1. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Neighbourhoods and the creation, stability and success of mixed ethnic unions Zhiqiang Feng Paul Boyle, Maarten van Ham, Gillian Raab linking lives through time www.lscs.ac.uk

2. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

3. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Proportions of mixed-unions by ethnic group England and Wales, Data Source: 1991 and 2001 HHSARs

4. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

5. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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)

6. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Studies in Britain Most are descriptive They tend to use cross-sectional analyses

7. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Some results from previous studies Positive effects: –Age –Second generation –Males –Educational attainment –Higher social class

8. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Some results from previous studies Negative –Size of ethnic group –Residential segregation –Cultural distance

9. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

10. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

11. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

12. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

13. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

14. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

15. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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)

16. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Definition of ethnic groups Presentation group in the study1991 (ETHNIC9)2001(ETHGRP0) White (W)WhiteBritish Irish Other white Black (B)Black-CaribbeanBlack-Caribbean Black-AfricanBlack-African Black other Other Black Black & White White & Black Caribbean White & Black African* Asian (A)IndianIndian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian (OA)ChineseChineseOther Asian Others (O)Other ethnic group: White & Asian non-mixed originOther mixed Other ethnic group: Other ethnic group mixed origin

17. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop WhiteBlackAsianOther Asian WhiteWWWBWAWOA BlackBBBABOA AsianAAAOA Other Asian OAOA Classifications of mixed-ethnic unions

18. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Number of mixed-ethnic unions England & Wales Mixed-ethnic unions 19912001 White / Black (WB)12311737 White / Asian (WA)641902 White / Other Asians (WOA)643730 White / Others (WO)9981770 Total35135139

19. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods Relative size minority population / white population Exposure index Diversity Shannons entropy

20. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Mixed ethnic neighbourhoods Continuous? or Dichotomous? Use different forms in different models?

21. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Methodology Objective 1 (growth of mixed-ethnic unions, 1991 vs 2001) –ONS LS + SLS –Descriptive –Logistic / log-linear models

22. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

23. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

24. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP 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

25. 18-19 March 2008UPTAP Workshop Work so far Literature review Research design SLS proposal approved Data request sent to ONS LS