Does Moving Change Anything? Residential Mobility and Inequality in France, 2003-2011

1

T. Sigaud ‘Does moving change anything ? Residential mobility and inequality in France: 2003-2011’

Does moving change anything?

Residential Mobility and Inequality inFrance: 2003-2011

American Sociological Association 108th

Annual Meeting

Population Section 396

New York (NY), 08/12/2013

Thomas SIGAUD [email protected]

PhD Candidate in Sociology +33662726134

IRISSO – Université Paris Dauphine

Place du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny

75775 Paris Cedex 16 FRANCE

mailto:[email protected]

2


Abstract

This proposal aims to analyze inequality through the scope of residential mobilities. Although it

is absent from mobility studies, residential mobility accounts for two dimensions of inequality: both

its social effects and the way it is produced. Studying residential mobility is a way to consider how

micro-level decisions shape and are shaped by macro-level patterns of inequality. This paper asks if

mobility does change anything to inequality or not.

Relying on analysis of data from the Employment Survey in France from 2003 to 2011, this

paper establishes that residential mobility is greatly determined by preexisting inequalities. The

2008-2009 economic crisis plays an important part in the link between residential mobility and

inequality. Measurement of the positional consequences of residential mobility shows that it can be a

powerful way to achieve upward social mobility. It also shows that it can coincide with downward

social mobility. Modeling of the effects of mobility on employment and occupation reveals how

important the distinction between mobility and immobility is to account for the dynamics of

inequality.

Over and above results on inequality itself, the paper concludes on how focusing on inequalities

showed that residential mobility is a fundamentally ambivalent social phenomenon that should be

better integrated in sociological research.

Keywords

Residential mobility, Inequality, Social mobility, Occupational mobility, France

3


One of the reasons why inequality is such a great challenge for social sciences is its ability to

both and sometimes simultaneously change shape and reproduce itself (Bourdieu 1979). Sociological

analysis of inequality has to account for these two characteristics. Geographical mobilities may be an

adequate observation unit to do so. Geographical mobilities as a locus of study and as an analytical

tool are now central in the research agendas of social sciences (Bissel, Fuller 2011: 3). All things

considered, “all the world is on the move” (Sheller and Urry 2006: 207). The development of

mobility-centered research comes with the mobilization of strong metaphors in order to formulate a

new paradigm that should be able to overturn the classical conceptions of society (Urry 2000, 2007).

Mobility is to embody a new way of thinking the concept of “social”.

All mobility studies lay stress on the underlying question of inequalities (Ohnmacht, Maksim

and Bergman 2009). In broad terms, mobility is a micro-decision that consists in using resources in

order to access new resources. It is at the same time produced by, producing and reproducing macro

patterns of inequalities. When Kaufmann highlights the concept of “motility”, he insists on the fact

that motility can be exchanged for other types of capitals and then impacts on many dimensions of

inequalities (Kaufmann 2002, Kaufmann, Bergman and Joye 2004). Motility is then “an inescapable

dimension of inequalities” (Kaufmann 2008: 60); it is both an operational concept and an analytical

tool to study how inequalities get produced or reproduced. Accessing mobility is indeed a central

issue, but it often makes the question of inequalities come down to the one of the distribution of the

capacity to move, thus marginalizing the question of social outcomes of mobilities themselves. Being

mobile is a way to access spatially embedded resource sand sociological research should pay

attention not only to the capacity of individuals to become mobile, but also to the efficiency of

mobility as a way to develop one’s access to those resources. Linking mobilities and inequality leads

to the following question: are mobilities an efficient way for individuals to change the pattern of

inequalities?

4


This proposal is based on an analysis of residential mobility in France between 2003 and 2011.

Residential mobility, defined here as a change of primary residence or home, is often absent of

mobility studies. For instance, authors put the stress on daily, urban, virtual, imaginary or tourism

mobilities (Kaplan 1996, Urry 2000, Cresswell 2006, Sheller and Urry 2007, Adey 2010) and don’t

mention residential mobility. The specialized journal Mobilities focuses on matters linked to

transports and hasn’t published any papers covering residential mobility since its first issue in 2006.

