Vertical mobility

Abstract: I propose the log-multiplicative layer effect modelfor comparing mobility tables. The model constrains cross-table variation in the origin-destination association to be the log-multiplicative product of a common association pattern and a table-specific parameter. Like Yamaguchi's (1987) uniform layer effect model, the log-multiplicative layer effect model provides one-parameter tests and thus facilitates analysis of the difference in "vertical mobility" between two mobility tables. Compared to the uniform layer effect model, the log-multiplicative layer effect model is far more flexible in specifying the origin-destination association. Virtually all two-way mobility models can be incorporated into the log-multiplicative layer effect model while retaining their usual interpretability. All that is required is that the tables being compared have a common pattern for the origin-destination association. Properties of the new model are demonstrated using three data sets previously analyzed in comparative mobility research. The same methodology can be generalized to the analysis of multiple twoway contingency tables if the two-way association of primary interest is specified tofollow a common pattern, albeit with different levels, across the tables. I n the interest of testing the difference in "vertical mobility" with a single parameter, a useful model for comparing mobility tables has been proposed by Yamaguchi (1987). Referred to here as "the uniform layer effect model," the model is characterized by the use of a single parameter describing the uniform difference in the origin and destination association between a pair of mobility tables. The uniform layer effect model is attractive in comparative research on mobility for its parsimony and interpretability (Wong 1990). However, there are three associated disadvantages. First, the model implicitly assumes that the categories of origin and destination are

Abstract: Mobility, the ability to move independently, is critical to maintaining independence and quality of life. Among older adults, mobility disability results when an individual cannot meet the demands of the environment. Current approaches to defining mobility rely on distance and time measures, or decompose mobility into subtasks (e.g., climbing, sit to stand), but provide limited understanding of mobility in the elderly. In this paper, a new conceptual framework identifies the critical environmental factors, or dimensions, that operationally define mobility within a given community, such as ambient conditions (light levels, weather conditions) and terrain characteristics (stairs, curbs). Our premise is that the environment and the individual conjointly determine mobility disability. Mobility in the elderly is defined not by the number of tasks a person can or cannot perform, but by the range of environmental contexts in which tasks can be safely carried out: the more disabled, the more restrictive the dimen...

Abstract: This paper reanalyzes 3-stratum intergenerational mobility classifications, assembled by Hazelrigg and Garnier for men in 16 countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Log-linear and log-multiplicative models are used to compare mobility regimes and to estimate effects of industrialization, educational enrollment, social democracy, and income inequality on immobility and other parameters of the mobility process. Several models of mobility fit the data equally well, so criteria of plausibility and parsimony are applied to choose one model of stratum-specific immobility and another model of vertical mobility with uniform immobility. We find substantial similarity in mobility and immobility across countries, but the exogenous variables do explain systematic differences among countries. Cross-national variations are complex because most of the exogenous variables have different effects on different parameters of the mobility regime. Relative to other factors, industrialization and education have weaker effects on mobility regimes than has usually been supposed.

Abstract: “Internationalization” of higher education has so many meanings that only a few elements are shared by all actors and experts: border-crossing is the key element, and a trend toward growth is implied. International student mobility is a traditional key feature—along with knowledge transfer—to which more attention is paid than to other features. Definitions and statistics vary enormously, e.g. reference to citizenship of mobility for the purpose of study, short-term mobility vs. mobility for the whole study program, “vertical” vs. “horizontal” mobility, and mobility at a certain moment in time vs. the event of mobility in the course of study. Analyses of “vertical mobility” are mostly case studies and can hardly be summarized. Short-term mobility, notably within Europe, is more thoroughly analyzed, thereby comprising comparisons between mobile and non-mobile students and between countries. They suggest that mobility leads only to marginally superior academic and general skills, but to impressive international skills. This is reflected in small career advantages, but substantially higher shares of visible international tasks as well as in frequent international career mobility. Also, former mobile students’ degree of satisfaction is high regarding the impact on international understanding and general personality development. Divergent factors suggest, for the future, that internationalization without mobility will play an increasing role and that it will be more strongly affected by international political conflicts.