A STUDY ON THE TREND OF SOCIAL MOBILITY AMONG ECONOMIC ELITES IN THE PAST THREE DECADES AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING IT

Elaheh Sadat Badri
Khalil Mirzaei
Afsaneh Varasteh Far

Abstract
The present study was conducted with the aim of determining the trend of social mobility among economic elites over the past three decades. Since this research utilized the Glaserian grounded theory method, which is based on both an inductive-qualitative and a deductive-quantitative movement, two sample sizes and two sampling methods were employed. In the inductive movement, the sample size was 20 individuals based on the principle of theoretical saturation, and in the deductive-quantitative movement, the sample size was 384 individuals selected through simple random sampling. Furthermore, in the inductive-qualitative part, in-depth unstructured and semi-structured interview techniques were used, and in the deductive-quantitative part, a researcher-made questionnaire was employed. The validity of the questionnaire was determined through content validity and construct validity, and the reliability of the instrument was determined through Cronbach's alpha method. For data analysis, two methods were used: qualitative analysis based on coding (open, axial, and selective coding) for the interviews, and quantitative analysis (Pearson correlation test and linear regression) for the questionnaire. The obtained results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship at the 0.05 level between economic knowledge, family, social intelligence, and creativity with the social mobility of economic elites. Furthermore, the results showed that there is a significant inverse relationship at the 0.05 level between media, gender attitude, and politics with social mobility. Finally, no significant relationship was found between verbal communication and the social mobility of economic elites.

Keywords: Social Mobility, Economic Elites, Past Three Decades

Statement of the Problem
Social mobility refers to "the movement of an individual or group from one social class or status to another. Usually, the point of reference is the class or status that constitutes an individual's origin or social background, and social mobility occurs when subsequent class or status positions differ from the class or status of origin. In places where individuals have equal opportunities to reach new statuses, the possibility of mobility is very high, and in places where opportunities are unequal and processes of status ascription exist, the possibility of mobility is very low" (Mirzaei, 2015: p. 434). Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals in the hierarchy of social statuses or social stratification. Sorokin, as a pioneer in theorizing about social mobility, defines it as an individual's movement within the social system. Anthony Giddens refers to social mobility as the movement of individuals and groups between different socio-economic positions. He notes that in the study of social stratification, we must not only consider the differences between economic positions or occupations but also examine the events related to the individuals who occupy them (Cohen, 2016, p. 62). Based on studies of social mobility, it can be determined to what extent the structure of stratification and social classes in a society is open or closed, and to what extent individuals have opportunities for advancement in education, occupation, wealth, and social status. Undoubtedly, one of the factors affecting social mobility is education and schooling (Masoumi Rad & Nayebi, 2013).

In fact, various approaches have been proposed to explain social mobility. Some have introduced social structures as the cause of the rate of social mobility in society and have attributed its possibility or impossibility to economic and political structures. The views of economic Marxists, structural Marxists, and critical theorists fall into this group. Others have emphasized cultural values and attitudes, individual and acquired habits and skills, and have introduced the weakness or lack of developmental values and norms encouraging work, effort, progress, and entrepreneurship among some individuals in society as the main cause of low social mobility (Lerner, 2004).

Sorokin mentions two types of social mobility: horizontal mobility and vertical mobility. Horizontal mobility refers to the movement of a person or a group from one position to another, including migration, occupational changes, membership in groups and organizations. Vertical mobility refers to moving from one social stratum to another, rising or falling within a ranked social structure. Sorokin's emphasis is on vertical mobility and social stratification. He believes that in any social system, even the most rigid ones, there are possibilities for advancement in political, economic, or occupational fields, and also, in open social systems, social and occupational mobility still faces obstacles (Nik Gohar, 2008). Mobility among elites is very important, and its scarcity or absence leads society towards a decline in ideas and trends, reduced efficiency, and delayed economic growth.

Current underdeveloped countries must contend both with the economic problems arising from competition with advanced industrial countries in trade and investment, and with political instability, public demand for higher levels of income and welfare, and the powerful opposition of forces stemming from traditional ways of life. In such conditions, the importance of elites and leaders who have the power to incite effective action and control and guide events increases dramatically. The lack of experience of the masses in political and social organization further increases the importance of this group (Ansari, 2001).

