Long-Term Trends in Intergenerational Class Mobility
in Japan *Hiroshi Ishida(University of Tokyo)
Abstract
This paper examines change and stability in the pattern of intergenerational class mobility inJapan in the late 20th century and early 21st century.

There is no clear tendency towards

greater openness in post-war Japan, contrary to the prediction of the industrialism thesis.

Our

results are not consistent with the post-industrial rigidity hypothesis either.

There was no clear

tendency of increasing intergenerational rigidity in the 1990s and 2000s.

Japanese society did

not seem to become more closed during this recent period.

The results of trend analyses are

consistent with the stability hypothesis which predicted that the strength and pattern ofassociation between class origin and class destination remain stable in industrial societies.
Taking the results of absolute and relative mobility rates altogether, we arrive at the following
conclusion: the Japanese postwar mobility experience can be understood as the combination of
rapidly changing absolute rates at a time of fast economic growth and remarkably stable relative
mobility rates throughout the seventy-year postwar period.

Class origin continues to affectclass destination to a similar extent, even though there was a rapidly changing context of classstructure.

This conclusion is not unique to Japan.

Recent work analyzing new data fromBritain (Bukodi et al. 2015) arrives at a similar conclusion.
Keywords: intergenerational mobility, relative mobility, absolute mobility*

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP25000001. I am grateful to Satoshi
Miwa for allowing me to use materials from our joint research (Ishida and Miwa 2009 , 2011, 2012,2017). Earlier versions of this research were presented at the 2015 SSM Research Project workshops,
the East Asian Studies Program Lecture series, Princeton University on 13 February, 2017, theProgram on US-Japan Relations, Harvard University on 21 February, 2017, the Demography Seminarat the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on 9 May, 2017, the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association in Montreal, Canada, on 15 August, 2017, the annual meeting of theJapanese Sociological Society at the University of Tokyo on 4 November, 2017, and the First
Conference of the Comparative Social Research Network at Kyushu University on 27 January, 2018.
I am grateful to the participants of the meetings for comments and suggestions.
1―41―

1. Introduction
Beginning in the late 1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest in economic gaps andinequality in Japan.

The discourse on inequality emphasized the rising level ofinequality in Japanese society.

Japanese economists pointed out the trend of increasing

income inequality in Japan since the late 1980s (Ohtake 2005; Tachibanaki 1998).

The

main cause of this increase is ascribed to the aging population (Ohtake 2005; Ohtake andSaito 1999).

Since income inequality within the age group is higher among the elderly

than among the younger population, as Japanese society ages, there is increased income
inequality among the entire nation even though the extent of income inequality remained
the same within different age groups.

More recently, however, there is a tendency forincome inequality to increase among the younger population (Shirahase 2005, 2006,
2014).

A similar argument about an increasing rigidity in social mobility was also

reported. Sato (2000), for example, claimed that the upper non-manual class became
more inter-generationally closed in the 1990s than in earlier decades.

In short, there

was an abundance of discourse on how Japanese society has become more unequal sincethe 1990s.
This study focuses on the issue of social mobility.
major

concerninsociologicalinvestigationsforSocial mobility has been adecades.

The

study

intergenerational class mobility is often used as an indicator of societal openness.

on
This

study takes a long-term perspective in analyzing trends in intergenerational mobility.
This study will analyze empirical data on the trends in social mobility in post -war Japanin order to verify the hypotheses regarding long-term trends in mobility among industrial
nations.

2. Trends in Intergenerational Mobility
This section presents four hypotheses about the long-term trends in intergenerational
mobility in post-war Japan.

These hypotheses are drawn from earlier studies onintergeneration mobility (see, Breen 2004; Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992ab; Goldthorpe
1985b; Vallet 2001).
The “threshold hypothesis” is the first one we review.

It claims that mobility

rates increases dramatically when a society moves from the “pre-industrial” stage to the“industrial” stage (Lipset and Zetterberg 1959; Davis 1962).
2―42―

Migration from rural tourban area and urbanization are the driving forces of increased mobility. Japan
experienced rapid industrialization immediately following the end of World War Two in
the 1950s and 1960s (Yasuda 1971; Tominaga 1992).

This hypothesis predicts rapid

increase in absolute mobility rates, especially total and upward mobility rates during thisperiod of dramatic transformation of economy.
The second hypothesis is called industrialism thesis which argues a “continuous”
increase in mobility rates both in absolute and relative mobility rates (Blau and Duncan
1967; Bell 1973; Treiman 1970, 1990; Treiman and Yip 1989).

Accompanied with the

expansion of educational system, industrialization promotes meritocratic forms of
selection by allocating social positions based on educational credentials rather than social
background.

Based on his analyses of social mobility data in the 1970s, Tominaga(1979) advocates the industrialism thesis by claiming that Japanese society has become
increasingly more open during the high economic growth period of the 1960s and 1970s.
According to this thesis, all industrial societies converge towards a more fluid and open
society as the level of industrialization increases.

We expect that Japanese society

continues to become more open while she experiences the process of rapid
industrialization.
The third hypothesis claims “stability” in trends of intergenerational mobility
process.

Sorokin (1959) argues that when we observe mobility rates for a short -term,

they fluctuate reflecting specific historical events and contingencies.

However, when

we take a long-term perspective, mobility rates tend to be stable and show “no perpetual
trend in the fluctuations” (Sorokin 1959, p. 63).

More recently, Featherman, Jones andHauser (1975) and Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992b) arrive at a similar conclusion .

Theshape of industrial structure as well as class origin and class destination change by the
result of industrialization, but the strength and pattern of association between class origin
and destination do not change and remain stable among industrial societies.

Accordingto this hypothesis, we expect that relative mobility rates remain stable in post-war Japandespite the rapid industrialization (see also Kojima and Hamana 1984; Kanomata 1987,
1997; Imada 1989, 1997; Seiyama et al 1990; Hara and Seiyama 1999; Ishida 2001;
Ishida and Miwa 2009, 2012, 2017).
The fourth hypothesis derives from the work of Japanese economists andsociologists who claim the increased level of inequality and rigidity in Japan following
the collapse of the bubble economy in the 1990s.

One of the most influential works was

Tachibanaki (1998) who claims that income inequality has increased from the late 1980s
3―43―

and that the level of income inequality has almost reached that of the United States.
However, Ohtake (2005; Ohtake and Saito 1999) shows that the increased level ofincome inequality in Japan was driven primarily by the steady increase in the aging of
the population.

