You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Exchange, Structure, and Symmetry in Occupational Mobility
Michael E. Sobel, Michael Hout and Otis Dudley Duncan
American Journal of Sociology
Vol. 91, No. 2 (Sep., 1985), pp. 359-372
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779763
Page Count: 14
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Parametric models, Occupational mobility, Parameterization, Occupational classification, Symmetry, Workforce, Hope, Ratios, Social mobility
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Previous attempts to related the traditional concepts of exchange and structural mobility to parameters of the log linear model have been flawed. This article reformulated these concepts; introduces a new, more general conceptual distinction between reciprocated and unreciprocated mobility; and matches the concepts of structure and exchange to parameters of the model of quasi symmetry (QS). Specifically, if exchange or reciprocated mobility is defined as that part of the mobility process that results from equal flows between pairs of occupational categories, and if structural mobility is defined as an effect of marginal heterogeneity that operates uniformly on origins, then (if QS or any special case of QS holds) there is a correspondence between the parameter of the model and the concepts of structure and exchange. Furthermore, this correspondence can be used to develop meaningful parametric (as opposed to ad hoc) indexes of structural mobility. However, if QS fails to hold, there is at best a partial correspondence between the concepts of structure and exchange and the parameters of any multiplicative model. Data from Brazil, Great Britain, and the United States are used to illustrate the article's approach.
American Journal of Sociology © 1985 The University of Chicago Press