Book: Dynamics of Class and Stratification in Poland

Dynamics of class and stratThis book published by CEU Press is about long-term changes to class and inequality in Poland.

Drawing upon major social surveys, the team of authors from the Polish Academy of Sciences offer the rare comprehensive study of important changes to the social structure from the communist era to the present.

Team of Authors: Irina Tomescu-Dubrow, Kazimierz M. Słomczyński, Henryk Domański, Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow, Zbigniew Sawiński, and Dariusz Przybysz
ISBN: 978-963-386-155-4
cloth $70.00 / €62.00 / £54.00
Publication date: 2018
310 pages

Even during extreme societal transformations, key features of social life have long-lasting and stratifying effects. The authors analyze the core issues of inequality research that best explain “who gets what and why:” social mobility, status attainment, and mechanisms of inequality with a focus on education, occupation, and income.

The transition from communist political economy to liberal democracy and market capitalism offers a unique opportunity for scholars to understand how people move from one stratification regime to the next.

There are valuable lessons to be learned from linking past to present. Classic issues of class, stratification, mobility, and attainment have endured decades of radical social change. These concepts remain valid even when society tries to eradicate them.


Pick Me Up: Build a Community with Street Basketball

pick me up bball picPick Me Up

Shooting bricks builds communities

“Hey, man, your peripheral better be fucked up!”

In a pickup basketball game on a New York City playground, a player ignores his teammates. He hoists a bad shot. On the next possession, he turns the ball over.

“Mother fucking Michael Jordan. Yeah, go ahead and shoot, Jordan-ass wannabe.”

Laughter erupts from the spectators. The player tries ball-hogging again. The spectators boo. To teach him a lesson, his teammates stop passing him the ball.

Pick-up basketball is often derided as “street” and “schoolyard” and as encouraging selfish play. It is maligned as an immature version of the textbook games organized by civic associations, high schools, and universities.

But on that New York City playground, both the players and the spectators tried to teach an ill-mannered player how to be a good sport.

Francisco Vieyra, writing for Qualitative Sociology, spent over a year in the Big Apple playing and talking with players and spectators on several dozen basketball courts.

He found that, far from being a hot-headed haven of selfishness and immaturity, pickup basketball is a welcoming and well-organized place. It provides informal mentoring on how to improve your game, how to get a job, and how you can deal with life’s everyday troubles.

Shoot bricks all you like: pick-up bball is a foundation of urban communities.


Anyone can be a spectator and everyone – no matter who they are or what clothes they wear – can play.

“I often found white-collar workers wearing the athletic shoes they tucked away in their briefcases, blue-collar workers still in their overalls and boots, and underemployed or unemployed men and children in their shorts and sneakers on the same court,” Vieyra writes.

There are social rules for every aspect of the basketball experience: for fair choice in who will play next and for pre-game practice shoot-arounds. Everyone is expected to help clear the court of ice or other seasonal debris.

Players organize “contests,” which can be 3-on-3 or 5-on-5 matches that, to get as many different folks onto the court as possible in a reasonable amount of time, are between fifteen minutes and a half an hour. While some of the rules differed from game to game – such as how fouls will be called and the point allotment for baskets – the players negotiate and agree on these rules before tipoff.

Talk about It

Some guys were hanging around the court, waiting for their turn to play. One of these guys started talking about how he recently lost his job. One guy pointed to a short fellow who worked at an employment agency and suggested that he talk to him. Another guy chimed in that, just a few months ago, he got a construction job that way. The first guy took the suggestion for help and, later on, got a job as a janitor.

In the pickup basketball world, one can find friends, news, gossip, advice.

They also share stories about racism in America.

“In one memorable conversation,” Vieyra writes, “a player told us how earlier in the day he overheard his white boss make racist remarks about Blacks to several white co-workers. Rustling a few papers to establish his presence in the room resulted in his boss quickly turning around, awkwardly stammering that it was ‘just a joke,’ and leaving the room without waiting for a response.”

The others listened and some told their similar stories of racism at work. A discussion ensued “over the merits of filing a grievance, quitting on principle, or begrudgingly tolerating such abuses because of the difficulty of finding a new job as a Black man.”