Toshiki Sato (2000), a sociologist, argues that Japanese society has

become increasingly rigid and more closed in the 1990s.

The upper non-manual class,or what he called the intellectual elite, was more likely to be recruitedinter-generationally from the same class background in the 1990s than in the past, andthe barriers to mobility into the upper non-manual class has increased.

According tothis “increased rigidity” hypothesis, we expect a recent tendency of increasing rigidityand decreasing openness in Japan beginning in the 1990s.

In the following sections, wewill test these four hypotheses using empirical data.
Table 1 The Class Schema
Original Ten-category version
I

Seven
Six
category category

Higher grade professionals, administrators and officials;
managers in large industrial establishments; large proprietors
I+II

I+II 'professional-managerial'III

III 'routine nonmanual'

IVa+IVb

IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'

IVc

IVc+VIIb 'farming'

V+VI

V+VI 'skilled workers'

VIIa Semi- and unskilled manual workers (not in agriculture etc.)

VIIa

VIIa 'unskilled workers'

VIIb Agricultural and other workers (including family workers)
in primary production

VIIb

II

Lower-grade professionals, administrators and officials;
higher-grade technicians; managers in small industrial
establishments; supervisors of nonmanual employees
III Routine nonmaual employees in administration and commerce;
sales personnel; other rank-and-file service workers
IVa Small proprietors, artisans etc. with employees
IVb Small proprietors, artisans etc. without employees
IVc Farmers and small holders; other self-employed workers inprimary production
V

Lower-grade technicians; supervisors of manual workers

VI

Skilled manual workers

3. Data, Variables and Methods
The data sets come from the Social Stratification and Social Mobility (SSM) surveys
conducted in Japan every ten years since 1955.
aged 25 to 64.

We restrict our analyses to men who are

Female respondents were not included in the SSM surveys prior to 1985.

We also restricted to respondents who have completed their educational attainment.
4

―44―

We

cross-classify respondents by their class of origin and class of destination.

Class origin

refers to the class of the respondent’s father when the respondent was growing up, andclass destination refers to the respondent’s class at the time of the survey.

We used thefollowing four questions to determine the class position: occupation, employment status,
managerial status, and firm size.

Table 1 presents our class schema.

We use thesix-category version of Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero class schema (Erikson,
Goldthorpe, and Portocarero 1979): the professional-managerial class or the “service
class” (I+II), the routine non-manual class (III), the urban petty bourgeoisie (IVab), thefarming class (IVc+VIIb), the skilled manual class (V+VI), and the unskilled manualclass (VIIa).
We employ log-linear and log-multiplicative models to examine the trends inrelative mobility.

The conditional independence model is the baseline model where weassume no association between class origin and class destination.

The model is written

as the following multiplicative form:
Fijt =

 iO jD tY itOY jtDY,(1)

where Fijt refers to the expected frequency in cell (i,j,t) of the origin by destination by
survey year table,  is a scale term, iO is the main effect of class origin, jD is the main
effect of class destination, tY is the main effect of survey year, and the two-way terms(itOY, jtDY) imply the association between origin and year and the association between
destination and year, respectively.

Given the origin and destination distributions, themodel does not allow any association between class origin and class destination (ijOD).
The model does not fit the data because we know there is significant association between
origin and destination, but we use this model to evaluate how much other models
improve the fit by computing the reduction in G 2 from the conditional independence
model.
The second model is called the constant social fluidity model (CSF model).

Itsets the pattern of association in the mobility table exactly the same across seven survey
years.

The CSF model allows the distribution of class origin and of class destination to

be different across survey years, but imposes relative mobility rates or the odds ratio
patterns to be constant across years.

The CSF model is written in the multiplicative

form as follows:

5

―45―

Fijt =

 iO jD tY itOY jtDY ijOD,(2)

where the two-way terms (itOY, jtDY, ijOD) imply the association between origin andyear, destination and year, and origin and destination, respectively.

The CSF model

imposes the association between origin and destination to be the same across survey year
and does not include the three-way term (ijtODT).
The third model is a log-multiplicative model of uniform difference or the“uni-diff model” (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992b; Xie 1992).

This model estimates thedifference in the strength of origin-destination association between a pair of two survey
years by a single uniform difference parameter (φtY).

Formally, the uni-diff model may

be written as the following multiplicative form:
Fijt =

 iO jD tY itOY jtDYexp(ψ ijODφtY),(3)

where the two-way association between origin and destination (ψijOD) is multiplied by auni-diff parameter (φtY).

The strength of association between class origin and classdestination becomes either uniformly stronger or weaker across survey years.

If theuniform difference parameter is greater than 1.0, the association is stronger, and if theparameter is smaller than 1.0, the association is weaker.
The fourth model is the linear trend model where the difference between thepattern of association between class origin and class destination is represented by asingle trend parameter (φ Y).

The model is written as the following multiplicative

form:
Fijt =

 iO jD tY itOY jtDYexp(ψ ijODφY),(4)

where the two-way association between origin and destination (ψijOD) is multiplied by asingle uni-diff parameter (φ Y).

The strength of association between class origin andclass destination becomes either linearly stronger or weaker across seven survey years.
If the uniform difference parameter is greater than 1.0, the association became stronger,
and if the parameter is smaller than 1.0, the association became weaker.
In order to describe the detailed pattern of association between class origin andclass destination, we use the idea of “core social fluidity model” proposed by Erikson
and Goldthorpe (1992a, 1992b).

The core social fluidity model attempts to summarize
6―46―

the core pattern of association in industrial nations.

It is represented by three kinds ofeffect on the patterning of association: inheritance, hierarchy, and affinity.
shows the matrix presentation of the core social fluidity model.