International mobility, migrations and large-scale relocations can sometimes be subjects for mobility

studies but residential mobility scarcely is. Some mention residential mobility as a part of the

research agendas, but leave it to the smallest share (Kaufmann 2011: 27 28). Mobility is primarily

shown as movement (Cresswell 2010: 556) or studied in terms of speed potentials (Kaufmann 2002).

That may be a consequence of the importance of the nomadism metaphor in founding mobility

studies (Kaplan 1996, Makimoto and Manners 1997, Knafou, Touraine and Pierret 1998). Moving

from a home to another is, in respect of that metaphor, much more sedentary than nomad. After all,

isn’t a home a “place”, and then a matter for mooring instead of mobility? Several objections can be

raised at that this conception of residential mobility. First, mobility studies have already

acknowledged the necessity of a research agenda fully jointing concepts of mobility and stillness

(Cresswell 2006, Hannam, Sheller and Urry 2006). Second and above all, changing home cannot be

reduced to a way of mooring somewhere else. Residential mobility is by definition a mobility. It is

my understanding that its role in mobility studies should be revised.

From a mobile person’s point of view, residential mobility is a strain on so many resources that

it is not easily reversed. Long-distance residential mobility is a radical change of scenery that inserts

the mobile individual in a new territory. Each territory defines a set of spatially embedded economic,

social or residential resources. Mobility is the social activity of mobilizing some resources to access

5


other resources. Individual mobility choices are framed by position-determined sets of resources

defining at the same time some opportunities and some constraints. Mobility itself then contributes to

define new positions and new sets of resources that are not just a reflection of the previous ones.

Residential mobility is a privileged vantage point on the dynamics of inequalities and makes it

possible to joint geographical mobility studies and social mobility studies.

Residential mobility covers all the micro-decisions of individuals changing home between

territories. Those territories have to be on the whole culturally and administratively coherent. And

they have to offer differentiated patterns of spatially embedded resources. International migrations as

well as short-distance residential mobilities are thus not included in this proposal. This proposal

restricts residential mobilities to mobilities between French administrative units called

“départements” (depaʀtəm ). Départements are roughly similar to American counties in terms of

surface. As it has been established that intra-départements mobilities are essentially governed by

family-related motivations (Debrand, Taffin 2005), the intra-département scope is not relevant to

study all inequalities linked to job and employment, such as income inequalities or occupational

inequalities.

Residential mobility as defined here implies a rearrangement of all the personal, familial and

work-related dimensions of individual life. This rearrangement gives a unique perspective on the

dynamics of inequalities. As mobility is a new central form of social activity, should it not attenuate

or at least reshape more “classical” inequalities like educational, occupational or gender-related

ones? Should it not also create new forms of inequalities? The issue is to know if residential mobility

is an efficient tool for lower-income, lower-education and lower-occupation people to change

anything in the pattern of inequalities or to benefit from its rearrangement.

Focusing on the 2003 to 2012 period gives a unique perspective on the interactions between

mobilities and the socio-economic context. 2008 has seen France slip into recession and effects

6


showed on residential mobility as soon as 2009. Giving special attention to those turning years

allows to measure and to analyze the massive and swift changes residential mobility underwent. This

perspective leads to a strong statement: the link between mobility and inequality has to be thought

first and foremost in terms of plasticity. If mobility can change existing social arrangements, it also is

deeply influenced by those and then contributes to the emergence of all new forms of social change.

The core perspective of this proposal is to know if mobilities can contribute to change the pattern of

inequalities or not. Although this workMobi is based on still ongoing research, results are robust

enough to discuss hypotheses and propose new leads to further research.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 presents the data and categories used to study the

links between residential mobility and inequalities. Section 2 describes residential mobility in France.

The high unevenness of mobility rates between various categories of population shows how much

residential mobility is shaped by pre-existing inequalities. Section 3 measures the effect of residential

mobility on employment and occupation. Results show that mobility is at the same time a powerful

way to reach upward social mobility and a threat on least endowed individuals’ positions. Section 4

proposes a change of scope to test the hypothesis that residential mobility and stillness create new

categories of individuals relevant enough to account for new dynamics of inequalities. Econometric

modeling shows that, other things being equal, mobility doesn’t play a determinant role in those

dynamics. Section 5 concludes on the relevance of residential mobility in order to deepen

sociological analyses of the impact of micro-level decisions on macro-level structured inequality. It

also highlights the benefits social sciences would take from including residential mobilities in further

research.