For every activity in social life, there is an elite. Scientific, economic, political, religious, military, banking, legal elites, etc. (Ansari, 2001). Economic elites included managers and experts in governmental or government-affiliated economic institutions. This group was often educated and then worked in various parts of government organizations such as the central bank, oil companies, etc., and some in the private sector, managing industries, private banks, and insurance companies. And since, in an open society, individuals ascend the social ladder (to higher positions) according to their talent, ability, and merit. High chances of mobility are a factor of stability in society (Weakliem, 1992), while the presence of obstacles in the path of advancement and upward mobility leads to political crisis and a decline in the legitimacy of the system (Rafipour, 1997).

Social mobility facilitates democracy through the redistribution of valuable resources between the rich and the poor, reducing conflict, and decreasing the likelihood of coups. Even in authoritarian systems, social mobility helps stabilize the ruling system by reducing the likelihood of mass movements against political authorities (Nadimi, 2011). Hence, the question arises: what is the trend of social mobility among economic elites after 1368 (after the war) and what factors are involved?

Theoretical Foundations
Various approaches have been proposed to explain social mobility. Some have introduced social structures as the cause of the rate of social mobility in society and have attributed its possibility or impossibility to economic and political structures. The views of economic Marxists, structural Marxists, and critical theorists fall into this group. Others have emphasized cultural values and attitudes, individual and acquired habits and skills, and have introduced the weakness or lack of developmental values and norms encouraging work, effort, progress, capitalism, and entrepreneurship among some individuals in society as the main cause of low social mobility (Weber 1930, Parsons 1958, Merton 1959, McClelland 1961, quoted in Lerner, 2004).

Weber emphasizes that the Protestant ethic leads to the formation of capitalism. That is, values and beliefs must first exist for capitalist work and activity to subsequently take shape. He writes that the Protestants of England, Holland, and America had historically possessed a spirit of hard work and embraced hardship and difficulty. French Protestants for a long time maintained and followed the discipline and teachings imparted by the Calvinist church. He believes that these same cultural characteristics and religious beliefs, which present work and profit-seeking as a duty and calling, were among the important factors in the industrial and capitalist progress of these countries (Weber, 2013).

Oscar Lewis believes that one of the characteristics of the culture of poverty and the lifestyle of the poor is hopelessness. Hopelessness arising from knowing that achieving success in the values and goals of the larger society is impossible for them. "Children growing up in poor neighborhoods, usually by the age of six or seven, have typically absorbed the values and attitudes prevalent in their subculture and are psychologically incapable of taking advantage of changing circumstances or opportunities that may arise to change their living conditions" (Lewis, 1974, pp. 126-127).

Talcott Parsons (1958), in explaining the causes of lack of social mobility and stagnation in status, also speaks of those who do not adapt to the situation and are inactive: "Those who are primarily interested in their freedom and are willing to pay its price, even if it is poverty."

Merton (1959) notes that members of maladjusted families are those who have neither understood the goals set by society (e.g., economic and social success) nor are aware of the means to achieve them, or if they are aware of the goals, they are either unaware of the means or do not care about them.

Proponents of the psychological modernization school also emphasize cultural and psychological factors and believe that specific psychological dispositions and personality traits drive individuals towards success and mobility, while the absence of these psychological characteristics leads to backwardness and failure. Of course, they believe that these psychological characteristics and traits are influenced by a cultural background. The theories of Rogers, Hagen, McClelland, Daniel Lerner, etc., can be placed in this category. Proponents of this view consider elements such as rationality, empathy, discipline, organization, participation, not being fatalistic, being calculative, and other elements as the primary ingredients of the modernization process (Azkia, 1998, p. 92).

Hagen (1962), as an economist, believes that cultural personality is the main factor in economic development. Economic changes are the result of cultural change and stem from it. In his view, fundamental and infrastructural change in the culture and technology of a society itself causes the economy to emerge from a state of stagnation, which has cultural roots, and achieve growth and development (Moiedfar, 2001, p. 1).

Daniel Lerner writes: The mobile personality is characterized by its high capacity for adaptation to new aspects of its environment; it is equipped with the mechanisms necessary to integrate new demands that arise outside its ordinary experience. These mechanisms function in two ways to expand personal identity: Projection facilitates adaptation by attributing one's own preferred traits to the object; others become "one" because they are like me. Introjection expands identity by attributing the object's essential and desirable traits to oneself. I become one with others because I am like them or want to be like them. He writes that he uses the term empathy as the common aspect of both these mechanisms (Lerner, 2004, p. 85).