Figure 1

Inheritance effect refers

Figure 1. Core Social Fluidity Model (Model of Association between Origin and Destination)
Applied to the Japanese CaseIn h e ritan c e e ffe c t matrix (DIA)
I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
2
III 'routine nonmanual'1
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'1
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
1
V+VI 'skilled workers'
1
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
1
Hie ararc h y I e ffe c t matrix (HI1 )I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
1
III 'routine nonmanual'2
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'2
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
2
V+VI 'skilled workers'
2
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
2
Hie ararc h y II e ffe c t matrix (HI2 )I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
1
III 'routine nonmanual'1
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'1
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
2
V+VI 'skilled workers'
1
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
2
Positive affin ity A e ffe c t matrix (AF2 A)
I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
1
III 'routine nonmanual'2
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'1
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
1
V+VI 'skilled workers'
1
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
1
Positive affin ity B e ffe c t matrix (AF2 B)
I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
1
III 'routine nonmanual'1
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'2
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
1
V+VI 'skilled workers'
1
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
1
Ne gative affin ity e ffe c t matrix (AF1 )I+II
III
I+II 'professional-managerial'
1
III 'routine nonmanual'1
IVa+IVb 'petty bourgeoisie'1
IVc+VIIb 'farming'
1
V+VI 'skilled workers'
1
VIIa 'unskilled workers'
1

IVab
1
3
1
1
1
1

Ivc+Viib
1
1
4
1
1
1

IVab
2
1
1
2
1
2

Ivc+Viib
2
1
1
2
1
2

IVab
1
1
1
1
1
1

IVab

IVab
1
1
1
1
1
1

7

―47―

VIIa

V+VI

2
1
1
1
1
1
VIIa

1
1
1
1
1
2
V+VI

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
2
1
1
1
Ivc+Viib

1
1
1
1
1
1

VIIa

V+VI

Ivc+Viib

2
2
2
1
2
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
1
1
2
1
1

VIIa

V+VI

Ivc+Viib

1
1
1
1
1
7

2
1
1
2
1
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

V+VI

Ivc+Viib

IVab

VIIa
1
1
1
1
6
1

2
1
1
2
1
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
1
1
1
1
1

V+VI
1
1
1
5
1
1

1
1
1
2
2
1
VIIa

2
1
1
1
1
1

2
1
1
1
1
1

to the tendency of individuals to be found in the same class as that of their fathers.
Since inheritance may be the result of different social processes including the direct
inheritance of family business or land and indirect inheritance through educational
credentials, we expect the propensity for inheritance to be different from one class toanother.

The inheritance effect matrix indicates different effect for each diagonal.
Hierarchy effect refers to hierarchical division in the class structure byrecognizing the difference between the professional-managerial class which occupies themost desirable position and the rest of the classes and the non-skilled manual class whichis the least advantaged and the rest of the classes. Hierarchy effect is thus represented by
two matrices (HI1 and HI2) in Figure 1.

HI2 effect matrix includes an additional

asymmetric assignment involving the farming class (IVc+VIIb).

The farming class isclassified as the most disadvantaged class (just like the non-skilled manual class) in thefather’s generation while it is classified as occupying the middle level position in the
respondent’s generation because the farming occupation largely transformed from thesubsistence agriculture in the father’s generation to more commercialized andmarket-oriented in the respondent’s generation.
Affinity effect is composed of positive affinity (AF2A and AF2B) and negative
affinity (AF1).

Positive affinity captures relatively easy exchange of individuals

between particular classes.

The positive affinity A refers to relatively easy movement

between the professional-managerial class and the non-manual class as forming a“white-collar bloc.”
exchanges.

The positive affinity B is composed of three different kinds ofFirst, the movement between the two propertied classes (IVab and IV+VIIb)

becomes possible due to relatively easy transfer of capital between these two classes.
Second, the exchange between the professional-managerial class and the petty
bourgeoisie (IVab) derives from the upscaling or downgrading of the professional
practices and business enterprises.

Third, the exchange between skilled manual andnon-skilled manual is facilitated by the fact that they share manual labor forming a“blue-collar bloc.”

The relatively easy flow from the farming to the non-skilled manualclass is also explained by the similarity in manual labor.

Finally, the negative affinity(AF1) pertains to the barriers to mobility from the professional-managerial class to thetwo manual working classes.

The sons of the professional-managerial class in Japan are

advantaged in that they have very low propensity to be downwardly mobile into the ranks
of manual working class.
The core social fluidity model can be written as a log-linear model.
8―48―

The pattern

of two-way association is represented by a series of effects as follows:
Fijt =  iO jD tY itOY jtDYijOD(DIG) ijOD(HI1) ijOD(HI2) ijOD(AF2A) ijOD(AF2B)ijOD(AF1),(5)

where ijOD(DIG) ijOD(HI1)ijOD(HI2) ijOD(AF2A) ijOD(AF2B) ijOD(AF1) represent each effect matrix
as shown in Figure 1.

This core fluidity model can be run separately for each survey

year.
Table 2. Class Distributions and Absolute Mobility Rates in Japan from 1955 to 2015
Survey Year
1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

Class origin
Professional-managerial
Routine non-manual
Petty bourgeoisie
Farming
Skilled manual
Non-skilled manual

7.2
3.9
22.8
58.6
2.7
4.9

10.9
4.0
25.1
49.8
6.4
3.7

13.7
5.1
25.5
46.1
5.2
4.5

16.5
5.8
27.0
35.4
9.0
6.3

20.3
5.2
27.1
28.8
10.9
7.6

20.7
8.6
26.2
22.4
12.6
9.6

25.5
9.6
23.7
13.4
15.0
12.9

Class destination
Professional-managerial
Routine non-manual
Petty bourgeoisie
Farming
Skilled manual
Non-skilled manual

10.1
12.3
20.1
40.4
8.2
8.9

18.8
13.3
19.4
21.5
15.6
11.5

22.8
13.2
18.9
15.4
17.5
12.1

29.1
12.5
19.8
6.6
19.2
12.8

36.7
9.9
19.8
4.8
17.7
11.0

35.8
12.5
15.4
4.7
18.0
13.5

39.5
12.1
11.6
3.5
19.1
14.4

Total mobility
Horizontal mobility
Vertical mobility
Upward mobility
Downward mobility

48.1
16.0
32.1
25.0
7.1

62.6
19.2
43.4
34.1
9.3

67.2
19.6
47.6
37.1
10.4

69.3
17.9
51.4
39.8
11.6

68.8
15.9
52.9
41.1
11.8

68.8
15.6
53.2
38.7
14.5

68.4
15.6
52.8
35.6
17.2

(ratio of upward to downward )

3.53

3.68

3.56

3.45

3.47

2.66

2.07

Dissimilarity index

20.8

34.0

37.2

36.0

31.3

28.5

22.0

N

1607

1630

2052

1818

1716

1694

1825

4. Trends in Absolute Rates of Intergenerational Class Mobility
Table 2 presents the changing distributions of class origin and class destination from1955 to 2015 in Japan.

We begin with the discussion of class destination which

represents the class structure of the Japanese society in each year when the survey was
conducted.

First, the most fundamental change in the class structure is the shift fromfarming to urban population reflecting the rapid course of industrialization.

The

farming class contracted dramatically during the economic growth period: from 40
9―49―

percent in 1955 to 22 percent in 1965, and further to 15 percent in 1975.