If You Build It

Communities are sustained by special events. In good weather, the community turns the basketball courts into tournaments and summer leagues that, over time, can develop a long standing and well-known local history, like the Entertainers’ Basketball Classic at the Holcombe Rucker Basketball Court, and that can draw over a thousand spectators. Out-of-town tourists come there for “a big part of Black history.”

Most of these special contests are smaller affairs of the local community. They exhibit the kind of “flashy” play that is highlighted on YouTube, but this is because they are, first and foremost, festive. Vendors sell ice cream, artists hawk their wares, and players’ family and friends cheer.

“Yeah, this makes my mom proud,” a player said. “She comes to every tournament. Every one. Doesn’t matter where it’s at. And afterwards, that’s all she’ll talk about.”

Pickup basketball is not a utopia: insults, bad manners, and undesirable conduct happens. Generally, bad manners are done in-game and spectators and players try to cool heated disagreements. Rarely is it personal and once the game is over, the conflict ends. Fights are rare.

Pickup basketball can be a deep and meaningful experience that is woven into the fabric of players’ everyday life. Within it, they become a part of the larger community.

“Pickup basketball does not escape New York City’s greater structural realities,” Vieyra writes. “It can, however, serve as a reprieve from these issues.”


This is written by Joshua K. Dubrow and is based on “Pickup Basketball in the Production of Black Community” by Francisco Vieyra in Qualitative Sociology in 2016 (39:101–123).

Please feel free to use this summary in the classroom! To help, here is a free teaching guide: Pick Me Up summary with Teaching Guide


Sociologists Everywhere: Inequality in the World Science System

This is based on our article, “Sociologists everywhere: Country representation in conferences hosted by the International Sociological Association, 1990–2012,” published in Current Sociology.

The Unequal World Science System

In general terms, the World Science System (WSS) refers to the economic, political and social factors involved in the production and distribution of, and access to, scientific knowledge on a global scale. The structure of this system is characterized by various kinds of inequalities (Beigel 2014; Patel 2014) some of which last for decades (Martin 2012: 833 -36; Mosbah-Natanson and Gingras 2014). Theoretically, the deep and persistent inequalities within the WSS manifest as a core-periphery system in which privileged, Western countries dominate (Alatas 2003). Recognition of the unequal WSS has led to initiatives – both inside and outside of ISA – that are designed to call wider attention to this issue and promote inequality-reduction policies (Beigel 2014: 619-621).

Empirical studies on inequality across the WSS tend to focus on publishing and on cross-national scientific collaborations (Bentley 2015; Mosbah-Natanson and Gingras 2014; Wagner and Wong 2011). Professional events – conferences, world congresses, forums and similar meetings that feature face-to-face interaction of scholars from across the world – are also vital to the WSS (Godin 1998; Glanzel et al 2006).

Regarding sociology, attendance at international scientific events is important for three reasons. The first deals with production of knowledge. Sociological knowledge, as recorded in academic journals, builds on the presentation of papers at international scientific conferences (Glanzel et al 2006; Godin 1998; Lisee, Larivière and Archambault 2008). The second reason pertains to the processes of scholarly learning and collaboration. Sociologists gain the opportunity to learn from, and connect to, scholars from different countries with whom they do not regularly interact; this spurs creativity and forms the foundation for new scientific collaborations. Third, sociologists gain access to the personal networking that is intrinsic to professional development and status building. Attending international conferences is important in the building and evaluation of academic careers.

In the article recently published in Current Sociology, we focused in-depth on the International Sociological Association (ISA) to examine inequality in attendance at its flagship conferences. The extent to which ISA’s flagship conferences – the quadrennial World Congress and the mid-term Forum – have successfully included sociologists from all over the world is an open empirical question.

Inequality and the International Sociological Association

We ask, To what extent do countries differ with respect to the number of scholars attending ISA conferences? and What factors drive attendance? As is the case with other WSS elements, we argue that scholarly involvement in international social science events is characterized by unequal cross-national representation.

We develop a set of hypotheses based on the economic, political and social dimensions that likely influence country representation. To test them, we created a dataset containing information on 212 countries and their participation in eight ISA conferences – World Congresses and Forums – held from 1990 to 2012. The data on attendance were generously provided by ISA. One can note that, for the eight conferences between 1990 and 2012, ten countries lead in terms of total number of participants: USA (3,678); UK (1,952); Germany (1,898); Spain (1,811); Canada (1,594); Brazil (1,482); Australia (1,293); France (1,250); Italy (929) and Argentina (884). Figure 1 illustrates participation from 1990 to 2012 by world regions.


