4 ms·

Social mobility of the English and Chinese elite classes

22 points by known 12y ago

warcher 12y ago
I would be absolutely riveted at an examination of which forms of 'elite' status are the most durable across generations. You could put maybe "son of a famous reality tv star" on one end of the spectrum and "daughter of a president" on the other. But what's in between would be very interesting. Or maybe just confirmation of things we already suspected, as this paper seemed to be.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  This isn't confirmation of something people expected or social mobility would never have become such a talking point and campaign. The data suggests social mobility is an intractable problem. It looks like to a very large extent winners are born, not made.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Part of the problems is the heterodox result in a Culture that values "meritocracy". It ins't so much that the result is one way or the other, but that the narrative is both wholly wrong in kind as well as degree. (The conclusion is faulty and so is the premise). Trust makes the world go round, not merit. And trust is made but not borne, which is why the genetic or hereditary forumlation is not correct either. The bigger question is why do some people become trustworthy and others not? To a first approximation, the answe is "because he/she is like me".
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    Or it means networks of privilege are remarkably persistent. Or perhaps that you can't tell anything useful from surnames without doing a full genealogical survey just to check that these 'winners' are actually related. The suggestion that a talent for social climbing is innate is perennially popular with a certain segment of the population. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) make a good counterargument.
barry-cotter 12y ago
Surnames and Social Mobility in England, 1170-2012 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y?no-access=true http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y?n... Logo Springer SearchMenu Human Nature December 2014, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 517-537 Date: 15 Nov 2014 Surnames and Social Mobility in England, 1170–2012 Gregory Clark, Neil Cummins $39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95 Rent the article at a discount Rent now * Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT. Get Access Abstract Using educational status in England from 1170 to 2012, we show that the rate of social mobility in any society can be estimated from knowledge of just two facts: the distribution over time of surnames in the society and the distribution of surnames among an elite or underclass. Such surname measures reveal that the typical estimate of parent–child correlations in socioeconomic measures in the range of 0.2–0.6 are misleading about rates of overall social mobility. Measuring education status through Oxbridge attendance suggests a generalized intergenerational correlation in status in the range of 0.70–0.90. Social status is more strongly inherited even than height. This correlation is unchanged over centuries. Social mobility in England in 2012 was little greater than in preindustrial times. Thus there are indications of an underlying social physics surprisingly immune to government intervention.* Gregory Clark, co-author of the above article wrote an excellent book, The Son Also Rises, the topic of the linked article about his research into social mobility. It's basically invariant across societies.
desdiv 12y ago
Maybe you are thinking that, yes, of course, there was an elite in communist China, there is one everywhere—but surely they would be different names and people from those that formed the pre-communist elite. I'm not sure if it's that simple. Mao Zedong actually served as the Director of Propaganda for the Kuomintang. Had the civil war not happened, he was destined for senior cabinet positions, maybe even the presidency itself. He's not alone in this either. Eight of the so called "Ten Marshals of People's Republic of China"[0] were commissioned officers in the Kuomintang. Most of the Communist elites were Kuomintang elites, so the lack of surname distribution change doesn't really surprise me. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ten_Marshals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ten_Marshals
- lumberjack 12y ago
  I was also thinking, surely most of the elites had the means and common sense to leave the country once the political tide turned against them, only to return a generation of two later when things started returning to normal and I'm sure they didn't return empty handed both because they probably had capital stashed outside the country and also good connections and know-how to continue their business operations from elsewhere.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
My first question is, if social success is highly correlated to birth, then what is it that drives that success? And I surprised myself with just a few minutes thought at the diversity of answers and how obvious they seem: Things that are given by parenting: - inheritence (born to two university professors, child is likely to be highly intelligent) - education (before universal education a child of a literate person was much more likely to be literate) - social network (getting an internship at dad's friends company) - patronage (nepotism) Or is it things that are taken away by parenting : - lower likelihood of disease / malnutrition - ability to stay out of productive work whilst in education or other preparation (a career in politics is expensive) Or is it a family thing (the family network) - psychological support - practical support (a big family can offer baby sitting opportunities a single mum in council flat does not have) Or is it a social thing? - getting caught smoking illegal drugs at Cambridge university becomes a dinner party story later in life, in south central LA it becomes a prison sentence.
- lhnz 12y ago
  It could also be genetics. For instance, we know that people that are taller and more attractive are more likely to be promoted. Likewise intelligence is also partially inherited. It could be that their parents genes give them traits which are commonly high-status.
erikb 12y ago
I agree with the conclusion, but I think the method is very risky to apply to UK and China. The way family names are transferred is a little different in China (e.g. a wife will not take the husbands name). Also some names like Wang and Zhang are just very, very common. Finding Wangs in the elite in every generation might therefore say nothing about social mobility. They might have accounted for that or not, I don't know. It's just so different that I still wouldn't trust the results, because in such vastly different systems how can you know if you have forgotten some factors?
- zhte415 12y ago
  I think the key the article mentioned was the use of unusual names as a proxy for unique names. A subset of the population persisted, based on name, implying persistence of this subset. There is statistical (and pretty strong statistical) persistence of a subset of the population. Now, the (total) population of families that display persistent social mobility is probably vastly greater than even the total population with unusual names, let alone the population of those with unusual names that display persistent social mobility. As Wangs and Zhangs can't be measured in this way, is there a reason that there these subsets of the population do not themselves contain hereditary lines that show persistence? Perhaps, but why? Maintaining a diversity across the country (unusual family surnames are often ethnically linked, and China has long promoted domestic ethnic diversity). At some points in history a family would abandon their name, though this happened in Europe too. > a wife will not take the husbands name The child most certainly will, a boy in particular. Along with being seen as the future of the family line, bearing the family name.

