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
Top Related