Neighbourhoods and the g creation, stability and success of mixed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Neighbourhoods and the g creation, stability and success of i d th i i mixed ethnic unions

Zhiqiang Feng Paul Boyle, Maarten van Ham, Gillian Raab

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Mixed ethnic unions (MEUs) in Britain

• Non white population increased from 5%

in 1991 to 8% in 2001

• Mixed ethnic unions are defined as

couples who are either married or couples who are either married or cohabiting

• Mixed ethnic unions increased from 1.2%

in 1991 to 2.4% in 2001 in 1991 to 2.4% in 2001

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Proportions of people in mixed-unions by ethnic group

by ethnic group, year, sex

Proportion in mixed ethnic union

60 e 40 ercentage 20 P

White Black South Asian Other Asian Other

MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen

White Black South Asian Other Asian Other

Source: ONS LS

1991 2001

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Why study neighbourhood effects? Why study neighbourhood effects?

• Neighbourhoods may be important

locations for social contacts

• Places can be racialised – predominantly

ethnic neighbourhoods may create “local ethnic neighbourhoods may create local cultures” which encourage or discourage mixed-ethnic unions

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Why study neighbourhood effects? Why study neighbourhood effects?

• Previous studies find mixed-ethnic couples

are more likely to live in mixed-ethnic y neighbourhoods

• However it is not clear whether this is
• However, it is not clear whether this is

because mixed-ethnic couples form there or f / move there after marriage / cohabitation

• Most studies use cross-sectional data so it

Most studies use cross sectional data so it is difficult to study event sequences

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Longitudinal analysis Longitudinal analysis

• Identify people who were already in Britain

before partnering occurred p g

• Have data on pre-marriage / cohabiting

situations situations

• First British study to use the ONS LS and

to identify geographical influences on mixed-ethnic unions mixed ethnic unions

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Objectives Objectives

• 1. Measure the growth of mixed-ethnic couples

and their changing geographical distribution b t 1991 d 2001 between 1991 and 2001

• 2. Test whether living in a mixed-ethnic

neighbourhood makes it more likely that people neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples 3 Test whether people 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

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Objectives Objectives

• 5. Test whether mixed-ethnic couples are less

likely to dissolve if they live in mixed-ethnic likely to dissolve if they live in mixed ethnic neighbourhoods 6 Test whether living in a less deprived

• 6. Test whether living in a less deprived

neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples will end up in mixed-ethnic couples

• 7. Test whether people in mixed-ethnic couples

are more likely to move into less deprived are more likely to move into less deprived neighbourhoods

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Objectives covered today Objectives covered today

• 1. Measure the growth of mixed-ethnic couples

and their changing geographical distribution b t 1991 d 2001 between 1991 and 2001

• 2. Test whether living in a mixed-ethnic

neighbourhood makes it more likely that people neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples 3 Test whether people 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

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Data source Data source

• Office for National Statistics Longitudinal

Study (ONS LS) y ( )

– Longitudinal 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001 Anyone with one of four dates of birth is – Anyone with one of four dates of birth is included 1% l f E l d d W l (500 000) – 1% sample of England and Wales (500,000) – Ethnicity question introduced from 1991

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic groups Definition of ethnic groups

Presentation group in the study 1991 (ETHNIC9) 2001(ETHGRP0) in the study 1991 (ETHNIC9) 2001(ETHGRP0) White (W) White British Irish Other white Other white Black (B) Black-Caribbean Black-Caribbean Black-African Black-African Black other Other Black Black & White White & Black Caribbean Black & White White & Black Caribbean White & Black African* South Asian (SA) Indian Indian Pakistani Pakistani Bangladeshi Bangladeshi Bangladeshi Bangladeshi Other Asian (OA) Chinese Chinese Other Asian Other Asian Others (O) Other ethnic group: White & Asian i d i i Oth i d non-mixed origin Other mixed Other ethnic group: Other ethnic group mixed origin

S O S S

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS

Classifications of mixed-ethnic unions

White Black South A i Other A i Asian Asian White W-W White W W Black B W B B Black B-W B-B So th SA W SA B SA SA South Asian SA-W SA-B SA-SA Other Asian OA-W OA-B OA-SA OA-OA

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Number of mixed-ethnic unions England & Wales