7


1. Data and categories

This proposal relies on the analysis of the French Employment Survey (“Enquête Emploi”) led

by the National Statistics and Economics Studies Institute (INSEE, “Institut National des Statistiques

et des Etudes Economiques”). The Employment Survey is one of the key surveys in the French

statistical apparatus. The main purpose of this survey is to observe both the structural and economic

situation of people in the employment market. It forms part of the “Labour Force Surveys” defined

by the European Union, and is the only source that provides a measurement for the concepts of

activity, unemployment and inactivity as defined by the International Labour Organization.

Questions cover employment, unemployment, training, social origin, situation one year before, and

main situation on a monthly basis over the last twelve months. Employment Surveys began in the

1950s and have kept being sophisticated up to now (Goux 2003). The surveys cover all individuals

aged 15 and more. The current survey protocol began in 2003 and data is available up to 2011. Data

collection is quarterly and between 75.000 and 125.000 individuals are surveyed every quarter.

INSEE provides weight coefficients and the survey is representative of French population aged 15

and more. Older versions of the Employment Studies back to 1963 are also available to the research

community. However, due to major breaks in series and strong heterogeneity of protocols, these

older surveys are not mobilized here.

Three kinds of inequalities are addressed in this proposal: income, occupation and education.

Surveyed individuals are grouped in ad hoc categories. Individual monthly income is grouped in five

categories based on deciles:

8


# Category name Deciles

1 Higher income >D8

2 Medium-high

income

D7-D8

3 Medium income D5-D6

4 Medium-low

income

D3-D4

5 Lower income ≤ D2

In order to report and account for occupational inequalities, six occupational categories are used,

following the French socio-occupational nomenclature (“PCS”):

#

Category name

% of population

2003 2011

3 Executives, professionals, higher salariat 14 % 17 %

4 Intermediate occupations, middle

management, supervisors

23 % 25 %

5 Unskilled employees

(service, sales, clerical occupations)

39 % 29 %

6 Workers (skilled and unskilled) 25 % 22 %

Remaining individuals are self-employed or are occupied in the farm sector. On account of their

sociological specificity and above all of heavy problems of statistical robustness due to small sample

sizes, these categories are not included in this proposal. In order to study onward and downward

occupational mobility in all its extent, lowest and highest occupational categories can be detailed.

Occupational mobility is possible inside the #6 category between skilled and unskilled workers.

9


Likewise, higher level professionals, general management and other higher salariat positions can be

identified within the #3 category.

Finally, five levels of education are used:

# Education % of population

2003 2011

1

Higher education (masters, “grandes

écoles”, professional studies…)

10% 14%

2

Advanced vocational training,

bachelor degrees

9% 10%

3 High school graduates 14% 18%

4

Middle school education, vocational

training…

31% 31%

5 No education 36% 28%

Each individual is surveyed six terms in a row. One sixth of the population answers the set of

questions covering individual situation one year before. Privacy rules and INSEE’s anonymisation

policy makes it impossible to use Employment Surveys as longitudinal data but it is possible to

measure residential, occupational and employment situation changes on a one year basis. All

individuals who declare a situation change during a one-year period before the current survey are

considered mobile. Employment surveys are now considered as an efficient way to study residential

mobility (Donzeau, Pan Ké Shon 2009) as well as employment and occupational mobility (Lallé

2012).

10


2. Access to residential mobility is highly impacted by inequalities

Inter-département residential mobility in France is much lower than it was during the 1970s:

Residential mobility dived from 3.7% in 1970 to a 2.3% minimum in 1985. It followed an

upward trendfrom 1992 (2.4%) to 2008 (2.8%). Residential mobility is highly pro-cyclic. GDP

growth was strong in France from 1998 to 2000 when residential mobility rates were on the high.