Second, theprofessional-managerial class increased rapidly during the high growth period: from 10
percent in 1955 to 29 percent in 1985 and further to 37 percent in 1995.
the professional-managerial class was already the largest in 1975.

The share of

Third, the skilled

manual working class expanded from 8 percent in 1955 to 18 percent in 1975, butthereafter remained about the same until 2015.

These changes in the distribution ofclass destination suggest that the contraction of the farming class was accompanied by
the expansion of both the blue-collar sector (the skilled manual class) and thewhite-collar sector (the professional managerial class) unlike the experience of earlyindustrializing nations where the expansion of blue-collar sector proceeded that of thewhite-collar sector.

Because the process of industrialization in Japan took place in acompressed period of time, the rapid pace of industrialization resulted in simultaneous
expansion of white-collar and blue-collar classes.

This trajectory has implications forthe changes in absolute mobility rates which will be discussed below.
Other features of the trend in class destination include the persistence of theurban petty bourgeoisie class and the stable share of the routine non-manual class and theunskilled manual class.

The urban self-employed sector constituted about 20 percent of

the class destination distribution consistently from 1955 to 1995, and there was no clear
sign of declining importance of this sector in the process of economic development.
The decline only began in late-1990s when the value of the assets declined sharply
during the recession (Ishida 2004).

The share of unskilled working class remained thesame at about 12 percent although there is a slight increase in the last two decades.
This class never developed into a demographically significant group in the Japanese classstructure, in contrast to the early industrializing nations that contained a fairly substantial
non-skilled working class at one point in industrial development.
The changes in the distribution of class origin parallel in many ways those of theclass destination.

Continuous reduction of the farming population was observed

throughout the seventy-year period.
gradually during this period.

The professional-managerial class expanded

The urban petty bourgeoisie continued to occupy a fourthof the distribution even in 2015.

The changes observed in the class origin distribution

are generally in the same direction as those in the class destination distribution, but thepace of changes is slower and the magnitude of change between two surveys is much
more modest in the class origin distribution than that of class destination.

It should be

noted that the distribution of class origin does not represent the class structure of any
10

―50―

given time because fathers were different ages and there is differential fertility by class(Blau and Duncan 1967).
Table 2, third panel, reports absolute mobility rates for the seven survey years.
The trend in total mobility rates is characterized by three stages.

The first stage is the

rapid increase during the high economic growth period: the rate increased dramaticallyfrom 48 percent in 1955 to 63 percent in 1965.

The second stage is the modest increasein the 1970s and 1980s. The third and final stage is the stagnation period of the 1990s
and 2000s when there was a plateau in total mobility rate at about 69 percent.

This

trend is closely related to the changing shape of the class origin and class destination
distributions.

In 1955, both the class origin (59 percent) and class destination (40percent) distributions are characterized by a large share of the farming class (IVc+VIIb),
resulting in high intergenerational inheritance in farming.

During the fast economic

growth period, the farm sector rapidly contracted both in class origin and classdestination distributions, and the total mobility rate sharply increased in the late 1950s
and 1960s.

This finding is consistent with the threshold hypothesis advocated by Lipset

and Zetterburg predicting the historic increase in mobility rate when a society enters amature industrial stage.
The dissimilarity index represents the proportion of cases that must be moved inorder to make the two distributions identical.

In 1955, 21 percent of cases needed to be

moved to make the class origin and destination distributions exactly the same because ofa large share of the farming class in both distributions.

Just like the total mobility rat e,

the dissimilarity index increases rapidly from 21 percent in 1955 to 37 percent in 1975,
as the share of the farming class rapidly reduced in the class destination.

Thedissimilarity index stayed about the same from 1975 to 1985. However, the index
dropped from 31 percent in 1995 to 22 percent in 2015, indicating that the fathers andsons’ class distributions are becoming more similar in recent times.

Indeed, the index

continued to drop from 37 percent in 1975 suggesting that major structural changes i nJapanese class structure took place in previous decades and that the recent period ischaracterized by an increasing similarity in class distributions between the twogenerations.

In summary, the Japanese class structure as reflected in the classdestination distributions appeared to have reached a mature and stable stage in the 2000s.
With regard to upward mobility rates, we find substantial increase in theopportunities of upward mobility from 25 percent in 1955 to 41 percent in 1995.

The

increase is particularly salient in the early stage of industrialization from 1955 to 1965.
11

―51―

Because of the continuous expansion of the professional-managerial class in the latter
half of the 20 th century, opportunities for upward mobility continued to climb during thisperiod.

However, the increasing trend in upward mobility rates was put on hold in 2005

due to the lack of expansion of the professional-managerial class from 1995 to 2005.
The share of the professional-managerial class reached 36 percent in 1995 and remained
the same in 2005.

It seemed that the share of this class hit a peak in the 1990s, but it

increased slightly again in 2015.
Downward mobility rates, in contrast, did not change substantially and remained
low at around 10 percent until 1995.

However, the rate increased during the last two

decades reaching 17 percent in 2015.

At the bottom of the class structure, thepercentage of unskilled manual working class members increased to 14 percent in 2015
after it had been stable at around 11 percent for several decades between 1965 and 1995.
The ratio of upward mobility to downward mobility changed for the first time
during the postwar period in 2005.

The ratio was stable at around 3.5 in postwar Japan

until 1995, suggesting that the chances of upward mobility were much higher than thoseof downward mobility during this period.
and again to 2.1 in 2015.

However, the ratio dropped to 2.7 in 2005

This is due to two important trends: (1) the increasing rate of

upward mobility until 1995 that suddenly stopped in 2005 for the first time during thepostwar period and (2) the stable rate of downward mobility at about 10 percent since1975 that suddenly increased in 2005.

These changes are only apparent in the 2000s.

