SignificanceThere is widespread belief across the social sciences in the ability of social interventions and social institutions to significantly influence rates of social mobility. In England, 1600 to 2022, we see considerable change in social institutions across time. Half the population was illiterate in 1800, and not until 1880 was compulsory primary education introduced. Progressively after this, educational provision and other social supports for poorer families expanded greatly. The paper shows, however, that these interventions did not change in any measurable way the strong familial persistence of social status across generations.AbstractA lineage of 422,374 English people (1600 to 2022) contains correlations in social outcomes among relatives as distant as 4th cousins. These correlations show striking patterns. The first is the strong persistence of social status across family trees. Correlations decline by a factor of only 0.79 across each generation. Even fourth cousins, with a common ancestor only five generations earlier, show significant status correlations. The second remarkable feature is that the decline in correlation with genetic distance in the lineage is unchanged from 1600 to 2022. Vast social changes in England between 1600 and 2022 would have been expected to increase social mobility. Yet people in 2022 remain correlated in outcomes with their lineage relatives in exactly the same way as in preindustrial England. The third surprising feature is that the correlations parallel those of a simple model of additive genetic determination of status, with a genetic correlation in marriage of 0.57.
My (slight) rewording of his findings.
The current cohort of a family reaching back five generations show significant status correlations.The decline in correlation with genetic distance is stable over time.Familial social mobility is stable over time regardless of changes in technology, social policies and social norms.Assortative mating plays a strong role in status correlations over time and has been stable over nearly 200 years.
These findings suggest family formation and genes are where status outcomes are determined and that technology, social policies and other exogenous events, momentous though they may be in determining levels of prosperity or violence, have little effect on changed social status.
If true, and of course it needs to be rigorously tested, this creates an interesting challenge to progressives.
For Classical Liberals, not so much. Classical Liberals are comfortable with the fact that there will be variance in economic and social status fortunes. With their focus on Rule of Law, Equality Before the Law, Due Process, Property Rights, Natural Rights (freedom of speech, religion, assembly affiliation, etc.) they know that there will be variance. In that context, the focus is on ensuring that the bottom 1% (5%, 10%, . . . ) are at least above poverty, or safely above poverty.
If social status is persistent over centuries, that doesn't particularly matter as long as the safety net is strong and fair.
For Progressives and Marxists though, if Clarks findings are validated, it undermines their entire philosophy which is based on the malleability of individuals through incentives and coercion. If individuals' ability to change is constrained owing to the dynamics of genes and assortative mating (freedom of speech, freedom of affiliation and freedom of religion), then what role remains for social policy if it cannot achieve equality/equity.
We know from the historical record from the 1870s onwards that the progressive/Marxist ideology has always failed, and almost always failed catastrophically.
Clark's research suggests part of a reason why it fails. It also suggests that the only way to disrupt the record is to take control of genes and assortative mating. A coercive bridge too far for almost everyone.
Fascinating research with explosive implications. And I would much rather be a Classical Liberal having to accommodate the implications of his research than be a progressive/Marxist. Their weak case just gets increasingly weaker and less likely.
No comments:
Post a Comment