Between Mechanism Talk And Mechanism Cult: New Emphases in Explanatory Sociology And Empirical Research

The study of mechanisms has received increased attention in recent years and contributed to the formation of so-called ‘analytical sociology’ that has put the idea of social mechanisms at its core. We discuss the crucial characteristics of mechanism-based explanations and their relation to the longstanding tradition of explanatory sociology. Looking at the widespread and growing number of references to ‘mechanisms’ in the current research literature, we identify typical deviations from the ideal of a mechanism-based explanation. Many references come down to mechanism talk insofar as it is not explicated in detail how and why particular inputs tend to result in particular outputs. To this end, researchers have to give a detailed verbal account of how exactly a mechanism is thought to unfold under specified conditions, or to specify a formal generative model which can be analysed analytically or by simulation. This agenda has been at the core of methodological individualism, sociological rational choice theory, and explanatory sociology for some time, but has received a new coat of whitewash by analytical sociology. This more recent theoretical movement offers a fresh problem-centred agenda based on the well-known macro-micro-macro model and could inspire a new generation of research that places greater weight on analysing social dynamics than on developing theories of action. However, we submit that, rather than constituting a competing approach, these impulses should be located within the longstanding and multifaceted explanatory agenda in sociology. Avoiding any form of mechanism cult and choosing from the full toolbox of explanatory/analytical sociology will be crucial to answer key questions in established areas of sociological research.     

Ethnic inequalities at the transition from school to work in Belgium and Spain: Discrimination or self-exclusion?

In the labor market, net disadvantages of immigrants, so-called “ethnic penalties”, may stem from rather different sources, among them discrimination by employers or self-exclusion processes. This paper attempts to indirectly disentangle these two mechanisms by studying ethnic penalties from a time-related perspective. Using the EULFS 2000 ad hoc module on school-to-work transitions, a comparative event-history analysis of entry into stable higher status employment is conducted for two European countries, Belgium and Spain. These countries differ considerably in their immigration contexts and patterns of school-to-work transitions, requiring different hypotheses about the relevance of the self-exclusion mechanism. The results show that in Belgium ethnic penalties for non-EU immigrants exist and remain constant irrespective of the length of the job search. In Spain the gap between non-EU immigrants and the native-born is even more pronounced and, importantly, increases significantly over time. This leads to the conclusion that discrimination seems to be relevant in both contexts and that self-exclusion resulting from early abandonment of job search activities is a further important factor in Spain.     

Die Persistenz ethnischer Ungleichheit auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt

In the German labor market former labor immigrants and their descendents still occupy lower positions. In contrast to the early phase of in-migration nowadays most of the obvious structural reasons for ethnic stratification have vanished. Therefore, remaining inequalities could either be due to processes of discrimination or may result from immigrants’ permanent under-investment in human capital. In this contribution we present theoretical arguments and empirical results why the latter mechanism seems to be more important for the situation in the German labor market. Using data of the micro-census 1996 we analyze, whether labor market positions of immigrants are still lower controlling for generation and education. The findings are rather clear-cut: nearly all labor market disadvantages of the second generation can be traced back to educational differences.     

Partnership and migration. A theoretical explanation of an empirical effect]

People who share a common household with their life partner tend to demonstrate very low residential mobility. Attempts to explain this have been fruitful to an extent, but controlling for appropriate third variables does not entirely account for the effect of partnership status on mobility. A simple microeconomic model makes a first attempt to explain the independent effect of partnership status on migration decisions. This first attempt is here expanded into a behavior theory model and an expanded model of decision making in the context of uncertainty. According to this analysis, within certain parameters, the decisive obstacle to the mobility of couples living together consists of the risks and costs associated with negotiations. The anticipation of possible negotiating problems frequently results in a potentially positive migration opportunity not even being considered for a decision. The proposed theoretical models are empirically tested using data from the study on migration potential undertaken by the University of Mannheim's Center for European Social Research.