1. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 1 Is ethnicity or religion more important in explaining inequalities in the labour market? Jean Martin Anthony Heath University of Oxford Karin Bosveld Office for National Statistics

2. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 2 Previous research Lots of studies have looked at disadvantage by ethnic group Ethnic penalty – differences which persist after controlling for differences between ethnic groups in age, qualifications etc. Few studies have looked at religion as well Not based on recent data/restricted to certain ethnic groups

3. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 3 Why might religion be important? An indication of cultural differences within an ethnic group Direct impact through religious beliefs &/or practices Lack of social networks linking to wide range of employment Chill factor Basis for discrimination by employers

4. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 4 Research questions Are there differences between religious groups that are consistent across ethnic groups? Are effects less marked among those born in UK than among first generation immigrants? Are there differences between men and women?

5. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 5 Identification problem Cant always distinguish ethnicity and religion Eg All Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are Muslim Wont know whether differences are due to culture or religion narrowly defined

6. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 6 Why use the APS? Interest in minority ethnic groups and religious differences within them means need very large sample Census/LS data now quite old – not enough of new immigrant groups like Black Africans APS has year of arrival in UK But doesnt have a measure of English language proficiency and doesnt code foreign qualifications

7. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 7 APS under special licence Need for fullest detail of ethnic and religious groups Plans for including detailed geographical area information (but not done yet) Disclosure risks

8. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 8 Data for analysis Combined 2005 & 2006 APS Working age population Excluding FT students Excluding 2005 boost sample which wasnt asked about qualifications 172814 men and 171147 women

9. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 9

10. 10

11. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 11 Women

12. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 12 Women

13. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 13 Identification problem

14. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 14 Outcome variables Proportion economically inactive Proportion unemployed of the economically active Not employment rates because affected by ratio of inactive to unemployed which varies by ethnic group

15. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 15 Independent variables Separate analyses for men and women Age and age squared Qualifications: –degree, other, none Whether born in UK; if not, age at arrival (<16, 16-30, over 30) For women: whether married, whether has dependent children 2 nd generation = born in UK or arrived before age 5

16. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 16 Logistic regression models Model 1: ethnicity alone Model 2: reduced ethnic group and religion variables to deal with sparse cells – 7 ethnic and 3 religion groups Model 3: combined ethno-religious group variable All with the same control variables

17. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 17 Women' s economic inactivity: log-odds

18. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 18 Women' s economic inactivity: log-odds

19. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 19 Women' s economic inactivity: log-odds

20. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 20 Economic inactivity Muslim women very much more likely to be economically inactive Other Asian non-Christians less likely to be active than Christians Black African very diverse: Christians more likely to be active than white British Christians but Muslims less likely

21. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 21 Women' s unemployment: log-odds

22. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 22 Women' s unemployment: log-odds

23. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 23 Women' s unemployment: log-odds

24. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 24 Womens unemployment Muslims significantly more likely to be unemployed in all groups (except Other White) Among Indians Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs more likely to be unemployed than Christian or no religion Coeffs for Black Caribbean and Black African show strong ethnic effect on unemployment

25. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 25 Difference in log-odds between all women and 2nd generation: economic inactivity

26. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 26 Second generation women economic inactivity 2 nd gen less different from women overall for most groups Muslims still more likely to be economically inactive but coefficients reduced Economic inactivity increased for Indian and Black African Christians

27. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 27 Difference in log-odds between all women and 2nd generation: unemployment

28. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 28 Second generation women unemployment 2 nd generation women generally less likely to be unemployed than women in general but some exceptions Muslims still more likely to be unemployed but coefficients reduced Black Caribbean and Black Africans still more likely to be unemployed

29. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 29 Conclusions Both ethnicity and religion are important in explaining differences in economic inactivity and unemployment rates among women Muslim women more likely to be inactive, or if active, to be unemployed than other religions Black Caribbean and Black African women more likely to be unemployed, irrespective of religion Main differences still apparent in the second generation

30. LFS/APS user meeting 2 Dec 2008 30 But…. We dont know what the mechanisms are for the differences Havent controlled for all the factors which might be relevant (eg language) Cultural differences might explain differences in economic activity but not clear how they would explain differences in unemployment Clear that there are major barriers to employment for Muslim women