Phase 1 - Why Occupationally-Based Social Classifications?

6. Why Occupationally-Based Social Classifications?

6.1 If there are so many problems with occupationally-based social classifications, why should we persist with them? In fact, there are sound pragmatic and theoretical reasons why it is necessary to have occupationally-based, government social classifications.

6.2 Pragmatic reasons. The principal pragmatic reason is that occupational data, which serve as building block information to RGSC and SEG, are widely and routinely collected - in registration data, and also in the Census and on all government (and many academic) surveys. It is not obvious that any other widely-collected data could provide a better basis for social classification. Moreover, occupation, for all its problems, is a much more stable indicator than potential alternatives.

6.3 Theoretical reasons. For many, however, a more convincing argument is the theoretical one. This also relates to the issue of a conceptual rationale discussed earlier. There are compelling theoretical reasons, supported by a mass of empirical research, for believing that an individual’s position within employment relations (that is, labour markets and production units as determined by skill, career prospects, authority, and other aspects of both work and market situations and as proxied by an occupationally-based social classification) is a key determinant of life chances, access to other types of social good and subjective quality of life. No other form of classification has been demonstrated to have such generality, i.e. there are a very wide variety of dependent variables in a large number of fields for which occupationally-based (‘social class’) classifications are good predictors, ranging beyond the obviously societal to include, for example, morbidity and mortality. Despite the many claims to the contrary, there is no serious evidence that the importance of socio-economic position has diminished and many reasons for thinking it has increased.

6.4 However, this is not to say that occupationally-based classifications are always the best ones to use; the choice of classificatory variable must depend upon the purpose of the analysis. Indiscriminate use of any form of classification is to be discouraged in all circumstances. The fact remains, however, that classifications of the type produced by OPCS continue to be vital for policy purposes and social scientific research. Criticisms of them should lead to calls for their improvement, not for their abandonment in favour of alluring, but unproven alternatives.

6.1	If there are so many problems with occupationally-based social classifications, why should we persist with them? In fact, there are sound pragmatic and theoretical reasons why it is necessary to have occupationally-based, government social classifications.
6.2	Pragmatic reasons. The principal pragmatic reason is that occupational data, which serve as building block information to RGSC and SEG, are widely and routinely collected - in registration data, and also in the Census and on all government (and many academic) surveys. It is not obvious that any other widely-collected data could provide a better basis for social classification. Moreover, occupation, for all its problems, is a much more stable indicator than potential alternatives.
6.3	Theoretical reasons. For many, however, a more convincing argument is the theoretical one. This also relates to the issue of a conceptual rationale discussed earlier. There are compelling theoretical reasons, supported by a mass of empirical research, for believing that an individual’s position within employment relations (that is, labour markets and production units as determined by skill, career prospects, authority, and other aspects of both work and market situations and as proxied by an occupationally-based social classification) is a key determinant of life chances, access to other types of social good and subjective quality of life. No other form of classification has been demonstrated to have such generality, i.e. there are a very wide variety of dependent variables in a large number of fields for which occupationally-based (‘social class’) classifications are good predictors, ranging beyond the obviously societal to include, for example, morbidity and mortality. Despite the many claims to the contrary, there is no serious evidence that the importance of socio-economic position has diminished and many reasons for thinking it has increased.
6.4	However, this is not to say that occupationally-based classifications are always the best ones to use; the choice of classificatory variable must depend upon the purpose of the analysis. Indiscriminate use of any form of classification is to be discouraged in all circumstances. The fact remains, however, that classifications of the type produced by OPCS continue to be vital for policy purposes and social scientific research. Criticisms of them should lead to calls for their improvement, not for their abandonment in favour of alluring, but unproven alternatives.