Change of the class structure of Lithuanian society in 1923-2009

The purpose of the article is to introduce to a Lithuanian historian the class theory of Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe, and Lucienne Portocarero (EGP), which continues the Weberian tradition of the social structure analysis, and to demonstrate by showing its usefulness for social history by providing three crosssections of the class structure of Lithuanian society in 1923, 1989, and 2009. The first two time-points are the dates of the general censuses in Lithuania, and in 2009 Lithuania was covered for the first time by the European Social Survey (ESS). However, the selection of these time-points can be validated also by a substantive argument: these cross-sections are sufficient to compare the class structures of Lithuania, exemplifying all three consecutive social formations in this country during the recent one hundred years of economic and social change: (1) agrarian family capitalism in the interwar time, (2) industrial state socialism just before its demise, (3) and post-industrial capitalism in the making since the 1990s. The standard application of the EGP class theory for the analysis of the social structure of a specific society includes the construction of 3, 5, 7, and 11 class models in the order of decreasing abstraction. While the EGP class theory has the merit of considering farmers as a separate class even in the most abstract 3 class model, its most specific 11 class models display inconsistencies and simplifications (e.g., inclusion of large owners employers into the upper service class). While explainable and even justifiable by the primary purpose of the EGP class theory to serve as a tool of social mobility analysis in industrial societies, these simplifications impair its usefulness as a framework for the analysis of the class structure of underdeveloped capitalist societies. Therefore, the first section of the article provides an upgrading of the original EGP class theory by designing 14 class model where (1) large owners employers are separated from the upper service class and divided into agrarian and non-agrarian classes, and (2) small owners employers and self-employed workers in agriculture are considered as two separate classes. This enlarged class scheme both takes into account some Marxist criticism of the neo-Weberian approach and allows a more differentiating analysis of the social structure of underdeveloped agrarian capitalist societies such as interwar Lithuania. Because of space limits, the empirical analysis is limited to minimal (most abstract) 3 and maximal (most specific) 14 EGP class models, leaving the construction of intermediate models (by reducing the maximal model) for the reader’s exercise. While EGP class structure models for Lithuania in 2009 are grounded in the data collected using the ESS questionnaire which includes specific questions to identify the membership of a respondent in one of 11 classes, the use of the census data from 1923 and especially from 1989 involves many assumptions and approximations. Such assumptions and approximations are necessary also when measuring the size of additional 3 classes in 2009, as the ESS questionnaire is tailored to the original 11 EGP class version. These assumptions give to the 14 EGP models an interpretative flavour, asking for further research which should include additional cross-sections for the period between 1923 and 1989. For a more detailed picture of the class structure of post-communist Lithuania, containing broad international comparisons, see: Vaidas Morkevičius and Zenonas Norkus, “The Class Structure of Contemporary Lithuania: A NeoWeberian Analysis” (Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012, Nr. 2 (31), p. 24–101)