Many of capitalism’s defenders argue that capitalism, despite its inevitable (and often extreme) inequality, is essentially “fair” because it provides each of us with the opportunity—“a fair chance”—to succeed. Class, status, and income mobility are possible for those who make the right choices.
Efforts to measure mobility have typically looked at economic and social outcomes for individuals relative to those of their parents. How likely, for example, is a person born in the bottom quintile of the income distribution to rise to the middle quintile, or the top quintile? How strong is the correlation between the social statuses (measured variously) of fathers and sons? A strong correlation suggests that social mobility is limited—your life chances depend on “where you come from” more than “merit.” Recent studies of this sort generally conclude that (a) status at birth is a key determinant of one’s status in adulthood (mobility is limited); (b) mobility varies across capitalist countries, and (c) countries with relatively equal distributions of income (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Denmark) tend to enjoy higher rates of mobility.
Gregory Clark’s The Son Also Rises is an impressive, nervy and, ultimately, troubling book that challenges widely held ideas about the extent and determinants of mobility. Clark is persuaded that his book challenges conventional wisdom on mobility in some very essential ways.
Clark argues persuasively that studies that look at data over just one generation tend to overstate the degree of social mobility. To move beyond the limitations of this literature (and the data on which it is based), Clark traces over time the fortunes of families with unusual surnames, to see how members of these families fare—using various markers of economic and social success—over several generations. He undertakes this exercise using data from several countries: Sweden, US, England, India, China, Chile, Japan and Korea, among others. Clark’s research suggests that families tend to retain their status to a remarkable extent over many generations—“regression to the mean” is slow. In each of his several case studies, Clark concludes that surnames associated with “high status” several generations ago continue to be “over-represented” among elites. Similarly, those with surnames that were of “low status” several generations ago are disproportionately of low status. Clark discovers, for example, that Swedes with historically elite surnames continue to be over-represented in high status professions (physicians, lawyers, university professors). Similarly, rare surnames associated with high status in early nineteenth century England continue to be associated with high status today. People with these surnames are, e.g., much wealthier than average, and they are over-represented among recent Oxford and Cambridge students by a factor of six.
Clark’s clever technique—following surnames over time—provides some fascinating and persuasive stories about the durability of social status across generations. But, unfortunately, this isn’t enough for Professor Clark. Clark concludes—from his compelling but less-than-conclusive data—that there is a “law of mobility,” a law that holds across time and across societies. “This book suggests…there is a universal constant of intergenerational correlation of 0.75, from which deviations are rare…” (p. 12). That is, rates of social mobility in twenty-first century Sweden, Medieval England, the twentieth century U.S. and nineteenth century Japan are essentially the same. Culture, social institutions, discrimination, government policies have little effect. Indeed, the “rate of persistence” (the tendency for families to retain their social status over time) is just “a little higher for the feudal England of the Middle Ages than for the progressive, equality-loving, social-democratic Sweden of today” (p. 108).
Why is mobility so limited, according to Clark? Our social and economic prospects are governed, overwhelmingly, by “underlying social capabilities,” courtesy of our families. And why are some families blessed with abundant “social capabilities,” while others must make do with less? Genes! “Biology may not be everything, but it is the substantial majority of everything…” (p. 242). Worried about the well-being of future generations? Let it go! “Once you have selected your mate, your work is largely done” (p. 15).
A low rate of social mobility, Clark argues, is actually not as bad as it might seem. Social mobility is slow because “whatever their institutional structure, societies consistently produce matches of innate talent and social positions” (p. 12). There is little churning in social hierarchies not because of discrimination, inherited wealth, exclusive social networks, the legacies of slavery or colonialism, or unequal access to education but because, by in large, our social status reflects our innate abilities. There is little movement because we are where we ought to be! “The world is fairer than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the source of economic success” (p. 14).
Yikes. And there’s more. “One of the most powerful implications of the simple model of social mobility outlined here is that it explains the often-observed slow rates of social mobility for specific social, ethnic, racial and religious groups without having to posit discrimination, ethnic capital, or ethnic social connections as contributing factors” (p. 123). And further, “slow mobility rates for blacks and Latinos do not reflect an enduring racism in American society; they just reflect the fact that the rate of regression to the mean for underlying social status is inherently low” (p. 113). Why is “regression to the mean” so slow for African Americans and Latinos? Clark’s framing of this question is revealing. He wonders, “…why the underlying social competence of the Jewish and Asian communities is higher than that of the black and Latino populations” (p. 125). Recall, “underlying social competence” is about genes.
Clark’s argument also implies that efforts to facilitate social mobility—Head Start, better public schools, increased access to higher education, affirmative action, etc.—are essentially pointless, “unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups” (p. 14).
Clark emphasizes that a social hierarchy reflecting “innate talents” does not imply or require extreme levels of economic inequality. While efforts to increase social mobility are misguided, “(t)here is plenty of evidence that societies can reduce inequality” (p. 275). “We should not create social hierarchies that magnify the rewards of a high social position” (p. 15).
Debates among scientists, social scientists, racist ideologues and others over the role of genes in determining social outcomes have a long, troubling history. You wouldn’t know that from reading Clark’s book. Clark’s data and his stories of enduring status are often fascinating, but they do not reveal a universal “law of mobility,” nor do they demonstrate that genes explain social hierarchies. Clark’s consideration of alternative explanations of social immobility is less thorough than it could be—especially given his provocative conclusions. Other scholars who see low rates of mobility provide richer stories about why this might be so. In their terrific book on social mobility, Unequal Chances, Bowles, Gintis and Groves conclude that “intergenerational transmission of economic status is accounted for by a heterogeneous collection of mechanisms, including the genetic and cultural transformation of cognitive skills, and non-cognitive personality traits in demand by employers, the inheritance of wealth and income-enhancing group memberships such as race, and the superior education and health status enjoyed by the children of higher-status families” (p. 3). And further, “a major role for the environmental influence of family, neighborhood, and schooling is beyond a doubt” (p. 2). Of course.
The Son Also Rises uses a clever technique and some impressive scholarly work to make a persuasive case that social mobility is slower than we tend to imagine. In this sense, the book is a splendid contribution to the literature. If Professor Clark had left it at that, this would be a better and more useful book.
