5. EXCEPCIONES DEL CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO
5.2. Renuncia del paciente a la información
Before a person reaches adulthood, their chances of being socially mobile are likely to have been influenced by experiences in childhood. Family background accounts for many of these factors
(Blanden, 2008, Gutman and Feinstein, 2010, Hughes and Cooke, 2007, Waldfogel, 2004, Duncan et al., 1998). For example, it is well known in the UK that affluent families are likely to select neighbourhoods within the catchment areas of high-performing schools (Burgess and Briggs, 2010, Gibbons and Telhaj, 2007). This drives up housing prices, which means children from poorer families cannot afford to live in the catchment area of high-performing schools and have little choice but to attend one with a poorer reputation. Children from affluent families are also likely to afford private tuition, better equipment and to take part in more extra-curricular activities that enhance their early life experiences (Esping-Andersen, 2004, Sullivan and Whitty, 2005). These experiences provide children from affluent families with positive role models, social and intellectual capital, and aspirations for social mobility in adulthood (Ermisch and Francesconi, 2001). In some cases, the networks (or ‘weak ties’) made during school and higher education can also play a significant role in determining social mobility in adulthood (Granovetter, 1973).
In comparison, children growing up in poorer families and attending less prestigious schools are likely to be more exposed to a different set of attitudes, which may discourage higher education and upward social mobility (Reay, 2004, 2006, Connor, 2001). Children in poorer families are also more often exposed to stressful events such as parental divorce and financial difficulties, which may have impacts on their behavioural and cognitive development and completion of their education (Margo and Dixon, 2006, Rowlingson and McKay, 2005, Weitoft et al., 2004, Amato, 2000, Crane, 1991).
Education has also been shown to be important for social mobility, when socioeconomic position is measured by occupational social class (Breen, 1997, Breen and Goldthorpe, 2001, Breen and Jonsson, 2005, Platt, 2007), and also by income (Blanden et al., 2006, Blanden., 2006). Educational qualifications are often among the criteria for applying to higher-status jobs through formal pathways (Ioannides and Loury, 2004), although it should be acknowledged that
occupational achievement does not necessarily correlate perfectly with social mobility. For example, it is possible for a person to increase their income but not change occupational class (Gorard, 2008).
The importance of education explains why many more people have continued in higher education at University level in the last 20 years in England (Goldthorpe and Jackson, 2007). However, despite more people obtaining higher standards of qualifications in recent years, this has not guaranteed that every University graduate would achieve upward social mobility (Goldthorpe and Mills, 2008). According to various researchers, the returns on investment in education have fallen over time (Breen, 2004, Jackson et al., 2007). Many qualified individuals have not experienced upward social mobility, but a state of ‘over-qualification’ (Green and McIntosh, 2007). For example, a person with a university degree engaged in a type of employment that does not require higher education may be considered over-qualified.
Besides family background and educational qualifications, other factors are also likely to influence social mobility. An important characteristic of the literature has been the focus on men, and the exclusion of women from analyses of social mobility (Payne and Abbott, 1990, Goldthorpe and Payne, 1986). This was the case on Glass’s early investigation (Glass, 1963), and was still the case in Blanden et al (2005) recent study. Women were originally excluded from studies of social mobility because they were not considered to be a significant part of the labour force (Goldthorpe and Payne, 1986). Women were often assumed to share the same socioeconomic position as their marital partner (Goldthorpe and Hope, 1974, Goldthorpe and Payne, 1986, Goldthorpe et al., 1987). This excludes single women and devalues the labour of those who were actually in employment.
Despite the previous omission of women, gender inequalities in social mobility are becoming increasingly well-documented (Payne, 2007, Payne and Abbott, 1990, Payne and Roberts, 2002).
The reality is that men’s and women’s participation in the labour market are both important to consider. Studies have shown that there is a gendered segregation of particular jobs in the labour market (Payne and Abbott, 1990). However, with some women increasingly seeking better paid types of employment traditionally dominated by men (e.g. finance and management), this creates more competition for those jobs (Reskin and Roos, 1990). Meanwhile, time spent out of the labour market for reasons related to household labour, childbirth and child-rearing is often suggested to reduce women’s social mobility in comparison to men (Waldfogel, 1998, Cooke et al., 2009). As childbirth and rearing is strongly related to age, it is likely that the chance of achieving social mobility varies between men and women at different time periods in their lives. Furthermore, age-discrimination in the labour market is also known to have a gendered effect on opportunities for social mobility (Duncan and Loretto, 2004), resulting in the segregation of women into low-paid employment such as nursing or secretarial work (England et al., 2007). Therefore, although married women were once thought to share the same social mobility as their partners, this assumption has long been rejected (Payne and Abbott, 1990, Erikson, 1984).