Mixed-ethnic unions 1991 2001 Mixed ethnic unions 1991 2001 Black / White (B W) 1231 1737 Black / White (B-W) 1231 1737 South Asian / White (SA-W) 641 902 Oth A i / Whit (OA W) 643 730 Other Asian / White (OA-W) 643 730 Other / White (O-W) 998 1770 Total 3513 5139

Source: ONS LS

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas

%Min %Max #district White Black

District level 1991

Unmixed 4.2 378 4.21e+07 295717 Mixed 4.3 11.2 18 3779845 313654 Diverse 11.3 22.0 7 1036649 274796 %Min %Max #district White South Asian Unmixed 5.7 368 4.04e+07 486528 Unmixed 5.7 368 4.04e 07 486528 Mixed 5.8 13.5 25 5081356 564006 Diverse 13.6 24.7 10 1408762 396549 %Min %Max #district White Other Asian Unmixed 0.7 335 3.65e+07 113639 Mixed 0 8 2 4 51 8023667 113123 Mixed 0.8 2.4 51 8023667 113123 Diverse 2.5 4.6 17 2460169 112449

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009 Source: Census SAS 1991

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas

Ward level 1991

%Min %Max #wards White Black U i d 5 1 9027 4 37 07 293723 Unmixed 5.1 9027 4.37e+07 293723 Mixed 5.2 15.3 348 2393667 294933 Diverse 15.4 46.6 134 814534 291692 %Min %Max #wards White South Asian Unmixed 8.2 9070 4.39e+07 481595 Mixed 8.3 27.4 340 2502201 481898 Diverse 27.5 78.7 99 552121 479766 %Mi %M # d Whit Oth %Min %Max #wards White Other Asian Unmixed 0.9 8360 3.93e+07 111695 Mixed 1 0 2 7 845 5769979 111926 Mixed 1.0 2.7 845 5769979 111926 Diverse 2.8 12.2 304 1854538 111430

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009 Source: Census SAS 1991

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas

Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse U i d U i d & U i d & U i d & Unmixed Unmixed & Unmixed Unmixed & Mixed Unmixed & Diverse Mixed Mixed & Mixed & Mixed Mixed & Diverse Unmixed Diverse Diverse & Unmixed Diverse & Mixed Diverse & Diverse Unmixed Mixed Diverse

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas

Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse U i d U i d & U i d & Mi d Unmixed Unmixed & Unmixed Unmixed & Mixed Unmixed & Diverse Mixed Mixed & Mixed & Mixed Mixed & Diverse Unmixed Diverse Diverse & Unmixed Diverse & Mixed Diverse & Diverse Diverse & Mixed Diverse

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas

Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse U i d U & U U & MD Unmixed U & U U & MD Mixed M & U M & M M & D Diverse D & UM D & D

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Question 1 Methodology Question 1-Methodology

• whether mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods have a

positive effect on the formation of mixed-ethnic unions

– Sample

• LS members aged 6+ & single in 1991, present in 2001
• outcomes are:

married to/cohabiting with a person from the same ethnic group – married to/cohabiting with a person from the same ethnic group (0), – married to/cohabiting with a white partner (1) i l (2) – single (2)

– Method: Multinomial logistic model

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Individual variables Individual variables

Gender Age Religion Geographic region g Highest level of qualification Social class g p g Housing tenure Country of birth Social class Ethnicity of neighbourhood Country of birth Ethnicity

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Question 1 -- Predicted probability from multinomial logistic model Base category: people in same ethnic unions (SEUs) Neighbourhoods – districts, full model with no religion g g

0.4 0.3 artnering 0.2 y of out-pa 0.1 Probability 0.0 unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed diverse P Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group and neighbourhood type

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Question 1--Predicted probability from multinomial logistic model Base category: people in same ethnic unions Neighbourhoods – wards, full model with no religion g g

0.4 0.3 artnering 0.2 y of out-p 0.1 Probability 0.0 unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed diverse P Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group and neighbourhood type

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Question 1--Predicted probability from multinomial logistic model Base category: people in same ethnic unions Neighbourhoods – districts and wards, full model with no religion

0.4 g

g g

0.3

• partnerin

0.2 ity of out- 0.1 Probabil 0.0 U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group and neighbourhood type (district & ward)

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Question 1--Predicted probability from multinomial logistic model Base category: people in same ethnic unions Neighbourhoods districts and wards full model with religion Neighbourhoods – districts and wards, full model with religion