In general, it can be said that the theorists of the psychological modernization school aim to consider culture, values, and psychological and individual capabilities as a very important resource in social mobility. In their view, those who possess intellectual abilities, problem-solving skills, knowledge and skill, creativity, innovation, risk-taking, perseverance, discipline, and social skills for constructive and effective interaction with others can experience upward social mobility and improve their standard of living (McClelland 1951, Lerner 1958, Hagen 1962).

Research Background
Among the research conducted in Iran in recent years in the field of stratification and mobility are the following: The research by Kazemipour (1999) titled "Social Mobility and Migration in Tehran" showed that the rate of job shifting and social mobility among employed individuals in Tehran is within the range of one class; meaning each individual can, on average, move one class compared to their father. It should be noted that about 40% of these individuals experienced downward class mobility and are in a position lower than their father's socio-economic status. The main factors of social mobility were: geographical origin, literacy and education, occupational prestige, age at marriage, and the class position of the individual and their father. Social mobility among migrant respondents (63.5%) was slightly higher than among native respondents (59.7%), but the rate of upward social mobility was higher among natives than migrants, and downward social mobility was higher among migrants.

The research by Moghaddas (1995) on social mobility in the cities of Shiraz and Yasuj showed that the main factors in class mobility were organizational power, capital for investment, productivity, access to loans, and accumulation of more capital for investments. However, our findings show that despite capital and power being primary conditions for reaching higher classes, downward mobility is also common in upper classes, and factors such as the inheritance system in Islam, high birth rates (especially in old upper classes), and economic instability (where some benefit and others may lose) play a role. Furthermore, the findings indicate that migration in Yasuj has been more effective on mobility than in Shiraz. Even so, in these two cities, migrants from other cities experienced greater mobility.

Sorokin (1927) studied various societies, including ancient Rome and China, and also conducted one of the first detailed studies of social mobility in the United States. The conclusion Sorokin drew from his research was that opportunities for rapid upward mobility in America were much more limited than American folklore suggested. However, the techniques Sorokin used to gather his data were relatively primitive (Giddens, 2004, p. 263).

Blau and Duncan (1978), in their research on occupational structure and social mobility in America, first classified occupations based on socio-economic status and then examined mobility between these occupations. Blau and Duncan collected information on a nationwide sample of 20,000 men. They concluded that vertical social mobility in America is high, but almost all of this mobility occurs between occupational positions that are quite close to each other. They concluded that long-range mobility is rare. Although downward mobility occurs both within individuals' careers and across generations, this type of mobility is much less common than upward mobility. The reason is that white-collar and professional occupations have grown much faster than blue-collar occupations, a change that has opened paths for the children of blue-collar workers to enter white-collar jobs (Giddens, 2004, p. 263).

A review of recent studies in the field of social mobility shows that the role of cultural factors in explaining patterns and trends of social mobility has become very important. For example, the mediating role of education in intergenerational social mobility has attracted much attention in recent years (Marshall et al. 1997, Erikson & Jonsson 1998).

Goldthorpe (2000) concluded that different social classes, by pushing their children to study in specific academic fields, seek to maintain their class position and status (Werfhorst, 2002, p. 408).

Payne and Roberts, in their research on social mobility conducted using both absolute and relative mobility scales, concluded that England provided more mobility opportunities for men between 1972 and 1992 and moved towards being an open society. This trend then slowed in the mid-1990s, and opportunities for upward mobility for men decreased (Payne & Roberts, 2002, p. 81).

Research Methodology
In this research, the Glaserian grounded theory method was used. "The Glaserian method is based on the claim that everything is data, and therefore it cannot be considered merely a qualitative method, because data can be obtained not only through interviews and observation, but can also result from surveys, statistical analysis, and even comparative processes conducted with the help of research literature. Thus, the Glaserian method focuses on conceptualizing abstraction from time, place, and people, while the Straussian method is based on a systematic approach and validation criteria that are more meaningful in the qualitative domain" (Mirzaei, 2016, p. 240).

Within the framework of the grounded theory method, two movements are considered: 1) The inductive movement, where the research starts from data in the field and even in the literature, and ends with conceptualization and determining the relationships between concepts, and 2) The deductive movement, where the research starts from the relationships between concepts in the form of hypotheses, and ends with confirming or rejecting the relationships between concepts or hypotheses, forming theory, and validating it.

In the inductive-qualitative movement, the statistical population consisted of thinkers and experts on social mobility and economic elites. The sample size was 20 individuals based on theoretical saturation, selected through purposive and convenience sampling.

