Neighbourhoods and the creation, stability and success of mixed ethnic unions

1. Neighbourhoods and the creation, stability and success of mixed ethnic unions Zhiqiang Feng Paul Boyle, Maarten van Ham, Gillian Raab UPTAP Workshop linking lives through timewww.lscs.ac.uk

2. 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 UPTAP Workshop

3. Proportions of mixed-unions by ethnic group UPTAP Workshop England and Wales, Data Source: 1991 and 2001 HHSARs

4. 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 UPTAP Workshop

5. 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) UPTAP Workshop

6. Studies in Britain • Most are descriptive • They tend to use cross-sectional analyses UPTAP Workshop

7. Some results from previous studies • Positive effects: • Age • Second generation • Males • Educational attainment • Higher social class UPTAP Workshop

8. Some results from previous studies • Negative • Size of ethnic group • Residential segregation • Cultural distance UPTAP Workshop

9. 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 UPTAP Workshop

10. 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 UPTAP Workshop

11. 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 UPTAP Workshop

12. 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 UPTAP Workshop

13. Objectives • Measure the growth of mixed-ethnic couples and their changing geographical distribution between 1991 and 2001 • Test whether living in a mixed-ethnic neighbourhood makes it more likely that people will end up in mixed-ethnic couples • Test whether people in mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to move into mixed-ethnic neighbourhoods • Test whether mixed-ethnic couples are more likely to dissolve than single-ethnic couples UPTAP Workshop

14. 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 UPTAP Workshop

15. 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) UPTAP Workshop

16. Definition of ethnic groups Presentation group in the study 1991 (ETHNIC9) 2001(ETHGRP0) White (W) White British Irish Other 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 Pakistani Bangladeshi Bangladeshi Other Asian (OA) Chinese Chinese Other Asian Other Asian Others (O) Other ethnic group: White & Asian non-mixed origin Other mixed Other ethnic group: Other ethnic group mixed origin UPTAP Workshop

17. Classifications of mixed-ethnic unions UPTAP Workshop

18. Number of mixed-ethnic unions England & Wales Mixed-ethnic unions 1991 2001 White / Black (WB) 1231 1737 White / Asian (WA) 641 902 White / Other Asians (WOA) 643 730 White / Others (WO) 998 1770 Total 3513 5139 UPTAP Workshop

19. Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods Relative size minority population / white population Exposure index Diversity Shannons entropy UPTAP Workshop

20. Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods • Continuous? or • Dichotomous? • Use different forms in different models? UPTAP Workshop

21. Methodology • Objective 1 (growth of mixed-ethnic unions, 1991 vs 2001) • ONS LS + SLS • Descriptive • Logistic / log-linear models UPTAP Workshop

22. 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 UPTAP Workshop

23. 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 UPTAP Workshop

24. Individual variables UPTAP Workshop

25. Work so far • Literature review • Research design • SLS proposal approved • Data request sent to ONS LS UPTAP Workshop