Figure 1. Number of participants at International Sociological Association events, 1990-2012

isa country representation

While ISA focuses on economic factors to reduce this inequality – most notably in their A, B, C membership and conference fee schema – we also include political and economic factors. We measure economy with GDP per capita. Political factors are measured with the level of democracy. We argue that greater civil liberties and political rights are usually accompanied by more academic freedom to carry out research and to travel abroad. For social factors, we consider that countries’ participation in large-scale international research projects, such as the major cross-national public opinion surveys, is a reasonable indicator of the social science research infrastructure. Country representation in cross-national public opinion surveys (such as the World Values Survey) is very uneven due to economic and political reasons and reflects the strength of national-level social science research infrastructure required for active participation in such projects (Slomczynski and Tomescu-Dubrow 2006; see also Lynn et al 2006: 12-13; on the importance of cross-national data for ISA internationalization, see Platt 1998: 47).

What We Find

Results from a series of statistical analyses show that a country’s GDP, level of democracy and social science research infrastructure (SSRI) substantially determine their level of representation. SSRI effects are significant above and beyond that of GDP, and of other controls. At the same time, we also find a meaningful decrease of representation inequality according to countries’ GDP for the period 1990 – 2010.

We do not suggest that ISA purposively excludes sociologists from certain countries. On the contrary, the history of the organization shows clearly that the ISA has always been aware of the unequal representation of scholars at its events, and has sought ways to address this problem. Yet, inequality endures. The ISA, as well as key actors in the WSS of the social sciences, should acknowledge the resilient nature of this phenomenon and contend with it.


Alatas, Syed Farid. 2003. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51(6): 599 – 613.

Beigel, Fernanda. 2014. “Introduction: Current Tensions and Trends in the World Scientific System.” Current Sociology 62(5): 617 – 625.

Bentley, Peter James. 2015. “Cross-country Differences in Publishing Productivity of Academics and Research Universities.” Scientometrics 102: 865 – 883.

Calloids, Francoise and Laurent Jeanpierre. 2010. “General Introduction,” pp. 1 – 6 in World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides. UNESCO Publishing.

Dubrow, Joshua Kjerulf, Marta Kolczynska, Kazimierz M. Slomczynski and Irina Tomescu-Dubrow. “Sociologists Everywhere: Country Representation in Conferences Hosted by the International Sociological Association, 1990 to 2012.” Forthcoming in Current Sociology. [authors contributed equally and listed alphabetically]

Glanzel, Wolfgang, Balazs Schlemmer, Andras Schubert and Bart Thus. 2006. “Proceedings Literature as Additional Data Source for Bibliometric Analysis.” Scientometrics 68(3): 457 – 473.

Godin, B. 1998. “Measuring Knowledge Flows between Countries: The Use of Scientific Meeting Data.” Scientometrics 42(3): 313 – 323.

Keim, Wiebke. 2011. “Counterhegemonic Currents and Internationalization of Sociology: Theoretical Reflections and an Empirical Example.” International Sociology 26(1): 123 – 145.

Lisee, Cynthia, Vincent Larivière and Éric Archambault. 2008. “Conference Proceedings as a Source of Scientific Information: A Bibliometric Analysis.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(11): 1776 – 1784.

Leydesdorff, Loet and Caroline Wagner. 2009. “Is the United States Losing Ground in Science? A Global Perspective on the World Science System.” Scientometrics 78(1): 23 – 36.

Lynn, Peter. Lilli Japec and Lars Lyberg. 2006. “What’s So Special about Cross-National Surveys?” pp. 7 – 20 in Conducting Cross-National and Cross-Cultural Surveys edited by Janet Harkness. Germany: GESIS.

Martin, Eloise. 2012. “Making Sociology Current through International Publication: A Collective Task.” Current Sociology 60(6): 832-37.

Mosbah-Natanson, Sebastien, and Yves Gingras. 2014. “The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980 – 2009).” Current Sociology 62(5): 626-646.

