Global Journal of Human Social Science, E: Economics, Volume 22 Issue 3

freedom respectively equal to 48.07 and 50.34. Both have zero non-significance probabilities. Concerning the square root of the average error, it does not exceed the upper limit of 0.07 as underlined by Steiger (2007), with in particular an RMSEA equal to 0.031 in 2005 and an RMSEA equal to 0.033 in 2010. the category of relative indices, we find respectively in 2005 and 2010 a CFI equal to 0.995 and 0.992. In Figure 2, we can read the coefficients of the paths of causality between the variables of the estimated structural model. In accordance with the first hypothesis mentioned on the relationship between O and D, the status of the father does indeed influence the destination with significant causal path coefficients of the order of 0.107 in 2005 and 0.109 in 2010. This slight increase between 2005 and 2010 is explained by a stronger link between the status of the parent and the level of education, as assumed by the existence of this link in the first hypothesis. This result challenges the dynamics of OED relations of liberal theory as already mentioned. In addition to confirming this by the causal path coefficients, Figure 2 shows that the influence of the family in the education of the child is also present through the level of education of the father. Through this path, it emerges that the father's level of education affects the variance of the son's level of education by 4.5 percent in 2005 and by 3.5 percent in 2010. The meritocratic character of the destination of the son on the labor market evolved in an increasing way between 2005 and 2010. This percentage went from the order of 6 to 11 percent in the explanation of the variance of the destination on the labor market, which is consistent what liberal theory predicts. So far, the coefficients presented in Figure 2 represent only direct causal effects between the variables. However, the model estimated here makes it possible to determine the total effect of one variable on another by adding to the direct effects of figure 2, the indirect effects resulting from the decomposition of the correlation coefficients. Table 2 below presents the results of the breakdown of the effects according to the different sectors. From this table, the following main conclusions can be drawn: The last row of Table 2 shows that overall, the total effect of the status of the parent on the destination of his offspring increased from 0.117 to 0.132. From the total effect, the indirect effect that passes through the level of education has also increased. It went from 8.56 percent of the total effect in 2005 to 17.43 percent in 2010. With regard to hypothesis h1.2 according to which the influence of the socioeconomic status of the father on the professional integration of his child evolves differently according to the institutional sectors, we note that: when we distinguish the different institutional sectors of the market of work, it emerges that in general, the increase in the influence of the status of the father on the positioning of his child on the labor market is more a consequence of what happened in the modern sectors contrary to the sector of the informal. Indeed, as the first two rows of Table 2 show, the influence of the status of the father in access to modern sectors has increased over time, this much more so in the public sector where the direct effect of the father has increased. 60.22 percent with a total effect of 65.52 percent; while in the formal private sector, this increase is less, namely around 19.35 percent for the direct effect and 20.21 percent for the total effect. In addition to the fact that the influence of parents has increased over time in access to modern sectors, we also realize that in certain privileged sectors, the direct effect of the father increases with the level of education. As can be seen in the figure (in appendix 2.III). From this figure, it emerges that: With regard to access to the public sector, the influence of the father has not only increased over time but also increases as the level of education increases. This means that in the public sector, education seems insufficient to access the best positions in the labor market. This is one of the reasons that serves to understand the action strategy of families in accessing the compartments of the labor market. Indeed, in the face of the expansion of education, as the level of education increases, competitiveness in access to the highly demanded public sector becomes increasingly important. This situation is at the origin of the greater influence of family capital. This trend can be seen in 2010 at the formal private level. This shows that the family intervenes more where the competition for access is more and more important, independently of the level of education. © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue III Version I 11 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 E Family Capital and Professional Integration of Young Graduates in Cameroon