0.4 g 0.3

• partnerin

0.2 ity of out- 0.1 Probabil 0.0 U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D U&U U&MD M&U M&M M&D D&UM D&D U D U D U D Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group and neighbourhood type (district & ward)

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Question 2-Methodology

• 2 – whether mixed-ethnic couples more likely to

move to mixed ethnic neighbourhood move to mixed ethnic neighbourhood – Sample:

• People who were married or cohabiting in 1991,

present & remained as couples in 2001 t

• outcomes are:

– non-mover or moved between the same type area (0) – moved to more mixed neighbourhood (1) – moved to more mixed neighbourhood (1) – moved to less mixed neighbourhood (2)

• Method: Multinomial logistic model

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

e

• d

u

• a og s c
• de

Definition of movement types Definition of movement types

2001 1991

Unmixed Mixed Diverse Unmixed 1 1 Mixed 2 1 Diverse 2 2 Diverse 2 2

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Descriptive – Location quotients Descriptive Location quotients

1991 MEU CEU

unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed diverse

Black 1.73 0.55 0.47 0.73 1.17

1.20

South

1 03

Asian 2.29 0.63 0.25 0.95 1.01

1.03

Other Asian 1.36 0.56 0.46 0.90 1.13

1.15 2001 MEU CEU

unmixed mixed diverse unmixed mixed

diverse

Black 1.95 0.74 0.33 0.65 1.10

1.25

South Asian 2.66 0.75 0.28 0.93 1.01

1.03

Asian 2.66 0.75 0.28 0.93 1.01

03

Other Asian 1.45 0.67 0.41 0.87 1.09

1.17

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Descriptive

ti f d b t 1991 d 2001 proportion of moved between 1991 and 2001 by ethnic group and union type

50 40 45 50 25 30 35

• n moved

CEU 15 20 25 Proportio MEU 5 10 Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Question 2 – Adjusted odds ratio from multinomial logistic model Base category: people who did not move or moved between same type of areas, Neighbourhoods – wards, full model with no religion

4 as 3 mixed area 2 ng to less m CEU MEU 1

• of movin

MEU 1 Odds ratio Black South Asian Other Asian Ethnic group 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Source: ONS LS, Authors analysis

Conclusions Conclusions

Th f ti f MEU The formation of MEUs

• 1. Single people from all three ethnic

g p p groups were more likely to partner a white person if living in unmixed places p g p

• 2. Both districts and wards were associated

with the propensity of out-partnering with the propensity of out-partnering

• 3. Religion is important in affecting

propensit of o t partnering partic larl propensity of out-partnering, particularly for South Asian

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Conclusions Conclusions

Movement of MEUs 1 Minority ethnic people who involved in

• 1. Minority ethnic people who involved in

MEUs were more likely to change residence between 1991 and 2001 residence between 1991 and 2001

• 2. Minority ethnic people who involved in

MEUs were more likely to move to less mixed areas mixed areas

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Plan ahead Plan ahead

• 1. Measure the growth of mixed-ethnic couples

and their changing geographical distribution b t 1991 d 2001 between 1991 and 2001

• 2. Test whether living in a mixed-ethnic

neighbourhood makes it more likely that people neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples 3 Test whether people 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

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Plan ahead

• 5. Test whether mixed-ethnic couples are less

likely to dissolve if they live in mixed-ethnic likely to dissolve if they live in mixed ethnic neighbourhoods 6 Test whether living in a less deprived

• 6. Test whether living in a less deprived

neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed ethnic couples will end up in mixed-ethnic couples

• 7. Test whether people in mixed-ethnic couples

lik l t i t l d i d are more likely to move into less deprived neighbourhoods

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

Thi h i f d d b th ESRC d th

• This research is funded by the ESRC under the

Understanding Population Trends and Processes (UPTAP) programme (Award Ref: RES-1563-25-0045) ( ) p g ( )

• The permission of the Office for National Statistics to use

p the Longitudinal Study is gratefully acknowledged, as is the help provided by Julian Buxton of the Centre for Longitudinal Study Information & User Support Longitudinal Study Information & User Support (CeLSIUS). CeLSIUS is supported by the ESRC Census

• f Population Programme (Award Ref: RES-348-25-

0004) Th th l ibl f th 0004). The authors alone are responsible for the interpretation of the data

23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009