4.2.8 - Social Mobility
Social mobility is one of the clearest ways sociologists test whether inequality is being reproduced or reduced. In this lesson you will learn how to classify different kinds of mobility, what the main British studies found, why education and different forms of capital shape mobility chances, and how to evaluate the claim that Britain is a meritocracy.
What social mobility measures
Social mobility
Movement of individuals or groups between positions in the social hierarchy.
Sociologists are interested in social mobility because it tells us whether class positions are open to talent or mainly passed from one generation to the next. A society can have a lot of movement and still be unequal, so the key issue is not simply whether people move, but who gets the best chances of moving up.
Relative mobility
The comparative chances of people from different class backgrounds reaching particular class destinations.
The main forms of mobility can be organised like this:
| Type | Meaning | Why it matters sociologically |
|---|---|---|
| Vertical mobility | Movement up or down the class hierarchy | Shows whether people gain or lose social status |
| Horizontal mobility | Movement between jobs of similar status | Shows movement without major class change |
| Intragenerational mobility | Mobility within one person's lifetime | Helps explain career progression and decline |
| Intergenerational mobility | Mobility between parents and children | Shows how far class advantage is reproduced across generations |
| Absolute mobility | The total amount of movement between class positions | Can rise if the class structure itself changes |
| Relative mobility | The odds of people from different origins reaching different destinations | Best measure of how open or closed a society really is |
This distinction between absolute and relative mobility is especially important. If Britain creates more professional and managerial jobs, more people may move upward in absolute terms. However, if children from professional families still have much better odds than children from working-class families, relative mobility remains unequal and the society is not fully meritocratic.
Studies and patterns of mobility
The classic British studies matter because they separated two different questions. First, has the economy created more room for upward movement? Second, have class inequalities in opportunity actually weakened?
Goldthorpe et al. (1980), in the Oxford or Nuffield Mobility Study, used large-scale mobility tables to compare men's class destinations with their fathers' class origins. They found substantial absolute upward mobility in post-war Britain, but much of this reflected structural change such as the expansion of white-collar, professional, and managerial employment. Their comparison of origin and destination showed continuing unequal relative chances of reaching advantaged class positions; it should not be read as a raw count of boys without common denominators.
Marshall et al. (1988), in the Essex Mobility Study, broadly confirmed this pattern. Britain had movement, but class origin still strongly shaped class destination. That made it difficult to claim that class had become socially unimportant.
Blanden et al. (2005) pushed the debate forward by comparing the 1958 and 1970 birth cohorts and finding stronger links between parental income and sons’ adult earnings in the later cohort. This concerns income mobility and should not be treated as identical to occupational-class mobility. The Social Mobility Commission’s 2025 State of the Nation report separates occupational, income, education, housing and wealth indicators; it identifies persistent inequalities and a mixed pattern rather than a uniform decline in every form of mobility.
Because evidence matters in this debate, it helps to compare the research design as well as the findings:
| Study | Research design and value | Main finding | Strength or limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldthorpe et al. | Quantitative mobility tables comparing class origin and destination | Absolute mobility rose, but relative chances remained unequal | Strong for separating structural change from equality of opportunity; limited by its male-centred design and heavy reliance on occupational class categories |
| Marshall et al. | Updated large-scale class mobility analysis | Class inequalities in mobility chances persisted | Useful replication of earlier work; still focused mainly on occupational destination rather than wealth or wider identity differences |
| Blanden et al. | 1958/1970 cohorts linking parental income to sons’ adult earnings | Income persistence strengthened in the later cohort | Good for tracking generations over time; income alone does not capture every aspect of class advantage |
| Social Mobility Commission | Contemporary reports using national survey and administrative evidence | Barriers remain patterned by background and region | Strong on current patterns; better at describing inequalities than fully explaining their causes |
The overall pattern is clear: Britain has experienced social movement, but not a clean shift to equal opportunity. That is why mobility is significant for stratification. It shows whether inequality is merely changing shape or actually becoming less powerful.
Imagine an economy that replaces many manual jobs with office and professional jobs. More children of manual workers may enter non-manual work, so absolute mobility rises. But if children from professional families still dominate the most prestigious destinations, the society has become structurally different without becoming genuinely open.
Why mobility chances stay unequal
Education is often presented as the main route to mobility, but sociologists argue that education does not operate on a level playing field. It can help people move up, yet it can also convert inherited advantage into apparently deserved success.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account