Upload
jada
View
29
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Neighbourhoods and the creation, stability and success of mixed ethnic unions. Zhiqiang Feng Paul Boyle, Maarten van Ham, Gillian Raab. linking lives through time www.lscs.ac.uk. Why study mixed-ethnic unions?. Geographical Segregation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Neighbourhoods and the creation, stability and success of
mixed ethnic unions
Zhiqiang FengPaul Boyle, Maarten van Ham, Gillian Raab
linking lives through time www.lscs.ac.uk
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Why study mixed-ethnic unions?
• Geographical Segregation– Numerous studies have ignored mixing within
households/families
• Government actively promotes integration of ethnic minorities
• Mixed-ethnic unions – Demonstrate break-down of ethnic barriers and are
suggestive of degree of ethnic integration in a society– Numbers are small but increasing– Create new minority groups-mixed ethnic groups
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Proportions of mixed-unions by ethnic group
England and Wales, Data Source: 1991 and 2001 HHSARs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
white
black
car
ibbean
black
afri
can
black
oth
er
india
n
pakis
tani
bang
ladesh
i
chine
se
othe
r-asia
n
othe
r-oth
er
male 1991
male 2001
female 1991
female 2001
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Theories
• Assimilation– Most assimilated groups more likely to cross ethnic
lines to out-partner• Demography
– Sex ratio– Relative size
• Social exchange– Lower status majority members partner higher status
minority members• Segregation
– Reduce opportunity to meet potential partners
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Existing Studies in Britain
• Data sources– Labour Force Surveys (Jones 1984, Coleman
1985, 2004)– The Fourth National Survey of Ethnic
Minorities (1994) (Muttarak 2003)– Census
• Household SARs (Berrington 1996, Model & Fisher 2002)
• ONS LS (Muttarak 2005)
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Studies in Britain
• Most are descriptive
• They tend to use cross-sectional analyses
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Some results from previous studies
• Positive effects:
– Age– Second generation– Males– Educational attainment– Higher social class
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Some results from previous studies
• Negative
– Size of ethnic group– Residential segregation– Cultural distance
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Issues with cross-sectional analysis
• We don’t know when or where marriage / cohabitation occurred– Prevalence vs incidence
• Pre-marriage / cohabitation conditions unknown– Socio-economic situations may change after
marriage / cohabitation– Not suitable for causal inference
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Longitudinal analysis
• Identify people who were already in Britain before partnering occurred
• Have data on pre-marriage / cohabiting situations
• First British study to use the ONS LS and SLS to identify geographical influences on mixed-ethnic unions
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Why study neighbourhood effects?
• Neighbourhoods may be important locations for social contacts
• Places reflect social relations and constitute and reinforce social relations (Delaney 2002)
• Places can be racialised – predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods may create “local cultures” which discourage mixed-ethnic unions
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Why study neighbourhood effects?
• Previous studies find mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to live in mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods
• However, it is not clear whether this is because mixed-ethnic couples form there or move there after marriage / cohabitation
• Most studies use cross-sectional data so it is difficult to study event sequences
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Objectives
1. Measure the growth of mixed-ethnic couples and their changing geographical distribution between 1991 and 2001
2. Test whether living in a mixed-ethnic neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples
3. Test whether people in mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to move into mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods
4. Test whether mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to dissolve than single-ethnic couples
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Objectives
5. Test whether mixed-ethnic couples are less likely to dissolve if they live in mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods
6. Test whether living in a less deprived neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples
7. Test whether people in mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to move into less deprived neighbourhoods
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Data source
• ONS LS– Longitudinal 1971-2001– 1% sample of England and Wales (500,000)
• SLS– Longitudinal 1991-2001– 5.3% sample of Scottish population (265,000)
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Definition of ethnic groupsPresentation groupin the study 1991 (ETHNIC9) 2001(ETHGRP0)
White (W) White BritishIrishOther white
Black (B) Black-Caribbean Black-Caribbean Black-African Black-African Black other Other Black Black & White White & Black Caribbean
White & Black African*Asian (A) Indian Indian
Pakistani PakistaniBangladeshi Bangladeshi
Other Asian (OA) Chinese ChineseOther Asian Other Asian
Others (O) Other ethnic group: White & Asiannon-mixed origin Other mixedOther ethnic group: Other ethnic groupmixed origin
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
White Black Asian Other Asian
White WW WB WA WOA
Black BB BA BOA
Asian AA AOA
Other Asian
OAOA
Classifications of mixed-ethnic unions
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Number of mixed-ethnic unions England & Wales
Mixed-ethnic unions 1991 2001
White / Black (WB) 1231 1737White / Asian (WA) 641 902White / Other Asians (WOA) 643 730White / Others (WO) 998 1770Total 3513 5139
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods
Relative size
minority population / white population
Exposure index
Diversity
Shannons entropy
N
iiii pwMmI
1
)]/(*)/[(
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods
• Continuous?
or
• Dichotomous?
• Use different forms in different models?
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Methodology
• Objective 1 (growth of mixed-ethnic unions, 1991 vs 2001)
– ONS LS + SLS – Descriptive – Logistic / log-linear models
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Methodology
• Objective 2 & 6 – whether mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods or less deprived neighbourhoods have positive effects on formation of mixed-ethnic unions
– ONS LS data, 1981 vs 1991, 1991 vs 2001– Whether people aged 6+ & single in 1981, ended up
being married to, or cohabiting with, people from another ethnic group in 1991
– Repeat for 1991-2001– Logistic & Heckman selection model controlling for
probability of partnering
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Methodology
• Objectives 3,4,5,7 – whether mixed-ethnic couples
– More likely to move to mixed ethnic neighbourhood– More likely to dissolve than single ethnic couples– Less likely to dissolve if living in mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods
– More likely to move into less deprived neighbourhoods • ONS LS 1991-2001• Sample: People who were married or cohabiting in 1991• Logistic model of the probability of these events in 2001
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Individual variables
Gender
Age
Urban/Rural
Social class
Highest level of education
Economic position
Number of dept. children
Marital status
Religion (2001)
Geographic region
Housing tenure
Country of birth
Ethnicity
18-19 March 2008 UPTAP Workshop
Work so far
• Literature review
• Research design
• SLS proposal approved
• Data request sent to ONS LS