In the deductive-quantitative movement: The statistical population included all economic elites, numbering over 100,000 individuals. The sample size was 384 individuals determined by Morgan's table and selected using simple random sampling.

In the inductive-qualitative part, in-depth unstructured and semi-structured interview techniques were used to discover and extract concepts and their relationships and to form hypotheses or initial theory. In the deductive-quantitative part, a researcher-made questionnaire was used to test the relationships between concepts and the accuracy of the data. The researcher-made questionnaire had 36 items, and its validity was assessed through content validity (CVR) and construct validity (KMO), and its reliability through Cronbach's alpha. The results of the instrument's validity and reliability are presented in Table 1 (Table omitted as requested).

For data analysis, two methods were used: qualitative analysis for the interviews and quantitative analysis for the questionnaire:

1. Qualitative and conceptual content analysis through open, axial, and selective coding to design concepts and their relationships by constructing categories;
2. Since the conditions for parametric tests—random sampling to ensure representativeness (verified by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), homogeneity of variances, and continuity of data (data transformed to quasi-interval)—were met, correlation and regression tests were used to determine the relationship and effect of influencing factors.

Research Findings
Since the researcher went directly into the field without designing a theoretical framework or presuppositions, the first step involved extracting events, the results of which are presented in Table 2 (Table omitted as requested). This table detailed the coding process, categorizing initial concepts from interviews into broader themes and final concepts. The analysis identified numerous concepts related to the timing of mobility (post-war periods, sanctions era, post-2005 period), individual factors (knowledge, education, social class, wealth), family background (ordinary families, political families, family support), media influence, individual attributes (intelligence, creativity, gender, age, verbal communication, life circumstances), political factors (political base, government role), and outcomes like elite migration and economic innovation.

Four figures illustrated the trends (figures omitted as per instruction, but their descriptions are translated):

• Figure 1: Intensity of Social Mobility among Economic Elites: According to the results of Figure 1, the trend of social mobility among economic elites occurred mostly in the 2010s (Solar Hijri calendar), which could be due to market instability during this period. In the previous two decades, the lowest rate of mobility occurred among economic elites.
• Figure 2: Vertical Social Mobility among Economic Elites: The results of Figure 2 show that the mobility trend is equal in both the upward-only and upward-then-downward categories, indicating that in the last decade, there have been two groups: one group managed to have an upward trend and benefit from market conditions, and the other experienced a downward trend and suffered losses.
• Figure 3: Horizontal Social Mobility among Economic Elites: The results of Figure 3 show that 55.2%—half of the target population—stated that they intend to upgrade their current economic activity. 20.3% stated that they intend to continue the same economic activity with the same trend, and 24.5% stated that they intend to change their economic activity.
• Figure 4: Geographical Social Mobility among Economic Elites: The results of Figure 4 also show that 97.9% of individuals started their economic activity in Iran and do not intend to leave Iran, while 2.1% stated that they came to Iran for investment from other countries.

Based on the concepts extracted from the qualitative content analysis of the conducted interviews, the following hypotheses were designed.

Research Hypotheses

• There is a relationship between economic knowledge and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between family and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between media and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between social intelligence and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between creativity and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between gender attitude and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between verbal communication and social mobility.
• There is a relationship between politics and social mobility.

The results of the Pearson correlation test for the research hypotheses are summarized below (Table 3 omitted). The obtained results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship at the 0.05 error level between economic knowledge, family, social intelligence, and creativity with the social mobility of economic elites. The results also showed that there is a significant inverse relationship at the 0.05 error level between media, gender attitude, and politics with social mobility. Finally, no significant relationship was found between verbal communication and the social mobility of economic elites.

Regression analysis was also conducted (Tables 4, 5, and 6 omitted). The model summary showed a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.466, indicating a correlation between variables. The adjusted R-squared value of 0.182 indicates that 18.2% of the total variance in social mobility is explained by the factors considered. The ANOVA results (F = 11.628, p < 0.05) suggested the regression model is reasonably good. Analysis of Beta coefficients revealed that:

1. The effects of economic knowledge, media, social intelligence, and gender attitude on social mobility are significant.
2. Family, creativity, verbal communication, and politics do not have a significant effect on social mobility in the regression model (unlike in the bivariate correlations, suggesting possible mediating effects or shared variance).
3. Economic knowledge (β = 0.274) and social intelligence (β = 0.211) have a direct positive effect, while media (β = -0.158) and gender attitude (β = -0.153) have an inverse effect.

