1. Social identity, relative deprivation and patterns of minority partisanship Anthony Heath Steve Fisher David Sanders Maria Sobolewska

2. Aims To understand high levels of support for Labour among ethnic minorities at the 2010 British general election. To explore differences between the main minorities – Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Black African in levels of support for Labour To explore class differences within minorities – does ethnicity trump class?

3. Previous research in Britain We cannot explain minority support for Labour in terms of standard socio- demographic variables such as class (Heath et al 1991, Heath et al 2011) Or in terms of standard issues and values (Sobolewska 2005) Large and significant ethnic coefficients remain in all standard regression models.

4. Relative deprivation Previous scholars have suggested that shared ethnic group interests that cut across class may be important (Studlar 1986, Heath et al 1991) Evidence from the labour market shows strong evidence of ‘ethnic penalties’ at all levels of educational attainment (Cheung and Heath 2007) Discrimination and prejudice are one source of these penalties (although other forms of exclusion are also likely) This suggests that Runciman’s (1966) concept of shared feelings of relative deprivation

5. Group identity and normative reference groups A second key element is group identity and a sense of social solidarity (which may unite members in different social classes) Merton’s (1957) concept of normative reference group may be helpful (or later developments such as social identity theory) Supporting evidence from Dancygier and Saunders 2006 using 1997 EMBES data. Our approach has some similarities with Dawson’s theory of ‘linked fate’ but also has some crucial differences.

6. The data The 2010 Ethnic Minority British Election Survey (EMBES) Thanks to the ESRC for their generous funding of the study To the Electoral Commission for their support and partnership To TNS-BMRB (Nick Howat, Oliver Norden, Emily Pickering) for their work on design and fieldwork To our Advisory Board - Irene Bloemraad, John Curtice, Harry Goulbourne, Chris Myant, Maajid Nawaz, Lucinda Platt, Peter Riddell, Shamit Saggar, Will Somerville, David Voas

7. Design 1 Stand-alone survey rather than a booster to the main BES (ie separate sample design etc) Nationally-representative probability sample Clustered, stratified design with over-sampling in high EM density areas and exclusion of lowest density areas (< 2% EM) PAF used as sample frame LSOAs were the PSUs (unlike main BES) Initial screening of addresses

8. Design 2 30,000 addresses issued for screening In 620 PSUs £20 conditional incentive offered to participants 50 minute questionnaire, administered by CAPI with a self-completion module for confidential items Around half items exact replications of those in main BES Short mailback questionnaire

9. Outcome 2787 respondents in total (including some from mixed and other backgrounds who had been indicated as belonging to one of the 5 target groups at screening) Response rate of 58 – 62% (depending on method of treating those with unknown ethnicity from the screening exercise) Poor response to mailback – 975 returned

10. Sample characteristics EMBES BES White British 0 3126 Other white 0 57 Mixed 113 32 Indian 587 52 Pakistani 668 17 Bangladeshi 270 8 Black Caribbean 598 31 Black African 525 38 Other 26 59

11. Party ID LabCons LD Other/none White British 30 29 12 29 Indian 55 16 10 19 Pakistani 55 8 15 22 Bangladeshi 57 9 9 26 Black Caribbean 68 5 5 21 Black African 71 5 5 20 All EM 61 9 9 22

12. Class differences in Labour ID Middle class Working class White British 2441 Indian 5266 Pakistani 46 64 Bangladeshi 5860 Caribbean 6772 Black African 7072 All EM 5766

13. % with great deal in common with own ethnic group Middle class Working class Indian 4044 Pakistani 33 48 Bangladeshi 3152 Caribbean 5353 Black African 6156 NB large generational differences on this question

14. % with all or most friends from same ethnic background Middle class Working class Indian 4357 Pakistani 51 66 Bangladeshi 5871 Caribbean 4344 Black African 4851 NB large generational differences on this question too

15. % who agree there is often a large gap between what ethnic group expects and gets Middle class Working class Indian 4351 Pakistani 53 47 Bangladeshi 6040 Caribbean 6769 Black African 6361 Few generational differences on this question

16. % who agree Labour is best party to improve life for ethnic minorities Middle class Working class White British 3634 Indian 4958 Pakistani 54 57 Bangladeshi 5347 Caribbean 5761 Black African 7071 Consistent with labour’s track record of introducing equality legislation

17. Main conclusions so far Black groups have higher levels of subjective solidarity, but not social involvement, and relative deprivation than South Asians No class differences among Black groups in subjective solidarity or social involvement Substantial class differences among South Asian groups in social involvement tho’ not relative deprivation Suggests that group processes likely to be important part of the explanation

18. Strength of Labour ID by proportion of co- ethnic friends All mosthalffew Indian1.3 1.21.1 0.9 Pakistani1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 Bangladeshi1.3 1.11.1 1.0 Caribbean 1.6 1.51.3 1.3 Black African1.7 1.51.3 1.5 Supports theory of normative reference groups

19. Modelling the data Purely individualistic models don’t explain the ethnic differences (even if we include measures of solidarity and relative deprivation) Need to introduce measures of group solidarity (‘contextual effects’) Ie multilevel model with the ethnic group as level 2 5 ethnic groups not sufficient for this strategy, but can sensibly distinguish 14 ethno-religious groups 3-level model including local area measures might also be worth exploring

20. An individual-level model Model 1Model 2 Indian (ref) 0 Pakistani-0.07-0.10 Bangladeshi-0.01-0.04 Caribbean 0.33* 0.30* African 0.44* 0.40* MC-0.44* 0.44* MC*Black 0.37* 0.34* Model 2 includes controls for closeness (NS), social involvement (NS), relative deprivation**, individual discrimination (NS). Interactions with relative deprivation NS

21. A multilevel approach Model 1Model 2 Closeness i 0.08* 0.09* Social involvement i 0.07 0.07 Relative deprivation i 0.18** 0.15** % Closeness j 0.51*** % Social involvement j -0.18* % Relative deprivation j 0.24*** Level 2 variables entered singly

22. Conclusions Early days in our analysis, but analysis gives some grounds for taking group processes seriously Evidence consistent with normative reference group theory Preliminary indications of importance of relative deprivation (at both individual and group levels) Preliminary indications of importance of social identity/solidarity – especially at the group level – and cutting across class lines among Blacks

23. Further research Need to look at role of organizational involvement, especially in co-ethnic organizations Also need to look at exposure to (ethnic) media And must take account of important generational differences