1. Neighbourhood effects, social capital and spatial mobility: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey Nick Buck ISER, University of Essex

2. Motivation Part of a research project examining how far where people live has effects on their life chances independent of personal characteristics … including how it relates to the longer term development of life chances and social mobility Longitudinal focus makes it essential to take account of migration and residential mobility: –not just a nuisance factor, but an important aspect of individual social and economic mobility, both as a consequence and with potentially causal effects Previous analysis shows limited and not very strong effects of area deprivation on individual deprivation and social exclusion Perhaps the effects are indirect, via social capital and other factors hypothesised to influence life chances

3. Motivation (2) Presentation investigates three way inter-relationships between neighbourhood deprivation, social capital and migration Social capital is hypothesised to have positive effects on both collective and individual outcomes – not something tested here Many potential dimensions of social capital, as well as significant measurement issues Hypothesised negative relationship between social capital and neighbourhood deprivation Hypothesised associations between social capital, especially local and residential mobility Methodological challenges in identifying area effects

4. Approach This research uses individual level survey data with local area census and other data attached It uses British Household Panel Survey data which has a rich array of social capital measures We exploit the longitudinal dimension provided by these data In this analysis main longitudinal focus is on residential mobility –For intrinsic reasons: how does mobility relate to the development and maintenance of social capital –Provides evidence on impact of change in area characteristics (but needs further evidence on degree of choice in migration)

5. Four questions Do we find cross-sectional associations between area deprivation and a range of social capital measures? Do social capital measures influence residential mobility probabilities? How does residential mobility affect social capital measures? Does change in area deprivation associated with mobility affect social capital measures?

6. Data sources BHPS waves 8 (1998) and 13 (2003) carry additional neighbourhood and social capital questions Approximately 8,500 cases at wave 8, 6,000 at wave 13, 2000+ movers. Matched to Townsend area deprivation score, calculated from 2001 Census data at Lower Super Output Area (average population 1,400 people)

7. Social Capital measures Trust: generally people can be trusted Activity in voluntary organisations Whether meet with friends at least once per week Whether talk to neighbours at least once per week Whether three best friends all live within 5 miles (8 kilometres) Whether none three best friends in employment Neighbourhood affiliation score

8. Neighbourhood affiliation score number of positive responses to: I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood The friendships and associations I have with other people in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighbourhood I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my neighbourhood I plan to remain a resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in this neighbourhood I regularly stop and talk to people in my neighbourhood

9. Cross-sectional models Fit regressions (logistic or OLS) to each social capital measure – Townsend score alone, and then include a range of personal characteristics (next slide) Explore non-linear effects of area deprivation (Are effects especially strong in most deprived areas?) Present graphs showing differences in dependent variable (values in OLS, relative odds in logistic) at deciles of Townsend scoere. NB: more deprived have higher scores.

10. Individual characteristics included in models Age, age squared Sex Equivalised household income Education qualifications (6 categories) Social class (7 categories) Housing tenure (4 categories) Activity status (5 categories) Effects of personal characteristics not shown here – generally positive associations with age, income, higher education and higher social class, negative effects of being in rented accommodation

11. Trust: generally people can be trusted

12. Number of organisations in which respondent is active

13. Whether all three best friends live within 8 Kilometres Increasing with area deprivation

14. Whether none of three best friends are employed NB: differences are not significant with individual factors

15. Meets with people at least once per week NB: generally increasing with area deprivation, but non-linear effects

16. Talks with neighbours at least once per week NB: clear non linear effects; area differences stronger after controlling for individual factors

17. Mean value of neighbourhood affiliation score No difference in area effects after controlling for individual factors

18. Summary on cross-sectional area effects Generally negative associations between social capital measures and area deprivation, except for measures related to close friendship networks (bonding social capital) Effects are mainly weaker, but still significant after introducing individual characteristics, But effect disappears for economically salient friendship networks

19. Residential mobility A range of reasons for being interested: Migration can be related to positive career returns, and can be an expression of positive choice over housing and neighbourhood Migration may disrupt social networks, and thus harm social capital; conversely strong social capital may be disincentive to migration Models of the probability of migration suggest it is positively associated with income, social class, and negatively associated with age Relationship with area deprivation different for all moves and longer distance only – these associations are attenuated with other individual controls.

20. Migration between 1998 and 2003: association with initial area deprivation Clear non-linear effect: some increase in migration risks from most deprived areas

21. Influence of social capital measures on residential mobility Non-significant for: organisation membership, trust (weakly significant on its own, disappears with controls) Simple positive association with meeting regularly, which disappears with individual controls Measures related to area embeddedness have strong negative association Association also negative with whether no employed people amongst close friends

22. All movesMoves over 20 km variable alone + area deprivation + individual factors variable alone + area deprivation + individual factors Neighbourhood affiliation score (effect of 1SD change) 0.60440.60640.74960.55040.54350.6624 Talks regularly with neighbours 0.53910.53720.71920.45550.45590.6342 3 best friends live within 8 KM 0.81850.78780.78170.55500.55410.5847 None of 3 best friends employed 0.65130.63910.81570.68350.6870(0.8920) Influence of Social Capital measures on relative odds of residential mobility

23. Influence of residential mobility on change in social capital measures Meeting people regularly – substantial negative distance effect Talking to neighbours - no mover effect, negative distance effect Trust – no mover or distance effect Organisation activity – no mover or distance effect Neighbourhood affiliation – weak mover effect and small negative distance effect

24. Association of change in area deprivation with change in social capital, for movers only No effects for: –Meeting people –talking to neighbours –organization membership –trust Strong effect for neighbourhood affiliation score, similar in scale to cross-sectional association Asymetric effect - those who move to worse areas are especially unlikely to experience substantial reduction in neighbourhood affiliation: need to investigate whether this relates to degree of choice over neighbourhood

25. Summary on mobility analysis Area embeddedness significantly reduces mobility prospects Evidence on the disruption of social networks and sociability Neighbourhood affiliation is sensitive to neighbourhood characteristics – how far does it also measure social capital Some social capital measures (trust, organisation activity), people appear to carry with them