Discussion and Conclusion
The results showed that the most social mobility in the past three decades occurred in the 2010s (Solar Hijri), and upward and downward movements were almost equal. Geographical mobility among economic elites was not significant, and most economic elites tend to upgrade their current economic activity rather than change jobs or economic status. Weber (1930), Parsons (1958), Merton (1959), McClelland (1961) emphasized cultural values and attitudes, individual and acquired habits and skills, and introduced the weakness or lack of developmental values and norms encouraging work, effort, progress, capitalism, and entrepreneurship as the main cause of low social mobility among some individuals (quoted in Lerner, 2004). Sorokin defined horizontal mobility as the movement of a person or group from one position to another, such as job changes, and vertical mobility as moving from one social stratum to another, rising or falling within a ranked social structure (Nik Gohar, 2008). Talcott Parsons (1958), in explaining the causes of lack of social mobility and stagnation, also speaks of those who do not adapt and are inactive: "Those who are primarily interested in their freedom and are willing to pay its price, even if it is poverty." Given that mobility among elites, especially economic elites who influence economic, social, and even cultural growth and development, is very important, and its scarcity or absence leads society towards a decline in ideas and trends, reduced efficiency, and delayed societal growth. The tendency towards horizontal mobility (career advancement) and vertical mobility (upward trend in economic activity) can be effective in the growing process of societal development. However, factors such as economic instability can hinder this mobility trend. On the other hand, the fact that in the last decade more than half of the elites have been able to experience positive mobility shows that they have been able to adapt to the current situation and align with emerging trends.

Furthermore, in examining the factors affecting the social mobility of economic elites, it was determined that there is a significant positive relationship between economic knowledge, family, social intelligence, and creativity with the social mobility of economic elites at the 0.05 error level, and regression results also showed that the components of economic knowledge and social intelligence have a direct impact on social mobility. In fact, according to the results obtained in this study and the views of Masoumi Rad and Nayebi (2013) stating that "one of the effective factors on social mobility is education and schooling," and the belief of McClelland (1951), Lerner (1958), and Hagen (1962) who proposed that "those who possess intellectual abilities, problem-solving skills, knowledge and skill, creativity, innovation, risk-taking, perseverance, discipline, and social skills for constructive and effective interaction with others can experience upward social mobility and improve their standard of living," it can be said that factors such as economic knowledge, family, social intelligence, and creativity can play a significant role in the social mobility of economic elites. On the other hand, studies such as Kazemipour's (1999) research showing that the rate of displacement and social mobility is within one class—meaning each individual can, on average, have class mobility relative to their father, and the main factors of social mobility include geographical origin, literacy and education, occupational prestige, age at marriage, and the class position of the individual and their father; Moghaddas's (1995) research showing that despite capital and power being primary conditions for reaching higher classes, downward mobility is also common in upper classes, and factors such as the inheritance system in Islam, high birth rates, and economic instability play a role in mobility; Blau and Duncan's (1978, quoted in Giddens, 2004) research showing that vertical social mobility in America is high, but almost all of this mobility is between very close occupational positions. They concluded that long-range mobility is rare, although downward mobility occurs both within individuals' careers and across generations. This type of mobility is much less common than upward mobility. The reason is that white-collar and professional occupations have grown much faster than blue-collar occupations, a change that has opened paths for the children of blue-collar workers to enter white-collar jobs; Marshall et al.'s (1997) and Erikson and Jonsson's (1998) research, reviewing recent studies in the field of social mobility, showed that education in intergenerational social mobility has attracted much attention in recent years; and Goldthorpe's (2000, quoted in Werfhorst, 2002) research concluding that different social classes, by pushing their children to study in specific academic fields, seek to maintain their class position and status. It can be said that knowledge and education, family, and family support have had a significant impact and role in the process of social mobility among economic elites.

On the other hand, it was found that there is a significant inverse relationship between media, gender attitude, and politics with social mobility at the 0.05 error level. Regression results also showed that the components of media and gender attitude have an inverse effect on social mobility. This indicates that negative propaganda in domestic and foreign media and even virtual social networks, negative gender attitudes (especially gender discrimination in economic development), and incorrect policies have negatively impacted the social mobility trend and have caused a decrease in the mobility trend among economic elites. According to Mirzaei (2015: 434), "in places where individuals have equal opportunities to reach new statuses, the possibility of mobility is very high, and in places where opportunities are unequal and processes of status ascription exist, the possibility of mobility is very low." This means that equality and having equal opportunities among all members of society—especially economic elites—can be effective in the growth and development of society and positive mobility. According to the results of this research, it was determined that the social mobility trend among elites has been affected by negative media propaganda, negative gender attitudes, and misguided policies.

