nerational social mobility seek to explore the extent at which individuals achieve or fail to achieve a higher social status than that of their parents (OECD 2010, p.182). Simply put, social mobility is the ability to move from one social class to another at whichever direction depending on the prevailing environment.
It is important to describe the types of social mobility that are feasible under the right conditions, and they are vertical and horizontal mobility. Vertical social mobility illustrates change in a group’s or individual statue along the social hierarchy, which can be upward or downwards depending on the prevailing factors. On the other hand, horizontal mobility involves change in the occupational role in the society without any subsequent ascend or descend in the social stratification.
Max Weber’s definition of social class dwells on the demarcation of the three spheres of society, where class is a non-social form, and status groups, as well as parties are viewed as the modes of associative or communal socialization that go beyond state and national boundaries (Gane 2005, p.211). Weber’s philosophies go deeper to define social class as an intrinsic social institution or entity by labelling and referring to it as a status group and class. As such, his suppositions are that social class is based on cultural values, as opposed to the economic interests that are found in the ideologies and philosophies of Karl Max in defining and describing social classes and issues. Weber declares that a social class is the largest component, if not the only component in the totality of class situations in which individual and generational mobility is found (Gane 2005, p.213). As such, his definition of power in social classes has nothing to do with economic wellbeing as found in the Marxist theory, but rather dwells on the political and cultural power. Therefore, for him the basis of social classes relies heavily on the interests of the said classes rather than