Table 3. Fit Statistics of Various Log-linear and Log-multiplicative Models%(1) Conditional Independence Model(2) Constant Social Fluidity Model(2a) CSF + Linear change(2b) CSF + Unidiff(3) Core Social Fluidity Modelwith Effect Matrices(3a) DIG1 variable(3b) DIG2 variable(3c) DIG3 variable(3d) DIG4 variable(3e) DIG5 variable(3f) DIG6 variable(3g) HI variable(3h) AF2 variable(3i) AF1 variable(4) Variable Effect Matrices Model
Uni-diff parameters from Model 2bG-square3187.8
191.3
191.2
185.0
273.7

df
175
150
149
144
164

p
0.000
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.000

%
misc. reduction
20.02---4.15
94.00
4.14
94.00
4.05
94.20
5.04
91.41

bic
1539.1-1219.8-1210.5-1170.1-1271.3

diff G2

df---0.0487
6.2828----

1 0.8253
6 0.3923

263.3
268.1
264.6
265.3
258.8
261.8
254.6
261.6
263.2
181.3

158
158
158
158
158
158
152
152
158
98

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

4.81
4.90
4.82
4.85
4.85
4.84
4.81
4.86
4.97
3.33

-1225.2-1220.4-1223.9-1223.2-1229.7-1226.7-1177.3-1170.4-1225.2-741.910.3816
5.63999.13588.453
14.9427
11.9518
19.0882
12.1233
10.472992.3808

6
6
6
6
6
6
12
12
6
66

2005
1.055

2015
0.915

1955
1.000

1965
0.947

1975
0.952

1985
1.062

91.74
91.59
91.70
91.68
91.88
91.79
92.01
91.79
91.74
94.31
1995
0.964

5. Trends in Social Fluidity across Survey Years

12

―52―

p (diff)

0.10950.46470.16610.20680.02070.06310.08640.43580.10610.0177

Table 3 presents the results of testing trends in postwar Japan by fitting log-linear andlog-multiplicative models described above to the six by six by seven (origin bydestination by survey year) table in Japan.

The conditional independence model (model

1) does not fit the data at all, but it is used as the baseline.

The constant social fluidity(CSF) model fits the data fairly well (see model 2); the G2 value is 191.3 and theassociated p-value is .010.

The CSF model misclassifies only 4.2 percent of cases, andthe reduction in G2 value from the conditional independence model is 94 percent.

Thelinear trend model (model 2a) does not show any significant improvement over the CSF
The difference in G 2 value is only 0.1 with one degree of freedom.

model.

The

uniform difference model (model 2b) allows the association between origin anddestination to vary across seven survey years (using six degrees of freedom over the CSF
model), but it does not significantly improve the fit over the CSF model: the difference inG2 value is 6.3 with six degrees of freedom (the associated p-value is 0.3923).

The

Bayesian Information Criteria (bic) statistics can be used to compare the fit of threemodels.

The smaller the bic value, the better the fit.

smallest bic statistic, and it is our preferred model.

The CSF model shows theBoth the methods of the differencein the G2 value and of the bic statistics arrive at the same conclusion of the constancy inthe pattern of association between class origin and class destination in postwar Japan.
The last row in Table 3 presents the uniform difference parameters.
survey year is used as the base year.

The 1955

The value for 1965 is 0.947, indicating that theassociation is slightly weaker than in 1955 because it is smaller than 1.

The value for1975 (0.952) is almost the same as that for 1965, implying no change in the strength ofassociation between these two years.

The value for 1985 is 1.062, indicating that thestrength of association became much stronger than in 1975, but the difference is notstatistically significant.

The uni-diff value became smaller in 1995 (0.964), implyingthat the association became weaker than in 1985.

The uni-diff value in 2005 (1.055) islarger than that in 1995, implying strengthening of association.

This observation isconsistent with the post-industrial rigidity hypothesis, which predicts a trend ofincreasing rigidity and decreasing openness in recent Japan.

Although there is a trendof increasing rigidity judging from the values of uni-diff, the difference is notstatistically significant.

Finally, the uni-diff value in 2015 (0.915) became smaller thanthat of 2005, but again the difference is not significant at .05 level of significance.
Therefore, this trend should not be taken seriously.

We observed small trendlessfluctuation, but the dominant trend throughout the seventy-year period is basic stability
13

―53―

Figure 2. Three Patterns of the Trend in Log Odds Ratios

and constancy.
We conduct sensitivity analysis by looking at the trend of individual odds ratios.
The uniform difference model assumes that the pattern of association between origin anddestination is the same across survey years.

We could compute 225 log odds ratiosfrom six by six table, and compare these log odds ratios between two adjacent survey
years.

We do not assume any pattern of association but to treat individual log odds

ratios separately and compare them across years, so the method is non-parametric, as
opposed to semi-parametric method of the uniform difference model.

The log odds

ratios can be classified into the following three patterns as shown in Figure 2 (Ishida2001).

The first pattern shows that log odds ratio approaches zero implying increasing
14

―54―

Table 4. Three Patterns of Trends in Log Odds Ratios between Two Adjacent Survey Years

First pattern
Second pattern
Third pattern
Difference inuni-diff parameter

1955-65
58%
29%
12%

1965-75
45%
42%
13%

1975-85
35%
46%
20%

-0.054

0.005

0.110

fluidity from one survey year to the next.

1985-95 1995-2005
55%
36%
31%
46%
15%
18%

2005-15
56%
27%
17%

-0.098-0.1400.091

The second pattern is the exact opposite

where log odds ratio moves away from zero implying decreasing fluidity.

The third

pattern indicates that log odds ratio goes through zero implying no clear trend in fluidity.
Table 4 shows the results of classifying trends in 225 log odds ratios between two
adjacent survey years into three patterns.

From 1955 to 1965, 58 percent of 225 log

odds ratios approached zero, 29 percent moved away from zero, and 12 percent crossed
zero.

More than the majority of log odds ratio moved in the direction of increasing

fluidity.

The difference between 1955 and 1965 in uniform difference parameters

reported in Table 3 is computed and shown in Table 4 for comparative purposes.
difference is negative, implying increasing fluidity from 1955 to 1965.

The

From 1965 to

1975, log odds ratios are allocated almost equally to the first and the second pattern.
The difference in uniform difference parameters between 1965 and 1975 is almost zero,
implying no change in openness.

From 1975 to 1985, the dominant pattern is thesecond one indicating decreasing fluidity.

The change in uniform difference parameter

also returns a positive value which is consistent with the result of classification.

From

1985 to 1995, the trend is reversed, that is, moving in the direction of great er fluidity
since the majority of log odds ratios is classified into the first pattern and the differencein uniform difference parameter is negative.

From 1995 to 2005, the trend is yet again

reversed in the direction of declining fluidity.

Finally, from 2005 to 2015, the opposite

trend is found again in the direction of greater openness because the majority of log odds
ratios was classified into the first pattern.

There is fluctuation in the direction ofrelative mobility rates or odds ratios across the seventy-year period.
These findings are consistent with the stability hypothesis which predicted
trendless fluctuation and overall stability in relative mobility rates in post-war Japan.
There was no clear trend of increasing openness and fluidity during the industrialization
process, contrary to the prediction of the continuous hypothesis.
consistent with the post-industrial rigidity hypothesis, either.
15

―55―

The result is not

There was no apparent

increase in rigidity in most recent period.