The social mobility of elites (whether horizontal, vertical, or geographical) depends on factors such as economic knowledge and education, family position and their support, high social intelligence, having creativity and innovation in economic activity, clear and appropriate media advertising, correct gender attitudes and non-discrimination, and correct policymaking. In fact, in the qualitative part of the research, we identified which factors are influential, but in the quantitative part, the results were examined and explained.

References
(The reference list remains unchanged as it was not requested to be omitted or translated in the instruction. It is presented here in its original bilingual format as provided in the final part of the user's message.)

ازکیا، مصطفی (1377). فرهنگ توسعه در ادبیات کرد، نامه علوم اجتماعی، شماره 12، ص 41-25.
انصاری، الف. (1380). نقش نخبگان در توسعه. نقش مدیریت در توسعه.
رفیع پور، ف. (1376). توسعه و تضاد- کوششی در جهت تحلیل انقلاب اسلامی و مسائل اجتماعی ایران، تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
کاظمی پور، شهلا (1378). الگویی در تعیین پایگاه اجتماعی – اقتصادی افراد و سنجش تحرک اجتماعی با تکیه بر مطالعه موردی در شهر تهران، نامه علوم اجتماعی، شماره 14، ص 172-139.
کوئن، ب. (1395) مبانی جامعه شناسی، ترجمه غلامعباس توسلی، رضا فاضل. تهران: سمت.
گیدنز، آنتونی (1383). جامعه شناسی، تهران: نشر نی.
لرنر، د. (1383). گذر جامعه سنتی (نوسازی در خاورمیانه)، ترجمه غلامرضا خواجه سروی، پژوهشگاه مطالعات راهبردی.
لوئیس، اسکار (1353). فرهنگ فقر، ترجمه سید مهدی ثریا، مطالعات جامعه شناختی، دوره قدیم، شماره 4، ص 124-140.
معصومی راد، ر.، نایبی، ه. (1392). عوامل اجتماعی موثر بر تحرک اجتماعی (شغلی) اعضای هیات علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. راهبرد اجتماعی فرهنگی، دوره ی 2، شماره ی 7، ص 103- 133.
معیدفر، س. (1380). فرهنگ کار، موسسه کار و تامین اجتماعی، مجموعه متون آموزشی، شماره 9.
مقدس، علی اصغر (1374). بررسی تحرک طبقاتی و منزلت شغلی در شهر شیراز و یاسوج، پایان نامه دکتری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
میرزایی، خ. (1394). فرهنگ توصیفی علوم اجتماعی. تهران: فوژان.
میرزایی، خ. (1395). کیفی پژوهی: پژوهش، پژوهشگری و پژوهش نامه نویسی. تهران: فوژان.
ندیمی، ح. (1390). تحرک شغلی مسئولان سیاسی ایران (ارائه یک مقیاس). مسائل اجتماعی ایران، سال دوم، شماره ی 2، ص 185-215.
نیک گهر، ع. ح. (1387). مبانی جامعه شناسی. تهران: نشر رایزن.
وبر، م. (1392). اخلاق پروتستان و روحیه سرمایه داری، ترجمه عبدالمعبود انصاری، تهران: سمت.
Hagen, Everett, E. (1962). On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood, III, The Dorsey Press, Inc.
Lerner, Daniel. (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, London, Collier Macmillan limited.
Marshall, G., Swift, A. and Roberts, S. (1997) Against the Odds, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mcclelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society, New York: Free Press.
Merton, Robert K. (1959). "Social Conformity, Deviation, and Opportunity-Structures: A Comment on the Contributions of Dubin and Cloward", American Sociological Review 24: 177-189.
Parsons, Talcott (1958). Social Structure and Personality, New York: Th Free Press.
Payne, G., Roberts, J. (2002) Opening and Closing the Gates: Recent Developments in Male Social Mobility in Britain. Sociological Research Online, vol. 6, no. 4,
Weakliem, D. L. (1992). Does Social Mobility Affect Political Behaviour? European Sociological Review, 8 (No) 2 153-165.
Werfhorst, Herman G. Van de, (2002). A Detailed Examination of the Role of Education in Intergenerational Social-class Mobility, Social Science Information: 41; 407.