Measuring Socio-Economic Status

Measuring Socioeconomic Status
1. Learning Objectives
After reviewing this chapter readers should be able to: • • • • Understand what socioeconomic status is; Appreciate the difference between a composite and a proxy measure is; Identify the three major uses of SES in research; and Appreciate the limits of SES measurement.

2. Introduction
Socioeconomic status is one of those termstypically learned in a seventh grade social studies or civics class and then used in college term papers to subtly suggest a deep understanding of how society works, or perhaps how it should work. While it is understandable that few go beyond a cursory understanding of the construct, among social scientists the term is serious business because it connotes one’s position in the social hierarchy, how thehierarchy is structured, and very often one’s consequent life chances. In other words, socioeconomic status (hereinafter SES) indicates one’s access to collectively desired resources, be they material goods, money, power, friendship networks, healthcare, leisure time, or educational opportunities. And it is access to such resources that enable individuals and/or groups to prosper in the socialworld. Social hierarchy, or stratification, appears to be intuitively recognized by most everyone everywhere (Smith et al. 2011). During social interactions various indicators are typically displayed or revealed in order to convey one’s SES to other members of the social group . Common indicators include professional titles, clothing, hairstyles, automobiles, residential addresses and so forth. Allsocial animals, be they wolves, whales, monkeys, or humans, appear to appreciate, or at least recognize, social hierarchies and their position in them (Gesquiere et al. 2011; Sapolsky 2005). The level of sophistication of a hierarchy may be as simple as a pecking order based entirely on physical prowess, often with an alpha male atop.

Hierarchies may also be extremely multidimensional and complex,such as contemporary human societies, with innumerate subgroups and subcultures, and with stratification built along many lines including intelligence, appearance, talent, experience, age, pedigree, language accent, work ethic, and so forth. Relatedly, the level in inequality within and between dimensions of SES varies as well (Smith et al. 2011).

http://www.esourceresearch.org

Page 22. Introduction
Overview of the Research Process
There is a vast array research and inquiry into the nature and process of human social stratification over time and across societies, the mobility of actors within such societies, and the implications for well-being and life chances within the same (Krieger 1997; Oakes and Rossi 2003; Spilerman 2000; Van Leeuwen and Maas 2010). My take is thatabout half the work is devoted to descriptions and empirical facts about how a given society is stratified, and half is devoted to how a given society should be stratified, if at all. In any case, this is not the place to review the work or offer a serious taxonomy of it. Many contemporary scholars appear interested in SES because it serves as an indicator of the health of a social system or society,often measured against some egalitarian or meritocratic ideal. Informally stated, the meritocratic ideal is that regardless of birth right or inherited endowments, individuals may increase their SES through effort, including but not limited to the development of their inherited endowments (Bowles, Gintis and Wright 1998) . Societies without such potential are often viewed as less healthy if notbackwards. For meritocrats and egalitarians alike, stratification based on birth (i.e., luck) or discrimination based on race, gender, religious ideology, or ethnic background are anathema to social or civil progress (Arrow, Bowles and Durlauf 2000).

http://www.esourceresearch.org

Page 3

2. Introduction
Another group of contemporary scholars seems interested in SES in order to rule out...