Patel, Sujata. 2014. “Afterword: Doing Global Sociology: Issues, Problems and Challenges.” Current Sociology 62(4): 603 – 613.

Platt, Jennifer. 1998. A Brief History of the ISA: 1948 – 1997. International Sociological Association.

Rostan, Michele. 2010. “Challenges to Academic Freedom: Some Empirical Evidence.” European Review 18(1):71 – 88.

Schubert, A., S. Zsindley, and T. Bruan. 1983. “Scientometric Analysis of Attendance at International Scientific Meetings.” Scientometrics 5(3): 177 – 187.

Slomczynski, Kazimierz M. and Irina Tomescu-Dubrow. 2006. “Representation of European Post-Communist Countries in Cross-National Public Opinion Surveys.” Problems of Post-Communism 53 (4): 42-52.

Wagner, Caroline S. and Shing Kit Wong. 2011. “Unseen Science? Representation of BRICs in Global Science.” Scientometrics 90:1001 – 1013.

World Social Science Report. 2010. Knowledge Divides. UNESCO Publishing.

This article was prepared by Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow, Marta Kolczynska, Kazimierz M. Slomczynski and Irina Tomescu-Dubrow, Cross-national Studies: Interdisciplinary Research and Training program (, The Ohio State University and the Polish Academy of Sciences.

We thank ISA for providing the data on attendance to ISA events and current ISA President Margaret Abraham for encouraging our project. Versions of this research was presented at events of the Laboratory for Comparative Social Research (LCSR) of the Higher School of Economics in Russia, and we are grateful for their comments.


Does Going Abroad Boost Your Income and Help Your Career? The Value of International Experience

by Irina Tomescu-Dubrow, Associate Professor, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences

Does going abroad, even for a little while, give you an edge in the job market?

As a small world gets smaller, employers across the US and Europe are looking for that “international experience” element in the resumes of job applicants. Corporations are sending their employees outside headquarters to do business in established and emerging economies. Universities push for international research and training collaborations, and academia and the private sector increasingly seek out personnel who can perform well in multi-national and multi-cultural environments.

Working or living abroad gives people skills and knowledge that businesses can use as they look for new markets and opportunities across the world. International experience seems like a good investment, but to date outside of the USA, empirical studies on its relationship to income and upward mobility are few.

In my article, “International Experience and Labour Market Success: Analysing Panel Data from Poland,” I used the longest running panel survey in Poland (POLPAN 1988 – 2013) to discover the impact of having spent at least two months in a foreign country (my definition of “international experience”) on two major life outcomes.

The first thing I looked for was relative income gains. Above and beyond gender, age, and education, I wanted to know whether people who went abroad earned more than those who did not. The answer is a strong yes: People who went abroad, even for as little as two months, have a higher income than those who did not go abroad, other things equal.

Next, I investigated the odds of becoming an employer or entrepreneur above and beyond the effects of age, gender, and education. Again, the answer is a strong yes: Having international experience boosts the odds of becoming an employer or entrepreneur.

As with a recent study in the US by economist Susan Pozo, I find that those with international experience have higher income than those without this experience. I also find that international experience leads to upward mobility, in the form of becoming an entrepreneur.

Since 1989, millions of East Europeans have traveled abroad seeking new skills, insights, and economic opportunities. Many of them come back. While the tales of making one’s fortune abroad fill popular culture and the media, there are surprisingly few empirical studies on whether and how being in another country impacts one’s income and career. Part of the reason is that there too few long-term panel datasets that document career paths and include episodes of being abroad. The case of Poland, via its unique panel data called POLPAN, suggests that international experience significantly matters for East Europeans as they navigate the labour market of their home country.

This article is based on the paper, International Experience and Labour Market Success: Analysing Panel Data from Poland, in the Polish Sociological Review.

Irina Tomescu-Dubrow


Irina Tomescu-Dubrow is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences and conducts research on inequality, attainment, and mobility in historical and cross-national perspectives.

