Featherman et al. (1975) [130] Proposes the FJH hypothesis that the `genotypical' pattern of mobility [relative mobility rates net of changes in marginal distributions] is `basically the same' in (at least) industrial societies with a market economy and a nuclear family system. The rest of the paper [hev not read it through] compares rank-orderings of occupations and mobility regimes in U.S. and Australia.
Grusky and Hauser (1984) [170]
Three-stratum intergenerational mobility tables for 16 countries,
$n=113,556$. Models for cross-national variation in mobility, and
explaining this with industrialisation and noneconomic variables. Only
$L^{2}$ used as model selection criterion. None of the models fit
according to common significance levels; instead, models are judged to
fit well enough if they account for most (often $>$99%) of the
deviance of, say, the independence model. A quasi-symmetry model
selected (when excluding explanatory variables).
Hout (1988) [190]
Intergenerational occupational mobility in the U.S.; three periods, both
men and women, $N=7952$. Occupations characterized by
(continuous) status, autonomy and training scores. Modifying effects of
education on mobility. Only $L^{2}$ used for model selection.
Selected model has a constant origin-destination association.
Hout and Hauser (1992) [191]
Criticism of Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992) [127].
CASMIN data set with a total $N=$76 161, 12 classes (rather than
7 in E& G). BIC used throughout, but with some subjective criteria to
avoid too simple models. Response in Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992b)
[125]. [The full issue of the journal is in a
separate folder]
Sørensen (1992) [347]
Criticism of Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992) [127].
Data from Ganzeboom et al. (1989), 23 countries, 6 classes,
$N=$177 734. Responses and rejoinders in
[125], [348] and
[126]. [The full issue of the journal is in a
separate folder]
Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992b) [125] Response to Hout and Hauser (1992) ans Sørensen (1992). Argues that BIC is not used systematically, disregarded when it favours models which are `substantively unsatisfactory'. [The full issue of the journal is in a separate folder]
Xie (1992) [393]
Proposes a log-multiplicative model similar to the uniform difference
model of [127]. Three mobility examples, BIC and
$L^{2}$ as model selection criteria.
Pisati (1997) [296]
Comparative analysis intergenerational mobility (men and women) in Italy
and the U.S. Ten-class schema, $N=3262+4871$. First, a
theoretical model formulated including resources and desirability of
different classes etc. Operationalised as a log-linear model
(linear-by-linear origin-destination association using Duncan's
socioeconomic index), some remarks on model formulation in general.
Model selection using BIC and model averaging.