Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations

(1996) - Harry B.G. Ganzeboom, Donald J. Treiman

Journal: Social Science Research
Link:: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0049089X96900101
DOI:: 10.1006/ssre.1996.0010
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialClass
Cite Key:: [@Ganzeboom1996]

Abstract

This paper provides operational procedures for coding internationally comparable measures of occupational status from the recently published International Standard Classification of Occupation 1988 (ISCO88) of the International Labor Office (ILO, 1990). We first discuss the nature of the ISCO88 classification and its relationship to national classifications used around the world and also to its predecessor, ISCO68 (ILO, 1969), which has been widely utilized in comparative research. We argue that comparative research would gain much from adopting ISCO88 as the standard tool of classification and provide guidance on how to do this. We then outline the procedures we have used to generate new standard recodes for three internationally comparable measures of occupational status: Treiman’s Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS), Ganzeboom et al.’s International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI), and Erikson and Goldthorpe’s class categories (EGP). To update the SIOPS prestige scores we have directly matched the occupational titles in the SIOPS scale to the categories of the ISCO88 classification. For ISEI scores we have replicated the procedure used to create scores for the ISCO68 categories, employing the same data but using newly developed matches between the underlying national occupational classifications and ISCO88. To construct the EGP class codes we have mapped the ISCO88 occupation categories into a 10-category classification developed by the CASMIN project for a 12-country analysis. To validate these scales, we estimated parameters of a basic status-attainment model from an independent source of data: the pooled file from the International Social Justice Project (a large international data file that combines data from sample surveys in 14 countries). Estimates based on occupational status scales derived from ISCO88 and ISCO68 are highly similar.

Notes

“e connection between ISCO occupational categories (and additional information on self-employment and supervisory status) and the EGP categories is established by Ganzeboom, Luijkx, and Treiman (1989). In this paper we complement these two measures with an International Socio-Economic Index of occupational status (ISEI), once again coded on the ISCO occupational categories.’” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 2)

“Those who favor a categorical approach defend a point of view in which members of society are divided into a limited number of discrete categories (classes). This approach covers positions as diverse as a Marxist dichotomy of capitalists and workers (Braverman, 1974; Szymanski, 1983); revised Marxist categories (Wright and Perrone, 1977; Wright, 1985; Wright, How, and Cho, 1989) in which a larger number of categories is distinguished, but which are still based on relationships of ownership and authority; Weberian categories, which distinguish positions in the labor market and in addition take into account skill levels and sectoral differences (Goldthorpe, 1980); and those inspired by Warner’s (Warner, Meeker, and Eels, 1949/1960) approach to class, in which a central concern is to find how many ‘layers’ members of society distinguish among themselves (e.g., Coleman and Neugarten, 1971).” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 3)

“Continuous approaches to occupational stratification differ from categorical approaches in two respects. First, they allow for an unlimited number of graded distinctions between occupational groups. Second, continuous approaches generally assume that substantively significant differ” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 3)

“4 GANZEBOOM, DE GRAAF, AND TREIMAN ences between occupational groups can be captured in one dimension and can therefore be represented in statistical models by a single parameter.’” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 4)

“fication processes-in particular, intergenerational mobility patterns-are multidimensional in nature.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 4)

“SE1 and prestige scales are similar in their continuous and unidimensional approach to occupational stratification, but differ in the way in which they are constructed and-historically more as a consequence than as a prior consideration-in the way they are conceptualized.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 7)

“SE1 is in general a better representation of occupational status in the sense that it is better predicted by antecedent variables and has stronger effects on consequent variables in the status attainment model (Featherman et al., 1975; Featherman and Hauser, 1976; Hauser and Featherman, 1977; Treiman, 1977, p. 210; Treas and Tyree, 1979). This is hardly surprising (but still important) for the main antecedent of occupational status, education, and its main consequence, income, because SE1 scores are devised to maximize the connections with income and education (Treiman, 1977)” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 8)

“81). The main one is that prestige has a much firmer, although not unequivocally established, theoretical status. Its most straightforward interpretation has always been that of a reward dimension (Treiman, 1977, p. 17) similar to and sometimes compensating for income. Prestige, then, is the approval and respect members of society give to incumbents of occupations as rewards for their valuable services to society (Davis and Moore, 1945; Treiman, 1977, pp. 16-22). More encompassing interpretations point to the resource value of occu” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 8)

“Occupation can be regarded as an intermediate position-similar to a latent variable-that converts education into income.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 9)

“in our international data file (introduced below), the standardized effect of education on (personal) income is 0.34, whereas the effect of occupational prestige on (personal) income is 0.22. This outcome strikes us as highly implausible, since it implies that, although in modern societies income is mainly distributed on the basis of the job performed, a non-job attribute is more important for the outcome than a job attribute.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 10)

“A more likely interpretation is that prestige measures misclassify occupations with respect to their earning power.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 10)

“ife by obtaining an education; as a consequence of his pursuing his occupation, he obtains income. Occupation, therefore, is the intervening activity linking income to education” (Duncan, 1961, pp. 116-117, italics added).” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 10)

“FIG. 1. The basic status attainment model with occupation as an intervening variable.” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 11)

“Education influences occupation (&), occupation influences income (&Jr and there is also a direct effect of education on income (&). Occupations enter this system in the form of a large set of dummy variables, represented as 0,. . .Oi, which represent detailed occupational categories. The SE1 score is then derived as that scaling of the detailed occupational categories that minimizes the direct effect of education on income (&) and maximizes the indirect effect of education on income through occupation” (Ganzeboom et al., 1992, p. 11)