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

Neighbourhoods and the g creation, stability and success of mixed ethnic unions i d th i i 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 Proportion in mixed ethnic union by ethnic group, year, sex 60 e ercentage 40 P 20 0 MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen MenWomen White White Black Black South Asian South Asian Other Asian Other Asian Other Other 1991 2001 Source: ONS LS 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 move there after marriage / cohabitation f / • 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 between 1991 and 2001 1991 d 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 3. Test whether people in mixed ethnic couples 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 6. Test whether living in a less deprived 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 between 1991 and 2001 1991 d 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 3. Test whether people in mixed ethnic couples 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% sample of England and Wales (500,000) 1% l f E l d d W l (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 in the study 1991 (ETHNIC9) 1991 (ETHNIC9) 2001(ETHGRP0) 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 Black & White White & Black Caribbean 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 non-mixed origin i d i i Oth Other mixed i d Other ethnic group: Other ethnic group mixed origin S Source: ONS LS O S S 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Classifications of mixed-ethnic unions White Black South Other Asian A i Asian A i White White W-W W W Black Black B-W B W B-B B B So th South SA-W SA W SA B SA-B SA-SA SA SA Asian Other OA-W OA-B OA-SA OA-OA Asian 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Number of mixed-ethnic unions England & Wales Mixed-ethnic unions Mixed ethnic unions 1991 1991 2001 2001 Black / White (B W) Black / White (B-W) 1231 1231 1737 1737 South Asian / White (SA-W) 641 902 Other Asian / White (OA-W) Oth A i / Whit (OA W) 643 643 730 730 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 District level 1991 %Min %Max #district White Black Unmixed 0 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 Unmixed 0 0 5.7 5.7 368 368 4.04e 07 4.04e+07 486528 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 0.7 335 3.65e+07 113639 Mixed Mixed 0 8 0.8 2.4 2 4 51 51 8023667 8023667 113123 113123 Diverse 2.5 4.6 17 2460169 112449 Source: Census SAS 1991 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas Ward level 1991 %Min %Max #wards White Black U Unmixed i d 0 0 5.1 5 1 9027 9027 4 37 4.37e+07 07 293723 293723 Mixed 5.2 15.3 348 2393667 294933 Diverse 15.4 46.6 134 814534 291692 %Min %Max #wards White South Asian Unmixed 0 8.2 9070 4.39e+07 481595 Mixed 8.3 27.4 340 2502201 481898 Diverse 27.5 78.7 99 552121 479766 %Mi %Min %Max %M # #wards d Whit White Oth Other Asian Unmixed 0 0.9 8360 3.93e+07 111695 Mixed Mixed 1.0 1 0 2.7 2 7 845 845 5769979 5769979 111926 111926 Diverse 2.8 12.2 304 1854538 111430 Source: Census SAS 1991 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse Unmixed U i d U Unmixed & i d & U Unmixed & i d & U Unmixed & i d & Unmixed Mixed Diverse Mixed Mixed & Mixed & Mixed Mixed & Diverse Unmixed Diverse Diverse & Diverse & Diverse & Unmixed Unmixed Mixed Mixed Diverse Diverse 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse Unmixed U i d Unmixed & U i d & U Unmixed & Mixed i d & Mi d Unmixed Unmixed & Diverse Mixed Mixed & Mixed & Mixed Mixed & Diverse Unmixed Diverse Diverse & Unmixed Diverse & Diverse & Mixed Diverse & Mixed Diverse Diverse 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Definition of ethnic areas Definition of ethnic areas Ward District District Unmixed Mixed Diverse U Unmixed i d U & U U & U U & MD U & MD Mixed M & U M & M M & D Diverse D & UM D & D 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

UPTAP Workshop 2009 23-25 March

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) – single (2) i l (2) – Method: Multinomial logistic model 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009

Individual variables Individual variables Gender Religion Age g Geographic region g p g Highest level of qualification Housing tenure Social class Social class Country of birth Country of birth Ethnicity of neighbourhood Ethnicity 23-25 March UPTAP Workshop 2009