6. Pattern of Social Fluidity in Post-war JapanWe know that the strength of association between class origin and class destination isstable in postwar Japan from the previous analyses.
association?

What is then the pattern ofIs the pattern consistent in post-war Japan?

We use the core social

fluidity model to represent the pattern of association between class origin and classdestination.

While the full interaction model (such as the CSF model) uses all odds

ratios to determine the pattern, the core social fluidity model takes into account threemajor effects: inheritance, hierarchy, and affinity.

The fit of the constant core social

fluidity model using effect matrices shown in Figure 1 is presented as model (3) in Table
3.

This model does not fit the data (G 2 = 273.3, df=164, p=0.000).

However,

according to the bic statistics, the constant core social fluidity model (model 3) ispreferred to the CSF model (model 2) because the constant core social fluidity model ismore parsimonious than the CSF model.
We then allow the components of the core social fluidity model to vary acrosssurvey years.

Diagonal effects, hierarchy effects, and positive and negative affinity

effects are each allowed to vary across years, and the fit of models with specific effectvaried across years is shown in Table 3.

For example, model 3a represents the coresocial fluidity model which allows inheritance of the professional-managerial class(DIG1) to vary across years but all other effects are held constant.

The difference

between this model and the core social fluidity model with effect matrices in G 2 anddegrees of freedom along with the probability associated with the test of difference areshown in Table 3.

Judging from the probability associated with the test of difference(the last column of Table 3), the effect of inheritance of the skilled manual working class(DIG5) varies significantly across survey years but no other effects are significantly
different (at 5 percent level).

Furthermore, the bic statistics prefer the constant coresocial fluidity model with effect matrices to any other models which allow components
to vary across survey years.
Table 5 presents the estimates of the core social fluidity model which is applied
to each survey year separately and the estimates of the constant core social fluidity model,that is, the temporary invariant model (model 3 in Table 3).

16

―56―

The core social fluidity

Table 5. Estimates of Origin-Destination Effect Matrix Parameters in the Origin by Destination by
Year Japanese Mobility Table
1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

temporary
invariant

DIG(I+II)

1.605(0.404)1.123(0.340)0.342(0.299)1.174(0.294)1.229(0.289)1.182(0.291)0.741(0.295)1.023(0.114)

DIG(III)

1.041(0.303)0.879(0.308)0.440(0.270)0.989(0.271)

0.594(0.321)

0.592(0.268)0.365(0.255)0.656(0.106)

DIG(IVab)

0.492(0.197)0.904(0.179)0.841(0.162)1.086(0.156)0.962(0.157)1.383(0.166)1.129(0.169)0.999(0.062)

DIG(IVc+VIIb)

2.558(0.192)2.174(0.197)2.403(0.198)2.725(0.310)3.031(0.368)2.804(0.311)2.766(0.293)2.536(0.087)

DIG(V+VI)

1.130(0.337)0.586(0.227)0.870(0.213)0.275(0.190)0.266(0.189)0.450(0.175)0.198(0.162)0.407(0.075)

DIG(VIIa)

0.933(0.300)0.477(0.341)

0.095(0.299)0.978(0.259)0.434(0.283)0.516(0.260)0.207(0.252)0.481(0.104)HI1-0.123(0.120)-0.171(0.100)-0.279(0.090)-0.093(0.089)-0.056(0.096)0.048(0.095)-0.072(0.104)-0.097(0.036)HI2

0.069(0.270)-0.036(0.206)-0.374(0.184)-0.126(0.171)-0.109(0.167)-0.087(0.167)-0.219(0.161)-0.131(0.067)

AF2A

0.763
(0.236)0.727(0.212)0.381(0.171)0.838(0.182)0.479(0.191)0.776(0.169)0.478(0.157)0.645(0.068)

AF2B

0.151
(0.140)0.130(0.123)0.123(0.111)

0.266(0.103)0.301(0.099)0.367(0.094)0.136(0.087)0.242(0.039)AF1-0.899(0.413)-0.485(0.277)-0.730(0.221)-0.309(0.223)-0.135(0.218)-0.518(0.222)-0.451(0.198)-0.413(0.086)

L-squaredfp
ID (% misc)bic

30.408140.00670.0326-72.94231.111140.00530.0374-72.438

22.37014
0.07130.0281-84.40230.818140.00590.0353-74.259

25.07614
0.03380.0349-79.19321.47314
0.09010.0318-82.615

20.06814
0.128
0.0338-85.063273.705164
0.000
0.0504-1271.300

Effect Matrix Parameter:model fits better in some survey years (in 1975, 1995, 2005 and 2015) than others (in1955, 1965 and 1985).

Although there are small fluctuations in parameter estimatesacross different survey years, the estimates are generally consistent across years.
Moreover, fluctuations are not of systematic kind.

We therefore use the parametersfrom the constant core social fluidity model to represent the pattern of association
between class origin and class destination.
Figure 3 shows the pattern of association of the constant core social fluidity
model as depicted by cell density (see Ishida and Miwa 2012, 2017). These cell densities
represent the propensities of association between class origin and class destination, after
controlling for the distributions of class origin and class destination.
17

―57―

The pattern ofassociation is characterized by the following features.
class inheritance.

First, there is a propensity of

The main diagonals are generally higher: the farming class(IVc+VIIa) and the professional-managerial class (I+II) show a particularly highpropensity of inheritance, followed by the petty bourgeoisie (IVab), the skilled manual
working class (V+VI), and the unskilled manual working class (VIIa).
a white-collar block.

Second, there is

Relatively easy exchanges between the professional-managerial

class and the routine non-manual class are found.
non-manual nature of work.

Movements are facilitated by sharing

Third, there is a manual working class block.

There seemto be intergenerational exchanges between the skilled and the unskilled manual classes,
especially in the direction from the unskilled to the skilled manual class.
is movement out of the farming class.

Fourth, there

Sons of the farming class have the propensity tomove into the petty bourgeoisie and the unskilled manual working class.
Figure 3. Density Matrix Display of the Pattern of Association between Class Origin and Class
Destination in Japan

7. Trends in the Inheritance of the Professional-managerial Class
Toshiki Sato (2000) claimed in his best-seller book Japan as an Unequal Society that the
professional-managerial class became more closed and the society became more rigid in
the 1990s.

