Social class, family background, and intergenerational mobility: A comment on Mcintosh and Munk Robert Erikson à , John H. Goldthorpe Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, SE-1069 Stockholm, Sweden article info Article history: Received 28 December 2007 Accepted 21 May 2008 Available online 10 June 2008 JEL classification: I3 J3 J6 Keywords: Social class Erikson–Goldthorpe class schema Social mobility abstract McIntosh and Munk claim that the class schema developed by Erikson and Goldthorpe lacks validity and should not be taken as a basis for studies of intergenerational social mobility. Their paper is founded on a serious misconception of why the schema is in fact used by sociologists in mobility research and, for this reason, their test of its validity is essentially misdirected. In addition, the test itself is not carried out in an appropriate way nor, it would seem, with data of adequate quality. & 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. McIntosh and Munk (this issue) claim that the class schema that we have developed (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992) lacks validity and should not be taken as a basis for studies of intergenerational social mobility. Their paper is founded on a serious misconception of why the schema is in fact used by sociologists in mobility research and, for this reason, their test of its validity is essentially misdirected. In addition, the test itself is not carried out in an appropriate way, nor, it would seem, with data of adequate quality. McIntosh and Munk correctly recognise that the class schema aims to make operational the idea that class positions are defined by employment relations and more specifically, in the case of employees, by the differing forms of their employment contracts (see further Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992; Goldthorpe, 2007 , vol. 2, ch. 5). But they then quite mistake the aim of analyses of intergenerational social mobility—our own and those of others—that apply the class schema. The aim is, they believe, to demonstrate that it is factors directly associated with individuals’ class positions that determine their mobility or immobility—to the neglect of such other factors as individuals’ ability, education, skills or motivation. Thus, they write (our emphasis), ‘y when we ask what actually determines the type of employment contract an individual is likely to obtain when he or she enters the labour market y Erikson and Goldthorpe tell us that this depends only on the type of labour contract that the individual’s father had.’ We claim nothing of the kind. And we note that McIntosh and Munk fail to back this (mis)representation of our position with any specific reference to our work. Our own and other sociologists’ concern with intergenerational class mobility is primarily motivated by the fact that class—and Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eer European Economic Review ARTICLE IN PRESS 0014-2921/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.05.007 DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.10.006 à Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 16 20 93; fax: +46 8 15 46 70. E-mail address: robert.erikson@sofi.su.se (R. Erikson). European Economic Review 53 (2009) 118–120