Different trajectories in social mobility are possible between men and women who live in the same household and this is illustrated by research on job-related migration in the UK, USA and the Netherlands (Boyle et al., 1999, 2003, 2009, Cooke et al., 2001, 2009, Mulder and van Ham, 2005, van Ham, 2001). When looking for jobs, people who have the flexibility to search over a wider geographical area are likely to benefit from a greater range of opportunities than those who restrict themselves to the local area only. Those who accept the compromise of moving or commuting over long distances increase their competitiveness, which can accelerate career trajectories through increased incomes and higher status jobs (van Ham, 2001, Mulder and van Ham, 2005).
However, in reality this is not always the case. For example, there are gender differences in the association between social mobility and spatial mobility. In the Netherlands, van Ham reports
that men who accept jobs over long distances make faster career advancement compared to those who took jobs more locally to where they lived. For women, there was no positive effect of migration on their own social mobility unless the move was specifically for their own career (van Ham, 2001). Although the opposite (men following women’s migration for jobs) was not investigated in these studies, it is possible that the reverse is also true. Other studies have also reported positive effects of migration on the social mobility of men (Bonney and Love, 1991, Smits, 2001). However, another study suggested that women only benefit after multiple moves (Mulder and van Ham, 2005). Meanwhile, Boyle et al reported in several studies that women who move with a partner often suffer downward social mobility in the labour market (Boyle et al., 1999, 2003, 2009, Cooke et al., 2001, 2009). Therefore, the association between social and spatial mobility is likely to vary between men and women.
Social mobility may not only be related to how far a person is willing to move and commute from their residence, but it could also be associated with the constraints which limit whether a person can move for social mobility. Couple status is one of those constraints, with single people being more able to move to take up opportunities for social mobility than those who share a household with family members. Family composition is also important, for example, if there are dependents to look after this may restrict the hours in a day which a person can work, the acceptability of particular types of jobs and the duration of commuting. Household tenure is another constraint on social mobility. Private renters of households are usually committed to short-term contracts, which gives them flexibility and spatially mobility to be able to react to job-related opportunities. In comparison, homeowners are often tied into long-term mortgage contracts, and the selling of property is a time-consuming and expensive process, both of which means that people who own homes must plan ahead as they are less able to react to new job information as fast as private renters. Meanwhile, social housing renters are often economically disadvantaged and cannot
afford to purchase property or rent in the private sector, limiting their ability to search for jobs over long distances (Clark and Huang, 2003).
Although immigrant status, family background, educational qualifications, age, gender, couple status, household mobility and tenure have all been considered, ethnic minorities remain persistently disadvantaged compared to UK-born Whites (Heath and Cheung, 2007). However, it is important to consider that people do not only differ by individual characteristics. The experiences and life-chances of immigrants and their children are also likely to have differed by geographic patterns of settlement (Peach, 2007).
As mentioned earlier, ethnic minorities are more likely to live in deprived neighbourhoods than UK-born Whites (Phillips, 1998). They have been residentially concentrated into urban neighbourhoods, especially in London and other cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford (Rees and Butt, 2004). However, unlike in some areas of the USA, these ethnic minority concentrated neighbourhoods are usually the most ethnically diverse within the UK (Simpson and Finney, 2009). These geographical differences may play important roles in the adaptation and socioeconomic integration of ethnic groups (Zhou, 1997). Furthermore, many theories have been developed through trying to understand why where people live may be important for people’s life chances. From Wilson’s ‘social isolation’ to Portes’ ‘ethnic enclave’ and Putnam’s ‘constrict’ hypotheses (Wilson, 1987, Portes and Manning, 2005, Putnam, 2007), neighbourhoods have been suggested to play an important role in people’s lives.
However, it is surprising that most studies of ethnic inequalities in social mobility have not given sufficient consideration to neighbourhood characteristics, especially deprivation, as an explanation for the ethnic penalties. Neighbourhoods may play a key role in determining ethnic inequalities in social mobility in England. However, there has been little research in this context. Some academics, politicians and policymakers suggest that neighbourhood deprivation and ethnic
residential concentration may affect life-chances, but often with little evidence (see Cheshire, 2007). Therefore, it is important to investigate whether ethnic inequalities in social mobility are linked to neighbourhood characteristics (Friedrichs et al., 2003, Musterd, 2005, Finney and Simpson, 2009b, Peach, 1996b, Phillips, 1998, 2006, Cheshire, 2007). This is the aim of my thesis.