Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Occupational mobility and neighbourhood effects: a longitudinal study ESRC Seminar Series – 4 & 5.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Occupational mobility and neighbourhood effects: a longitudinal study ESRC Seminar Series – 4 & 5."— Presentation transcript:

1 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Occupational mobility and neighbourhood effects: a longitudinal study ESRC Seminar Series – 4 & 5 February 2010 Dr David Manley & Dr Maarten van Ham Centre for Housing Research University of St Andrews

2 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Neighbourhood Effects There is a strong belief in neighbourhood effects: the assumed negative effect of living in deprived neighbourhoods – above and beyond the effect of individual characteristics – on resident’s health, employment and general well-being. Many policy documents – including the Firm Foundations document from the Scottish Government - highlight the correlation between concentrations of deprivation (and social housing) and negative outcomes (such as unemployment)

3 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews The evidence? Research consistently shows that neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation have higher levels of unemployment, crime, and long term limiting illness. Research also shows that individuals in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of deprivation are more likely to be unemployed and suffer from poorer health.

4 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews But… “There is surprisingly little evidence that living in poor neighbourhoods makes people poorer and erodes their life chances, independently of those factors that contribute to their poverty in the first place.” (Paul Cheshire, JRF, 2007) “do poor people live in poor neighbourhoods because living in affluent ones costs too much? Or does living in a poor neighbourhood make poor people significantly poorer?” (Paul Cheshire, JRF, 2007)

5 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Problems with many existing studies on neighbourhood effects Ecological fallacy –Analyses at the level of neighbourhoods do not necessarily say anything useful about processes at the individual level. Most analyses are cross sectional –Most studies only show correlations and no causation. Existing evidence is most likely reversed causality. –Existing longitudinal studies show no evidence of neighbourhood effects or benefits from deconcentrating poverty.

6 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Our contribution to the literature Individual level analysis (avoids the ecological problem). Use of longitudinal data from the Scottish Longitudinal Study (SLS), allowing us to follow individuals over a 10-year period (avoiding the cross sectional problem). Advantages of using the SLS: –Large-scale data set: 5.3% sample of the Scottish population based on 1991 and 2001 individual census records –Low spatial level geo-coding allowing researchers to link neighbourhood characteristics to individual records.

7 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Research Question Research suggests individuals in deprived neighbourhoods are less likely to achieve occupational mobility than individuals in non-deprived neighbourhoods Question: To what extent does the neighbourhood deprivation influence occupational mobility?

8 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Research design Model whether the 1991 neighbourhood deprivation influences the improvement in occupational status for an individual between 1991 and 2001 Controlling for neighbourhood & individual & household characteristics.

9 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Causality Important to realise that we use 1991 data to measure 2001 outcome. For instance: –1991 Education –1991 Neighbourhood –1991 Tenure. Also include change variables: –1991 compared to 2001 Household Status –1991 compared to 2001 Health.

10 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Definition of Neighbourhood Output Areas –119 people on average Consistent Areas Through Time –550 people on average. Deprivation from Carstairs index, in quintiles – 1 least deprived, – 5 most deprived

11 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews ISEI International Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status Continuous measurement. –ISEI 16 = Cleaners and Domestic helpers –ISEI 29 = Coffee shop barista –ISEI 45 = Tailor or dressmaker –ISEI 52 = Travel agency clerk –ISEI 65 = Social science professionals –ISEI 90 = Judges

12 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews

13 Analysis Occupational mobility,

14 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews OA

15 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews OA

16 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews OA

17 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews OA

18 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews OA

19 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews CATT

20 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Some (initial) conclusions The initial negative effect of a high level of deprivation on occupational mobility outcomes reduces when controlling, individual educational achievement, household circumstances and tenure. What remains is a (small but significant) negative effect of living in a deprived neighbourhood on occupational mobility outcomes The neighbourhood effects are relatively small compared to the effect of individual & household characteristics.

21 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Selective mobility into neighbourhoods The negative effect of living in a deprived neighbourhood on occupational mobility might indicate that: 1.Living in a deprived neighbourhood has a negative effect on occupational mobility 2.Unmeasured individual characteristics correlate with both the low occupational mobility and the probability of living in a deprived neighbourhood. So to test robustness of our models we ran separate models for different age, educational, mover status, and tenure groups (owners, private renters and social renters). (Oreopoulos, 2003; Bolster et al 2005; van Ham & Manley, 2010)

22 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews SOCIALPRIVATEOWNERS coeffstd errsigcoeffstd errsigcoeffstd errsig ISEI *** *** *** Deprivation (reference = least) 2nd quintile *** 3rd quintile *** 4th quintile ** *** 5th quintile *** *** Urban or Rural (reference large city) Urban Area *** *** *** Small Town *** *** Remote Town *** *** *** Rural Area * *** *** Remote Area *** *** *** Education 1991 (reference none) No degree *** *** *** Degree *** *** *** None stated Sex (reference male) *** Ethnicity (reference not ethnic) ** Age *** *** *** Household (reference Couple 91 & 01) Single 91 & * Single, Couple ** *** Couple, Single ** Children (Children 91 & 01) No children 91 & *** *** *** No child, child * Child, no child *** *** *** Limiting Long term illness (ref none) LLTI 91 & *** *** LLTI ** LLTI *** *** Partner works *** *** Constant *** *** ***

23 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Social Housing SOCIAL coeffstd errsig ISEI *** Deprivation (reference = least) 2nd quintile rd quintile th quintile th quintile

24 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Private Renters PRIVATE coeffstd errsig ISEI *** Deprivation (reference = least) 2nd quintile rd quintile th quintile ** 5th quintile ***

25 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Owner Occupiers OWNERS coeffstd errsig ISEI *** Deprivation (reference = least) 2nd quintile *** 3rd quintile *** 4th quintile *** 5th quintile ***

26 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Selective mobility of owners into deprived neighbourhoods The tenure split models only show neighbourhood effects for owners and not for renters. Does this mean that neighbourhood correlations (effects?) only exist for owners? NO… it is more likely that those owners most at risk of lower occ’ mob’ in 1991 selected themselves into more deprived neighbourhoods. Such a selection mechanism did not operate for social renters as most were allocated a dwelling (and neighbourhood) in 1991

27 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Testing Selection If there isn’t a selection effect then it should not be possible to predict how individuals ‘sorting’ into neighbourhoods Research question: Does the neighbourhood an individual enters depend on their ISEI score? If there is a difference, then there is evidence of sorting…

28 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Neighbourhood Deprivation and ISEI TenureLow ISEIHigh ISEI Owner Occupiers Private Renters Social Renters -1.7

29 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Implications There is little evidence of an independent effect of neighbourhood characteristics on occupational mobility outcomes (?) Poor people live in poor neighbourhoods because living in affluent ones costs too much… but living in a poor neighbourhood does NOT make poor people significantly poorer. This does not take away the problem of concentrated poverty in deprived neighbourhoods.

30 Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the support of the SLS team at the LSCS and in particular the support of Dr Zhiqiang Feng The SLS and the LSCS are funded by the: -Scottish Government -Scottish Funding Council (SFC) -Chief Scientist Office (CSO) -General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) -Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)


Download ppt "Centre for Housing Research, University of St Andrews Occupational mobility and neighbourhood effects: a longitudinal study ESRC Seminar Series – 4 & 5."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google