22 points by known 12y ago

I would be absolutely riveted at an examination of which forms of 'elite' status are the most durable across generations. You could put maybe "son of a famous reality tv star" on one end of the spectrum and "daughter of a president" on the other. But what's in between would be very interesting. Or maybe just confirmation of things we already suspected, as this paper seemed to be.

barry-cotter 12y ago
This isn't confirmation of something people expected or social mobility would never have become such a talking point and campaign. The data suggests social mobility is an intractable problem. It looks like to a very large extent winners are born, not made.
- 001sky 12y ago
  Part of the problems is the heterodox result in a Culture that values "meritocracy". It ins't so much that the result is one way or the other, but that the narrative is both wholly wrong in kind as well as degree. (The conclusion is faulty and so is the premise). Trust makes the world go round, not merit. And trust is made but not borne, which is why the genetic or hereditary forumlation is not correct either. The bigger question is why do some people become trustworthy and others not? To a first approximation, the answe is "because he/she is like me".
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Or it means networks of privilege are remarkably persistent. Or perhaps that you can't tell anything useful from surnames without doing a full genealogical survey just to check that these 'winners' are actually related. The suggestion that a talent for social climbing is innate is perennially popular with a certain segment of the population. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) make a good counterargument.

barry-cotter 12y ago

Surnames and Social Mobility in England, 1170-2012 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y?no-access=true http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y?n... Logo Springer SearchMenu Human Nature December 2014, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 517-537 Date: 15 Nov 2014 Surnames and Social Mobility in England, 1170–2012 Gregory Clark, Neil Cummins $39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95 Rent the article at a discount Rent now * Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT. Get Access Abstract Using educational status in England from 1170 to 2012, we show that the rate of social mobility in any society can be estimated from knowledge of just two facts: the distribution over time of surnames in the society and the distribution of surnames among an elite or underclass. Such surname measures reveal that the typical estimate of parent–child correlations in socioeconomic measures in the range of 0.2–0.6 are misleading about rates of overall social mobility. Measuring education status through Oxbridge attendance suggests a generalized intergenerational correlation in status in the range of 0.70–0.90. Social status is more strongly inherited even than height. This correlation is unchanged over centuries. Social mobility in England in 2012 was little greater than in preindustrial times. Thus there are indications of an underlying social physics surprisingly immune to government intervention.* Gregory Clark, co-author of the above article wrote an excellent book, The Son Also Rises, the topic of the linked article about his research into social mobility. It's basically invariant across societies.

desdiv 12y ago

Maybe you are thinking that, yes, of course, there was an elite in communist China, there is one everywhere—but surely they would be different names and people from those that formed the pre-communist elite. I'm not sure if it's that simple. Mao Zedong actually served as the Director of Propaganda for the Kuomintang. Had the civil war not happened, he was destined for senior cabinet positions, maybe even the presidency itself. He's not alone in this either. Eight of the so called "Ten Marshals of People's Republic of China"[0] were commissioned officers in the Kuomintang. Most of the Communist elites were Kuomintang elites, so the lack of surname distribution change doesn't really surprise me. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ten_Marshals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ten_Marshals

lumberjack 12y ago
I was also thinking, surely most of the elites had the means and common sense to leave the country once the political tide turned against them, only to return a generation of two later when things started returning to normal and I'm sure they didn't return empty handed both because they probably had capital stashed outside the country and also good connections and know-how to continue their business operations from elsewhere.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

My first question is, if social success is highly correlated to birth, then what is it that drives that success? And I surprised myself with just a few minutes thought at the diversity of answers and how obvious they seem: Things that are given by parenting: - inheritence (born to two university professors, child is likely to be highly intelligent) - education (before universal education a child of a literate person was much more likely to be literate) - social network (getting an internship at dad's friends company) - patronage (nepotism) Or is it things that are taken away by parenting : - lower likelihood of disease / malnutrition - ability to stay out of productive work whilst in education or other preparation (a career in politics is expensive) Or is it a family thing (the family network) - psychological support - practical support (a big family can offer baby sitting opportunities a single mum in council flat does not have) Or is it a social thing? - getting caught smoking illegal drugs at Cambridge university becomes a dinner party story later in life, in south central LA it becomes a prison sentence.

lhnz 12y ago
It could also be genetics. For instance, we know that people that are taller and more attractive are more likely to be promoted. Likewise intelligence is also partially inherited. It could be that their parents genes give them traits which are commonly high-status.

erikb 12y ago

I agree with the conclusion, but I think the method is very risky to apply to UK and China. The way family names are transferred is a little different in China (e.g. a wife will not take the husbands name). Also some names like Wang and Zhang are just very, very common. Finding Wangs in the elite in every generation might therefore say nothing about social mobility. They might have accounted for that or not, I don't know. It's just so different that I still wouldn't trust the results, because in such vastly different systems how can you know if you have forgotten some factors?

zhte415 12y ago
I think the key the article mentioned was the use of unusual names as a proxy for unique names. A subset of the population persisted, based on name, implying persistence of this subset. There is statistical (and pretty strong statistical) persistence of a subset of the population. Now, the (total) population of families that display persistent social mobility is probably vastly greater than even the total population with unusual names, let alone the population of those with unusual names that display persistent social mobility. As Wangs and Zhangs can't be measured in this way, is there a reason that there these subsets of the population do not themselves contain hereditary lines that show persistence? Perhaps, but why? Maintaining a diversity across the country (unusual family surnames are often ethnically linked, and China has long promoted domestic ethnic diversity). At some points in history a family would abandon their name, though this happened in Europe too. > a wife will not take the husbands name The child most certainly will, a boy in particular. Along with being seen as the future of the family line, bearing the family name.