Dynamic Class and Stratification in Poland

A new book, Dynamic Class and Stratification in Poland, forthcoming from CEU Press, takes the long view. Written by a team of authors from the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, including Irina Tomescu-Dubrow, Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, Henryk Domanski, Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow, Zbigniew Sawinski, and Dariusz Przybysz, this book is about changes to the social structure in Poland from the Communist era to the present. We, the authors, focus on class and stratification, two key facets of the social structure that best explain, as Gerhard Lenski famously put it, “who gets what and why.”

Our core concepts are rooted in the classic sociological literature on class and stratification, in Poland and abroad. We define class as occupationally-based groups that maneuver within the economic markets. Classes principally revolve around ownership relations and control over labor, including skills. Defining stratification as structured inequality with respect to scarce and valued resources, we focus on formal education, occupational rank, and job income.

Dynamic social structure begs the question: If stratification refers to enduring inequalities, how are social stratification structures simultaneously stable and dynamic? We argue that even during extreme societal transformations, key features of social life, class especially, have long-lasting, stratifying effects. Similarly, mechanisms of differentiation embedded in class and stratification, such as mobility and attainment, are potent explanations for how inequalities structure and restructure.

We use a variety of survey data, including the Polish Panel Survey (POLPAN 1988 -2013), the longest running panel survey in Central and Eastern Europe, and one of the longest in the world. In addition to our own analyses, we summarize the best in quantitative research that appeared in numerous Polish and English language publications since World War Two. This book is the first of its kind, as none other, in Polish or English, has linked Poland’s State Socialist past with the present using survey data on class and inequality.

To explain how the relationship between class and stratification changed through time, we present theoretical and empirical analyses that deal with the following main research questions:

Class and stratification: What has been the impact of the economic and political system in different periods on the class structure? How does the relationship between class and stratification change over-time?

Social mobility and attainment: How did the relationship between social origins and social destinations change over time? How did radical social change impact class mobility and educational attainment?

Occupational differentiation: What is the role of occupational differentiation in maintaining social inequality? Is the occupational hierarchy stable over time?

Class analyses: To what extent does the relationship between class and stratification differ for men and women? How does class align with political behavior after 1989?

We wrote this book because we feel that there are valuable lessons to be learned from linking past to present. Classic issues of class, stratification, mobility, and attainment have endured decades of radical social change. These concepts remain valid even when society tries to eradicate them. The theories retain their explanatory power, though the details shift with the times. Most contemporary class and stratification studies do not age well, as scholars tend to forget that what they are studying has, empirically speaking, deep historical roots. While some would be eager to shed the classic issues of the past to forge what they believe is a new path, this book is a reminder that history continually informs the present.

Table of Contents

Part I: Class and Stratification

Chapter 1: Polish Sociology and Investigations into Class and Stratification in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Chapter 2: Class Structure and Social Stratification in Poland from the 1970s to the 2010s

Part II: Mobility and Attainment

Chapter 3: Social Mobility and Systemic Changes in Class Structure: Analyzing Inflow-Outflow Tables with Different Origin and Destination Categories

Chapter 4: Social Mobility in Education and Occupation, 1982 – 2006

Chapter 5: Systemic Changes and Inequality in Access to Education, 1972 – 2008

Chapter 6: Determinants of Educational Inequality before and after the Systemic Change

Part III: Occupational Differentiation

Chapter 7: Occupational Classifications in Poland since the 1970s

Chapter 8: Changes in Occupational Prestige, 1958 – 2008

Part IV: Class Analyses

Chapter 9: Class, Gender and the Economic Crisis from an Intersectional Perspective

Chapter 10: Twenty Years of Class Voting in Poland, 1991 – 2011

In America, 20 Percent Reach “Affluence” at Least Once in Their Life

It depends on what you call affluence.  If you make 250,000 USD a year, this study considers you affluent:


WASHINGTON (AP) – Fully 20 percent of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives, wielding extensive influence over America’s economy and politics, according to new survey data.  These “new rich,” made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, are becoming politically influential, and economists say their capacity to spend is key to the U.S. economic recovery. But their rise is also a sign of the nation’s continuing economic polarization.

They extend well beyond the wealthiest 1 percent, a traditional group of super-rich millionaires and billionaires with long-held family assets. The new rich have household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives, putting them – if sometimes temporarily – in the top 2 percent of earners.

The new survey data on the affluent are being published in an upcoming book, and an analysis by The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research provided additional information on the views of the group.

Continue reading