The evidence he represented was the increased rigidity in theintergenerational inheritance of the professional-managerial class.

We will evaluate thisclaim by trying to replicate Sato’s analysis using the 2015 SSM data.
18

―58―

Sato’s classclassification is not identical to ours, but our class scheme is sufficiently similar toempirically test the claim.

For the class destination, Sato used the class position of the

respondents when they were age 40, rather the current class position at the time of thesurvey.

By using the employment history data available in 2015 SSM, we determinedthe class position at age 40.

Sato restricted his analyses to men aged 40 to 59, so wewill also focus on this age-range.
Figure

4

shows

the

trendsinprofessional-managerial class by birth cohort.

theeffectofinheritance

of

the

The log odds ratio for the oldest cohort(born between 1896 and 1915) calculated based on the 1955 SSM data is 2.2, and theodds ratio is 9.4.

The odds ratio implies that the sons of the professional-managerial

class are 9 times more likely to end up in the professional-managerial class when they are
40 years old than the sons of other classes.

The log of odds ratio or the inheritance ratecontinued to decline until the birth cohort of 1926-1945 calculated based on the 1985
SSM data, but the rate increased sharply for the birth cohort 1936-1955 calculated basedon the 1995 SSM data.
increasing rigidity.

This increase was the empirical evidence to support the claim ofHowever, the rate based on the 2005 SSM data reported by Ishida

and Miwa (2011) is much smaller than the rate based on the 1995 SSM data.
reports the rate which is calculated using the 2015 SSM data.

Figure 4

The log odds ratio is

about the same as that of the 2005 SSM data, so there seems to be very little change inthe 2000s.
Figure 4. Trends in Inheritance of the Professional-managerial Class by Birth Cohort

19

―59―

These results do not support the claim of increasing rigidity in class structure in
recenttimes.

Ifanything,

thelong-term

trend

in

the

rigidityoftheprofessional-managerial class is that of declining rigidity, rather than increasing rigidity.
The figure from the 1995 SSM data appears to be the exception.

One should becautious in deriving conclusion about the trend based solely on the 1995 SSM data.

8. Summary and Conclusion
This paper examined change and stability in the pattern of intergenerational classmobility in Japan in the late 20th and the early 21st century.

Japan experienced rapid

economic development in the 1960s and early 1970s, followed by a recession andsustained economic growth until the early 1990s when the nation was hit by serious
recession.

In the 2000s, the country was on the path of moving out of the phase ofrecession.

These changes had direct implications for the changing class structure inpostwar Japan.

The path of late but rapid industrialization caused a massive shift in

population out of the farming sector that was accompanied by the expansion of both theblue-collar sector and the white-collar sector at almost the same time.

Total mobility

rates increased rapidly during the high economic growth period of the late 1950s and1960s, and continued to increase modestly until 1985.

Upward mobility rates also

climbed sharply during the initial phase of industrial development in the 1950s and 1960s.
These findings are consistent with the threshold hypothesis advocated by Lipset andZetterburg (1959), predicting the historic increase in mobility rates when a society entersa mature industrial stage.
With regard to relative mobility rates, we observed a very different picture.
Even though Japan experienced a process of late but rapid industrialization andstagnation of its economy, the relative mobility rates or social fluidity patterns wereremarkably stable throughout the postwar period.

No systematic trend was observed.

There was no clear sign of continuous societal openness in postwar Japan, contrary to theprediction of the industrialism thesis.

Our results are not consistent with thepost-industrial rigidity hypothesis, either.

There was no clear tendency of increasing

intergenerational rigidity in the 1990s and 2000s.

Japanese society did not seem tobecome more closed during this recent period.

The results of trend analyses are

consistent with the stability hypothesis which predicted that the strength and pattern ofassociation between class origin and class destination remain stable in industrial
20

―60―

societies.
Taking the results of absolute and relative mobility rates altogether, we arrive at
the following conclusion: the Japanese postwar mobility experience can be understood as
the combination of rapidly changing absolute rates at a time of fast economic growth andremarkably stable relative mobility rates throughout the seventy-year postwar period.
Class origin continues to affect class destination to a similar extent, even though there
was a rapidly changing context of class structure.
Japan.

This conclusion is not unique to

Recent work analyzing new data from Britain (Bukodi et al. 2015) arrives at asimilar conclusion.
In closing this paper, we would like to speculate on why there was a resurgence ofinterest in economic gaps and the discourse on inequality recently in Japan despite there
being little evidence of declining openness in intergenerational mobility.

We claim that

relative mobility rates are very difficult to observe because they involve a comparison ofmobility chances for people from different class origins.

In contrast, absolute mobility

rates, especially upward and downward mobility rates, are relatively more discernible
because they are related to the changing size at the top and the bottom of the classstructure.

We

have

already

pointed

out

that

the

expansionoftheprofessional-managerial class was put on hold in the 2000s for the first time in the
postwar period.

Similarly, the share of the unskilled manual working class increased

modestly but steadily in the 2000s after being stable for several decades.
are easier to observe.

These changes

It is possible that the people’s perceptions and discourse are more

likely to be driven by these changes in absolute rates.

However, underlying mobility

regime represented by relative rates remained stable within the context of changing
absolute rates.

REFERENCES
Bell, Daniel.

1973.

The Coming of Post-industrial Society.

Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan.

1967.

New York: Basic Books.

The American Occupational Structure.

New York: Wiley.
Breen, Richard.

2004.

Social Mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bukodi, Erzsébet, John H. Goldthorpe, Lorraine Waller & Jouni J. Kuha. 2015. “The
Mobility Problem in Britain: New Findings from the Analysis of Birth Cohort Data.”
British Journal of Sociology 66: 93-117.
21

―61―

Davis, Kingsley.

1962.

“The Role of Class Mobility in Economic Development.”

Population Review 6.
Erikson, Robert and John Goldthorpe.
Dream.”_____.

1992a. “The CASMIN Project and the American

European Sociological Review 8: 283-305.

1992b. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Erikson,Robert,John

Goldthorpe,

andLucienne

Portocarero.

“Intergenerational Class Mobility in Three Western European Societies.”

1979.
BritishJournal of Sociology 30: 415-41.
Featherman, David, Frank L. Jones and Robert M. Hauser.

1975.

“Assumptions ofSocial Mobility Research in the United States: The Case of Occupational Status.”
Social Science Research 4: 339-60.
Ganzeboom, Harry B., Ruud Luijkx and Donald Treiman. 1989. “Intergenerational Class
Mobility in Comparative Perspective.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
8: 3-84.
Goldthorpe, John H.

