850–1895 (Amsterdam, 1986)Google Scholar; Leeuwen, and Maas, , ‘Log-linear analysis of changes in mobility patterns’, 66–79Google Scholar; Pinol, , ‘Occupational and social mobility in Lyon’, 116–37)Google Scholar; family trees (Weiss, V., ‘Sozialstruktur und soziale Mobilität der Landbevölkerung: das Beispiel Sachsen 1550–1880’, Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 39 (1991), 24–43)Google Scholar; guilds and apprenticeship records (Elliott, V. B., ‘Mobility and marriage in preindustrial England: a demographic and social structural analysis of geographic and social mobility and aspects of marriage, 1570–1690’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1978)Google Scholar; Burrage, M. C., ‘At sixes and sevens: occupational status in the city of London from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century’, American Sociological Review 46 (1981), 375–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rappaport, S., Worlds within worlds: structures of life in sixteenth-century London (Cambridge, 1989), 285–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bearman, P. S. and Deane, G., ‘The structure of opportunity: middle-class mobility in England, 1548–1689’, American Journal of Sociology 98 (1992), 30–66)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; military registers (Papy, M., ‘Professions et mobilité à Oloron sous la monarchie censitaire d'après les listes du recrutement militaire’, Revue d'Histoire Economique et Sociale 2 (1971), 225–64Google Scholar; Rishoy, , ‘Metropolitan social mobility’, 131–40)Google Scholar; notarial records (Daumard, , ‘Une source d'histoire sociale’, 52–78Google Scholar; Daumard, and Furet, , ‘Méthodes de l'histoire sociale’, 676–93Google Scholar; Daumard, Structures et relations sociales); school records (Sanderson, M., ‘Literacy and social mobility in the Industrial Revolution’, Past and Present 56 (1972), 75–104). However, these other data sources are less often used.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Hardy has estimated, using data from Indianapolis in 1850–1860, that of all persons in the ten years between the censuses 10 per cent died, 30–40 per cent migrated, and 50–55 per cent were ‘persisters’ who stayed in town. Of these persisters three-fifths were successfully linked and two-fifths were missed, either because of linkage problems or because they were not registered by the census-takers. Hardy estimated selection effects in occupational mobility using linked censuses, and concluded that no selection effects can be discerned (Hardy, M. A., ‘Estimating selection effects in occupational mobility in a 19th-century city’, American Sociological Review 54 (1989), 834–43).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Kaelble, and Federspiel, , Soziale Mobilität in Berlin 1825–1957, viiiGoogle Scholar; compare Schüren, , Soziale Mobilität, 44–45 and 90.Google Scholar

65 Kaelble, and Federspiel, , Soziale Mobilität in Berlin 1825–1957, vi.Google Scholar

66 Schüren, , Soziale Mobilität, 38 and 95.Google Scholar

67 The occupational grouping is based on a one-dimensional 15-group ordering by the German team (Kaelble, and Federspiel, , Soziale Mobilität in Berlin 1825–1957, 46–59, 90–104). Printing errors have been corrected.Google Scholar The 15 groups have been collapsed according to the Goodman procedure (Goodman, L. A., ‘Criteria for determining whether certain categories in a cross-classification table should be combined with special reference to occupational categories in an occupational mobility table’, American Journal of Sociology 87 (1981), 612–50). Particulars are available from the authors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 Craftsmen who referred to themselves as ‘master’ are included in the category of artisans. Those craftsmen explicitly stating that they were not masters and those with unknown status are included in the category of small craftsmen and shopkeepers (Kaelble, and Federspiel, , Soziale Mobilität in Berlin 1825–1957).Google Scholar

69 Erikson, and Goldthorpe, , Constant fluxGoogle Scholar; Xie, Y., ‘The log-multiplicative layer effect model for comparing mobility tables’, American Sociological Review 57 (1992), 380–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 The three-way interaction of origin, destination, and time, which would allow the association to vary between tables, is not included.

71 Erikson, and Goldthorpe, , Constant flux, 91–2.Google Scholar The model has to be estimated in two steps. First, an iterative procedure is used to define a ‘general pattern of association’ for all points in time. Second, the change in association is modelled by one parameter for each table, describing the deviation from the general association.

72 Some of the tables contain zero in the marginal distributions, which causes estimation problems. As is customary in these cases, the content of each cell was increased by 0.5. See for example Aminzade, and Hodson, , ‘Social mobility in a mid-nineteenth-century French city’, 452Google Scholar, and Fukumoto, and Grusky, , ‘Social mobility and class structure’, 40–67.Google Scholar

73 Raftery, A., ‘Choosing models for cross-classifications’, American Sociological Review 51 (1986), 145–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 In the case of the L²/df measure some significance testing is possible – between nested models – but no conventional significance tests are known for Bic.

75 Erikson, and Goldthorpe, , Constant flux, 90.Google Scholar

76 Sorokin, , Social and cultural mobilityGoogle Scholar; Tilly, C., The Vendée (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 93–9Google Scholar; Griffen, and Griffen, , Natives and newcomers, 54Google Scholar; Levine, J. H., Exceptions are the rule: an inquiry into the methods in the social sciences (Boulder, 1993), 249–82Google Scholar; Sharlin, , ‘From the study of social mobility to the study of society’, 338–60Google Scholar; Horan, P. M., ‘Occupational mobility and historical social structure’, Social Science History 9 (1985), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 Goodman, ‘Simple models’; see for examples in historical research Grusky and Fukumoto, ‘Sociological approach to historical social mobility’; Guest, Landale, and McCann, ‘Mobility in the late 19th century United States’; Leeuwen and Maas, ‘Log- linear analysis of changes in mobility patterns’.

78 Before these models can be tested, assumptions have to be made as to how to treat the diagonal cells of the mobility table. In this case, diagonal cells have been treated separately from non-diagonal cells, on the assumption that the various occupational classes show different degrees of immobility which do not change over time. Other assumptions produce slightly different parameter estimates, but the conclusions remain the same.

79 Compare Fukumoto and Grusky, ‘Social mobility and class structure’; Ganzeboom, Luijkx, and Treiman, ‘Class mobility in comparative perspective’; and Hauser, ‘Occupational Status’.

80 The conclusions concerning changes in association (presented in section VIII) still hold when using heterogeneous class positions in the models. Farmers were excluded from these analyses, because their class position is undefined in the later tables which contain no, or very few, farmers. Conclusions based on analyses with heterogeneous class positions did not differ from those based on analyses with homogeneous class positions.

81 Another possibility would be to carry out separate analyses for the tables before 1906 and the tables after 1926. However, an analysis including all tables and correcting for the measurement breach has two advantages. Technically, it is a more powerful test of changes in relative mobility. Moreover, research has shown that if relative mobility changes, this happens slowly. Therefore, data covering a long period are necessary to detect any change.

82 It is, for instance, possible that the turbulent history of Berlin produced a higher openness than in more tranquil regions. This does not invalidate the conclusions for Berlin, and, moreover, only more historical research could demonstrate whether this is true or not.