Upper-class romance: homogamy at the apex of the class structure

Figures & data

Figure 1. The ORDC scheme with examples of the most dominant occupations.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for upper-class subpopulation.

	Frequency	Per cent	Cum.	Percentage point difference difference
Class position
Cultural fraction (1.12 % of age group)	9,702	21.47	21.47
Balanced fraction (2.30 % of age group)	20,008	44.29	65.76
Economic fraction (1.78 % of age group)	15,469	34.24	100.00
Gender
Men	32,658	72.29	72.29	21.13
Women	12,521	27.71	100.00
Class origin
Upper class: culture	1,700	3.76	3.76	2.84
Upper class: balanced	5,630	12.46	16.22	9.22
Upper class: economic	2,040	4.52	20.74	3.36
Upper-middle class: culture	2,409	5.33	26.07	3.42
Upper-middle class: balanced	4,269	9.45	35.52	3.63
Upper-middle class: economic	5,079	11.24	46.76	5.89
Lower-middle class: culture	1,378	3.05	49.81	1.25
Lower-middle class: balanced	3,487	7.72	57.53	−0.39
Lower-middle class: economic	2,067	4.58	62.11	0.85
Skilled working class	4,863	10.76	72.87	−4.22
Unskilled working class	5,656	12.52	85.39	−12.58
Farming/forestry/fisheries	1,622	3.59	88.98	−1.47
Missing^a	4,979	11.02	100.00	−11.80
Civil status (2012)
Spouse or partner	31,186	69.03	69.03	17.95
Divorced, widowed, etc.	7,463	16.52	85.55	−3.92
Unmarried	6,846	14.36	99.91	−5.51
Missing	42	0.09	100.00	−8.52
Partner’s class position
Upper class: culture	1,967	4.35	4.35	3.71
Upper class: balanced	3,064	6.78	11.14	5.29
Upper class: economic	1,613	3.57	14.71	2.23
Upper-middle class: culture	3,050	6.75	21.46	3.98
Upper-middle class: balanced	6,377	14.11	35.57	7.14
Upper-middle class: economic	3,106	6.87	42.45	2.58
Lower-middle class: culture	982	2.17	44.62	1.04
Lower-middle class: balanced	4,064	9.00	53.62	3.67
Lower-middle class: economic	2,509	5.55	59.17	1.21
Skilled working class	2,275	5.04	64.20	−4.57
Unskilled working class	1,833	4.06	68.26	−5.35
Farming/forestry/fisheries	127	0.28	68.54	−0.67
Outside of the labour market	4,429	9.80	78.35	−1.81
Missing	9,783	21.65	100.00	−18.47
Total N:	45,179	100.00
Total partner's N	38,649	100.00

^aAmong the upper-class subpopulation for which parental data are lacking, 91 per cent are first-generation immigrants from European countries, many of which are culturally similar to Norway (e.g. the remaining Nordic countries, the UK, and Germany). Only 75 individuals are descendants of two foreign-born parents. The ethnic composition of the Norwegian upper class is in other words overwhelmingly homogeneous. Thus, it is highly unlikely that ethnic divisions stratify the marriage patterns observed.

Figure 2. Distribution of upper-class partner’s vertical class position, by gender.

Figure 3. Distribution of upper-class partner’s horizontal class position, by gender and upper-class fraction. Fraction-specific homogamy marked in dark grey.

Figure 4. Odds ratios for having a partner in the upper class, by gender and vertical class position. 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 5. Odds ratios for having a partner in the upper class, by gender and class trajectory of upper-class subpopulation. 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 6. Relative risk ratios for having a partner in the upper class (first row) and in the same upper-class fraction (second row), by gender and upper-class fraction. 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 7. Relative risk ratios for having a partner in the same upper-class fraction, by gender and fraction-specific class trajectory. 95% confidence intervals.