Class, stratification and inequalities in health: A comparison of the Registrar‐General’s Social Classes and the Cambridge Scale

(1999) - Kenneth Prandy

Journal: Sociology of Health & Illness
Link:: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9566.00167
DOI:: 10.1111/1467-9566.00167
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialClass #RGSC
Cite Key:: [@prandyClassStratificationInequalities1999]

Abstract

Using published standardised mortality ratios for individual occupational groups in 1981, the value of the RegistrarGeneral’s Social Class schema for analysing health inequalities is compared with an alternative approach to the measurement of social stratification, the Cambridge Scale. A major issue is the extent to which the social classes really constitute social groups with a high degree of internal homogeneity and with clear boundaries between them. It is shown that, in relation to mortality ratios, they do not and that the stratification order is closer to a continuous hierarchy. The Cambridge Scale is to be preferred on both theoretical and empirical grounds: being constructed on a much sounder basis and superior in an explanatory sense. The advantages of a continuous measure are further explored by looking at the mortality ratios for malignant neoplasms and coronary heart diseases in the broader context of material factors (average earnings) and lifestyle (smoking).

Notes

“A major issue is the extent to which the social classes really constitute social groups with a high degree of internal homogeneity and with clear boundaries between them. It is shown that, in relation to mortality ratios, they do not and that the stratification order is closer to a continuous hierarchy.” (Prandy, 1999, p. 466)

“According to Szreter (1984), the R-G’s social class scheme is something of a hybrid in which two separate and, to an extent, non-commensurable skill hierarchies, one non-manual, the other manual, are aligned on top of one another.” (Prandy, 1999, p. 468)

“Stevenson (1928), the scheme’s originator, was trying to model a fairly conventional view of society as made up of an upper middle, a middle and a working class, where the middle was composed of both lower non-manual workers and skilled artisans.” (Prandy, 1999, p. 468)

“The theoretical basis of the Cambridge Scale is the idea that there is a hierarchical structure of generalised advantage/disadvantage, related to the differential distribution of resources of different kinds. It is a similar conception to Bourdieu’s (1984, 1985) ‘global volume of capital’, which is represented by a dimension in a social space. He also refers to this as ‘the space of life-styles’ (1985: 170), so making the same link between resources and lifestyle as does the Cambridge Scale.” (Prandy, 1999, p. 470)

“One possible argument against the utility of the Cambridge Scale is that, as a continuous measure of social inequality, it provides no more information than would be provided by a measure of material inequality, such as the average income of each occupational group. Another possible objection is that any ‘social class’ effects, however measured, are mediated through particular aspects of lifestyle that could be used directly in any analysis.” (Prandy, 1999, p. 476)