1982.

“On the Service Class, Its Formation and Future.”Pp.

162-85 in Social Class and the Division of Labour, edited by Anthony Giddens andGavin Mackenzie.
_____.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1985b. “On Economic Development and Social Mobility.”

British Journal of

Sociology 36: 549-573.
_____ (with C. Llewellyn and C. Payne) 1987.

Social Mobility and Class Structure inModern Britain. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hara, Junsuke and Kazuo Seiyama. 1999. Shakai Kaiso (Social Stratification). Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Imada, Takatoshi.

1989.

Shakai Kaiso to Seiji (Social Stratification and Politics).

Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
_____. 1997.

“Industrialization and the Regime of Social Mobility in Postwar Japan:

1955-95.”

Paper presented at the meeting of the ISA Research Committee 28, August

14-15 in Quebec City, Canada.
Ishida, Hiroshi.

2001. “Industrialization, Class Structure, and Social Mobility in

Postwar Japan.” British Journal of Sociology 52: 579-604.
_____ . 2004. “Entry into and Exit from Self-Employment in Japan,” in The
Reemergence of Self-Employment: A Comparative Study of Self-Employment Dynamics
and Social Inequality, edited by Richard Arum and Walter Muller (Princeton:
22

―62―

Princeton University Press), pp. 348-387.
Ishida, Hiroshi, John Goldthorpe and Robert Erikson.
Mobility in Post-war Japan.”

1991.

“Intergenerational Class

American Journal of Sociology 96: 954-992.

Ishida, Hiroshi and Satoshi Miwa. 2009. “Kaiso Ido Kara Mita Nihon Shakai,” (JapaneseSociety as Seen from Class Mobility) Japanese Sociological Review 59: 648-662.
_____ . 2011. “Jyoso Howaito Kara no Saiseisan” (Class Reproduction of Upper
White-collar Class) in_____ . 2012. “Intergenerational Mobility and Late Industrialization.” Paper presented at
the RC28 Meeting at the University of Virginia, August 2012.
_____ . 2017. “Social Mobility in Post-war Japan: Long-term Trends and Cross-national
Comparisons.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association, August 2017.
Kanomata, Nobuo.

1987.

“Shakai Kaiso to Ido Kenkyu ni okeru Sangyoka Meidai no

Saikento” (Re-evaluation of Industrialism Thesis in the Study of Social Stratificationand Mobility).
_____ .

Gendai Shakaigaku 13: 156-181.

1997.

“Sengo Nihon niokeru Sedaikan Ido no Hendo” (Changes ofIntergenerational Mobility).

Kodo Keiryogaku 24: 20-27.

Kojima, Hideo and Atsushi Hamana.

1984.

Analysis of Occupational Mobility).

“Shokugyo Ido no Keiko Bunseki” (Trend

Ibaraki Daigaku Kyoiku Gakubu Kiyo 33:

17-32.
Lipset, Seymour M. and Hans L. Zetterberg.
Societies.”“Social Mobility in Industrial

Pp. 11-75 in Social Mobility in Industrial Society, edited by Seymour M.

Lipset and Reinhard Bendix.
Ohtake, Fumio.

1959.

2005.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nihon no Fubyodo (Japan’s Inequality).

Tokyo: Nihon Keizai

Shinbunsha.
Ohtake, Fumio and Makoto Saito. 1999. “Shotoku Fubyodo no Haike to Sono
Seisakuteki Imi” (Background of Income Inequality and Its Policy Implications).
Kikan Shakaihosho Kenkyu 35: 65-76.
Sato, Toshiki.

2000.

Japan as an Unequal Society.

Tokyo: Chuokoron Shinsha.

Seiyama, Kazuo, Atsushi Naoi, Yoshimichi Sato, Kazuharu Tsuzuki and Hideo Kojima.
1990.

“Gendai Nihon no Kaiso Kozo to sono Susei” (The Structure of Stratificationin Contemporary Japan and its Trends).

Pp. 15-50 in Gendai Nihon no Kaiso Kozo

(The Structure of Stratification in Contemporary Japan), vol. 1, edited by Atsushi Naoi
and Kazuo Seiyama. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
23

―63―

Shirahase, Sawako.

2005.

in an Aging Society).

Shoshi Korei Shakai no Mienai Kakusa (The Unseen GapsTokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Shirahase, Sawako (ed.). 2006. Henka Suru Shakai no Fubyodo (Inequality in a
Changing Society). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Shirahase, Sawako.

2014.

Social Inequality in Japan. London: Routledge.

Sorokin, Pitirim A.

1959 (1927).

Glencoe, Il.:Social and Cultural Mobility.

The

Free Press.
Tachibanaki, Toshiaki. 1998.
Treiman, Donald.

1970.

Japan’s Economic Inequality.

Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

“Industrialization and Social Stratification.”Pp. 207 -34 inSocial Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970s, edited by Edward O.
Laumann.
_____.

Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

1990.

“Industrialization and Social Stratification.”

Sociological Inquiry

40: 207-34.
Treiman, Donald and Kam-Bor Yip.

1989.

“Educational and Occupational Attainment

in 21 Countries.”

Pp. 373-94 in Cross-National Research in Sociology, edited by

Melvin L. Kohn.

Newbury Park: Sage.

Tominaga, Ken'ichi.

1979.

“Shakai Kaiso to Shakai Ido no Susei Bunseki” (Trend

Analysis of Social Stratification and Social Mobility).

Pp. 33-87 in Nihon no Kaiso

Kozo (The Structure of Stratification in Japan), edited by Ken'ichi Tominaga.

Tokyo:

University of Tokyo Press.
_____.

1992.

“Sengo Nihon no Shakai Kaiso to sono Hendo: 1955-1985” (Social

Stratification and its Changes in Post-war Japan: 1955-1985).

Pp. 429-495 in Gendai

Nihon Shakai, vol. 6, (Contemporary Japanese Society) edited by Institute of Social
Science, University of Tokyo.
Vallet, Louis-Andre.

Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

2001. “Forty Years of Social Mobility in France: Change in Social

Fluidity in the Light of Recent Models.” Revue Francaise de Sociologie 42(Supplement): 5-64.
Xie, Yu.

1992. “The Log-Multiplicative Layer Effect Model for Contingency Mobility

Table.” American Sociological Review 57: 380-95.
Yasuda, Saburo.

1971.

Shakai Ido no Kenkyu (The Study of Social Mobility).

Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

24―64―