The 2008 and 2009 recession came with a major break in mobility rates. The only precedent is 1976.

Rates have been up since 2010 and residential mobility seems to get back on the slowly growing

trend that started in the 1990’s. 2003, 2008 and 2011 are from now on to be used as key dates to

study residential mobility and its effects.

Analysis of profile shows that individuals endowed with higher income, higher occupation or

higher education are over-represented among the mobile individuals.

2,0%

2,5%

3,0%

3,5%

4,0%

Long period residential mobility in France

11


Effect on residential mobility

(% deviation from mean)

2003 2008 2011

Income

Higher income

Medium income

Lower income

+ 30%

-3%

- 18%

+ 13%

- 13%

0%

- 2%

- 1%

+ 14%

Occupation

Higher occupations

Intermediate occupations

+ 62%

+ 22%

- 4%

- 49%

+ 47%

+ 9%

- 17%

- 18 %

+ 19%

+ 7%

+ 1%

- 24%

Unskilled employees

Workers

Education

Higher education

Intermediate education

+ 155%

+ 67%

- 61%

+ 105%

+ 91%

- 66%

+ 78%

+ 73%

- 57% Lower education

In 2011, lower income individuals had a residential mobility rate 14% higher than the average.

In 2000, residential mobility rate of workers was almost halved compared to the average.

It seems that the motility perspective is relevant here: access to mobility is a matter of resources.

That accounts for the fact that highly endowed individuals get easier access to mobility. But the

measure of residential mobility rates for each category brings out new elements. In 2003, residential

mobility rates of the least endowed individuals were clearly lower than the average. That confirms

the previous result about permeability between classical types of inequalities and access to mobility.

But evolution in time shows surprising elements. Situations have been overturned during the 2003-

2011 period. The effect of higher education on mobility rates has been halved. The effect of higher

12


occupations has been divided by three. And above all, lower-income individuals now have greater

mobility rates than the others. Mobility does then not sum up to motility. Less-endowed individuals’

mobility rates are higher and can even exceed others’.

Two hypotheses might account for this result. Less resourceful people might be the ones who

cannot resist forced mobilities, like for instance job relocation or high pressure on home rental prices

(H1). But less resourceful people might also be the ones who have on the one hand the less to lose by

being mobile and on the other hand stronger incentives to try and “change scenery” by being mobile

(H2). Both hypotheses are not exclusive which highlights once more the ambivalent link between

mobilities and inequality. It also highlights the ambiguity of mobility itself for two similar moves

may conceal different natures of mobilities. If less endowed individuals are more and more mobile, it

doesn’t mean that they access the same kind of mobility than the more privileged one.

13


3. Effects of residential mobility on the least endowed ones’ situation are ambivalent

Further analysis still need to be performed. However, two results are already showing. The first

result is that residential mobility has strong positive effects on employment and occupational

mobility:

Effect of residential mobility (% deviation from mean) on:

Finding a job Having a higher occupation

2003 2008 2011 2003 2008 2011

All +42% +60% +49% +167% +137% +184%

Lower education +63% +35% +72% +129% +129% +62%

Lower occupations +20% +42% +44% - - -

Lower income - - - +346% +141% ns

In 2003, mobile lower educated people have chances 129% higher to reach a

higher occupation than immobile ones

The second result is that residential mobility greatly improves chances to experience an upward

mobility. Least educated people get the most benefits from mobility when it comes to find a job.

Residential mobility is really efficient to compensate low education when looking for a job. It also

plays a key role in giving access to higher occupations, but this advantage is weaker when education

is low. Residential mobility comes with benefits, but it doesn’t contribute to shrink the gap between

the least endowed people and the others.

14


Effect of residential mobility (% deviation from mean) on:

Losing a job Having a lower occupation

2003 2008 2011 2003 2008 2011

All +308% +321% +219% +35% +85% +210%

Lower education +304% +379% +239% +33% -12% +153%

Lower occupations +257% +338% +163% +99% +219% +320%

Lower income - - - +743%- +244% +368%

Being mobile has an effect on downward employment and occupational mobility. Mobility is as

much a risk than an opportunity. The effect of residential mobility on downward occupational

mobility kept increasing since 2003. The economic crisis had two consequences. First, the effect of

residential mobility increased greatly. Second, the specific effect of each characteristic is both raised

and converged. The two hypotheses H1 and H2 are then both confirmed. Mobility is the only

resource of those who lack educational or positional resources. But it is also a strain on them. In any

case, mobility does reshape inequalities.

