“Discuss the nature and characteristics of social mobility. Can the nature and the rate of social mobility be treated as an index of economic development? Comment.” (1999)
Social mobility refers to movement of people between ranked positions in society. Since industrialisation expands the range of positions, it is tempting to read mobility as a measure of economic progress. The research record supports that reading only in part: growth raises the volume of movement, but not necessarily its fairness.
Nature and characteristics
- Universal but variable: Pitirim Sorokin (Social Mobility, 1927) held that no society is absolutely open or absolutely closed. Over the long run he saw “trendless fluctuation” rather than steady progress.
- Shaped by the stratification system: mobility is limited in estate and caste systems, where rank is ascribed. It is built into the norms of class societies, where rank is achieved.
- Multi-directional: mobility can be vertical or horizontal, upward or downward, and can occur within a career or between generations.
- Individual and collective: a person may rise through a career, or a whole caste may rise through Sanskritisation, as M. N. Srinivas described.
- Structural and exchange components: some movement is forced by changes in the occupational structure, and some is circulation within a fixed structure.
- Multi-dimensional: economic, political and ritual ranks may move independently. A wealthy but ritually low caste is an example.
Mobility as an index of development: the case for
- Industrialism thesis: Donald J. Treiman (1970) and modernisation theorists argued that industrialisation brings more mobility. Specialised jobs, mass schooling and urban life replace ascription with achievement.
- Structural mobility tracks growth. John H. Goldthorpe‘s Oxford study (1980) traced Britain’s upward mobility to the growth of professional and managerial work.
- Cross-national gap: the World Bank’s Fair Progress? (2018) found mobility much lower on average in developing economies. Developing countries made up 46 of the bottom 50 economies for educational mobility.
The case against
- Similar relative rates: Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix (1959), and later David Featherman, F. Lancaster Jones and Robert Hauser (1975), found broadly similar mobility patterns across industrial nations with very different growth rates. Robert Erikson and Goldthorpe (The Constant Flux, 1992) found relative rates largely stable over time.
- Inequality and policy matter more than income: the “Great Gatsby curve” shows that rich but unequal societies such as the United States have less mobility between generations than the Nordic welfare states.
- The Indian case:
- Growth since 1991 has been rapid, yet Sam Asher, Paul Novosad and Charlie Rafkin (2024) found educational mobility “constant and low” since before liberalisation.
- PLFS 2025 finds 56.2% of workers still self-employed and only 23.6% in regular salaried jobs. Growth that creates few jobs creates little mobility.
- Mobility without growth: Sanskritisation and reservation have lifted groups without major economic change.
Comment
The rate of absolute and structural mobility is a fair rough index of economic transformation, because it reflects the changing shape of the occupational structure. The nature of mobility tells us something else. Relative mobility, the gender gap in mobility, and whether SCs, STs and Muslims are catching up measure how fairly the gains are shared. Amartya Sen‘s view of development as the expansion of freedoms comes closer to what these measures show.
Conclusion
Social mobility is best treated as an index of inclusive development, not of economic growth alone. A rising GDP with unchanged odds for people from different backgrounds shows economic change without social openness.