15


4. Mobility as a new source of inequality.

The effect of residential mobility on employment and job mobility is estimated with generalized

logit models. All coefficients are highly significant (p < 0.01).

Model 1

Finding a job

Model 2

Losing a job

Model 3

Higher occupation

Model 4

Lower occupation

2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011

Residential mobility

Yes

No

2,5

Ref

1,9

Ref

3,8

Ref

2,7

Ref

1,7

Ref

2,5

Ref

2

Ref

3,1

Ref

Age

15-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 and more

2

1,2

Ref

0,6

0,4

1,8

1,1

Ref

0,5

0,2

2,1

1

Ref

0,7

0,3

2,5

1,3

Ref

0,7

0,3

2,5

1,6

Ref

0,9

0,7

2,3

1,4

Ref

0,7

0,5

1,5

1,1

Ref

1,4

1,4

1,2

1,1

Ref

1,2

0,9

Gender

Male

Female

Ref

0,9

Ref

1,1

Ref

1,4

Ref

1,1

Ref

1,3

Ref

0,9

Ref

0,7

Ref

0,7

Education

Higher education

High education

Medium education

Low education

Lower education

Ref

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,3

Ref

1,1

0,9

0,6

0,5

Ref

0,6

1,4

1,5

2,3

Ref

0,9

1,1

1,3

1,7

Ref

1,3

1,8

2,9

3,2

Ref

1,9

3,1

5,1

4,6

Ref

0,4

0,2

0,2

0,1

Ref

0,7

0,5

0,3

0,2

Occupation

Higher occupations

Intermediate occ.

Unskilled employees

Workers

1

Ref

1,4

0,7

0,8

Ref

0,9

0,9

0,7

Ref

1

1,2

0,9

Ref

1,6

1,9

2,5

Ref

ns

ns

2,3

Ref

ns

ns

ns

Ref

3,6

4

ns

Ref

2,8

3,4

Income

Higher incomes

Medium high incomes

Medium incomes

Medium low incomes

Lower incomes

Ref

1,1

1,2

2,1

1,5

Ref

1,4

1,6

2,1

1,7

Ref

0,6

0,4

0,5

0,7

Ref

0,6

0,4

0,3

0,4

16


As information on income is not available for unemployed individuals, income is not used in

model 1 and model 2.

Analysis of these models shows four results. First, gender plays a significant but small part in

the explanation of employment and occupational mobility. Women’s jobs are a bit more insecure

than men’s, but their occupations are not. Gender effect is even slighter in 2011 than in 2008. More

detailed analysis would help to detail specific gender effects but when it comes to residential

mobility, gender isn’t a major dimension of inequality.

Second, the late 2000s economic crisis had an impact on the role of residential mobility in

explaining changes in employment or occupation. Effect of residential mobility on having found or

having lost a job has been reduced from 2008 to 2011 while its effect on occupation change rose.

Mobility takes a part in the macro-level

Third, mobility has a strong positive effect on all explained events. It strengthens chances of

employment and occupational change, be it upward or downward. The social process at work with

residential mobility is linked with the question of resources, but it doesn’t sum up to a mere

acknowledgement of high or low sets of resources. Residential mobility is an ambiguous process, and

it is by and large autonomous from educational, occupational or income-related inequalities.

Fourth, mobility never has the stronger effect on employment and occupational mobility. Some

factors have on the whole a greater impact on employment and occupational mobility. But those

factors don’t speak for themselves. They reveal the importance of structural dimensions of mobility.

For instance, that’s why unskilled employees or workers have greater chances to reach a better

occupation. All things being equal, residential mobility is what makes the difference between

structural and net explanations of actual employment and occupational mobility. Those results

suggest that residential mobility creates new inequalities not only between those who take advantage

of it and the others, but also between those who move and those who don’t.

17


5. Conclusion

This proposal aimed at testing the use of residential mobility as a vantage point to study the

dynamics of inequality. Does inequality produces and reproduces itself through residential mobility?

Or is changing scenery a way for individuals to overturn various inequalities by using mobility as a

way to access new resources? The core result of this study is that residential mobility undoubtedly

does a difference. It is a powerful way for less endowed individuals to free themselves from the

fetters of inequalities and go for upward social mobility. With the economic slump settling in, more

and more of these individuals resort to residential mobility in order to get access to new resources.

At the same time, residential mobility undermines the socio-economic situation of all kind of

people, be they occupying higher or lower positions in social hierarchies. The least endowed people

cannot reach better positions without mobility. But mobility doesn’t allow to narrow the gap between

those and the better endowed ones. Mobility is deeply ambivalent. It is shaped by pre-existing

inequalities but it also makes individual positions change. All individuals, have they high or low

resources, experience upward or downward mobility when being mobile. Further research should

from now question the micro layouts that lead to mobility or to immobility. What are the

organizational, socio-psychological and material dimensions of becoming mobile? What makes the

difference between socially profitable mobilities and the others? In other words: how come that

social outcomes of mobility are so undetermined?

Residential mobility is an efficient way of studying the link between micro and macro

dimensions of inequality. Individual choices and mobility decisions are framed by macro-level

patterns of inequality. It then contributes to reproduce as well as to change them. Moreover, social

effects of individual decisions are not determined by previous positions in the social hierarchies. The

ambivalence and plasticity of mobility make it particularly suitable as a way to question inequality,

18


which confirms the relevance of further integration of residential mobility in sociological research

agendas.

Bibliography

Adey P, Mobility. London; New York: Routledge, 2010.

Bissell D and Fuller G, Stillness in a mobile world. London; New York: Routledge, 2011.

Bourdieu P, La distinction, critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Minuit, 1979.

Cresswell T, On the move : mobility in the modern Western world. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Cresswell T, “Mobilities I: Catching Up.” Progress in Human Geography 35, no. 4 (November

5, 2010): 550–558.

Donzeau, N and Pan Ké Shon J.-L, “Residential Mobility Trends in France, 1973-2006. New

Estimates”Population (English Edition) 64, no. 4 (2009) : 685-703.

Goux, D, “Une histoire de l’Enquête Emploi.” Economie et Statistique, no. 362 (2003): 41–57.

Hannam K, Sheller M, and Urry J. “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.”

Mobilities 1, no. 1 (March 2006): 1–22.

Kaplan C Questions of travel : postmodern discourses of displacement. Durham, N.C.: Duke

University Press, 1996.

Kaufmann, Vincent. Re-thinking mobility : contemporary sociology. Aldershot, Hampshire,

England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.

Kaufmann V, Bergman M M and Joye D. “Motility: Mobility as Capital.” International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research 28, no. 4 (December 2004): 745–756.

19


KaufmannV Les paradoxes de la mobilité : bouger, s’enraciner. Lausanne: Presses

polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2008.

Kaufmann V. Rethinking the city : urban dynamics and motility. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon;

New York, NY; Lausanne, Switzerland: Routledge ; EPFL Press, 2011

Knafou R, Touraine A, and Pierret C. La Planète Nomade: Les Mobilités Géographiques

D’aujourd’hui. Festival International De Géographie De Saint-Dié-des-Vosges. Paris: Belin, 1998

Lallé E, “Trends in occupational mobility in France : 1982-2009” Labour Economics 19 (2012):

373-387

Makimoto T and Manners D. Digital nomad. New York: Wiley, 1997.

Ohnmacht T, Maksim H, and Bergman M M. Mobilities and inequality. Farnham, England;

Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Co., 2009.

Sheller M and Urry J. Mobile technologies of the city. London; New York: Routledge, 2006.

Urry J. Sociology beyond societies mobilities for the twenty-first century. London; New York:

Routledge, 2000.

Urry J. Mobilities. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity, 2007.

Documents

Does Moving Change Anything? Residential Mobility and Inequality in France, 2003-2011