S ti d i tiSegregation, deprivation and socio-economicand socio economic inequalities

Nisha KapoorNisha KapoorUniversity of Manchester

RGS-IBG Annual Conference 26th August 200926th August 2009

Problematising ‘Segregation’Debates on ‘segregation’/‘integration’ have remained concerned with minority ethnic concentrationconcentration

and how this relates to social, economic, and political participation, and community cohesion.

C th i t ti i d t i if bCo-ethnic concentration is used to signify a number of different mechanisms

Negative aspects- segregation, social exclusion,Negative aspects segregation, social exclusion, Positive aspects- community and social capital, minority ethnic labour markets

There is often conflation between areas of highThere is often conflation between areas of high minority ethnic concentration and highly deprived neighbourhoods

K P i tKey PointsHistory of migration and settlement of black migrantsHistory of migration and settlement of black migrants from ex-colonies saw concentration in deprived neighbourhoods.neighbourhoods.Geographies of high concentration have remained largely consistent over time.largely consistent over time.Deprivation is the key contextual indicator for understanding worse outcomes in neighbourhoodsunderstanding worse outcomes in neighbourhoods of high minority ethnic concentration.Not to disregard agency or community- socialNot to disregard agency or community social mobility away from these areas, positive community effects- culturally rich!y

Settlement in pre-existing deprived areas…

Most migrants restricted to work in the lowest paid jobs, that others were unwilling to do (Brah, p j , g ( ,1996).

History of racial discrimination in public and yprivate sector housing

Hackney (CRE 1984), Liverpool (CRE 1984), Tower y ( ), p ( ),Hamlets (Phillips 1986, CRE 1989), Birmingham (Henderson and Karn 1987), Oldham (CRE 1993), 2008 report for EHRCPrivate sector discrimination (CRE, Phillips et al 2003)

Evidence of migration of all groups away from areas of highest non-white concentration (Simpson, g ( p ,2004, Finney and Simpson 2009).

Cl t i b ff i t i dClustering- buffer against racism and discrimination, social and cultural institutions.

General desire to live in mixed neighbourhoods (Phillips et al 2007)(Phillips et al 2007).

South Asian ConcentrationBirmingham 1971-2001Birmingham 1971-2001

2001

1971

19811981

Source: 1971 Census, 1981 Census, 2001 Census

Townsend Deprivation Scores for Birmingham WardsWards

1991

1971

1991

20011971

19811981

Source: Standardised Townsend Deprivation Scores for 2001 wards- Paul Norman, University of Leeds

Concentration in deprived areas

90%

100%

p

70%

80%90%

5 (Most Deprived)

50%

60%5 (Most Deprived)432

20%

30%40% 2

1 (Least Deprived)

0%

10%

n i

White

Indian

Pakis

tani

Bang

lades

hi

B

Source: 2004 IMD scores

Is deprivation more significant as a neighbourhood indicator at explainingneighbourhood indicator at explaining variation in socio-economic outcomes than co-ethnic concentration?co ethnic concentration?

Data and MethodsData and Methods2005 Citizenship Survey (England)

With additional data on neighbourhood minority ethnic concentration from 2001 Census geography measured for MSOAMSOAs.And data on 2004 Index of Multiple Deprivation scores for MSOAsMSOAs.

3 Socio-economic indicators examinedunemployment limiting long term illness no qualificationunemployment, limiting long term illness, no qualification rates

Focus on three South Asian groups- Indians, g p ,Pakistanis/Bangladeshis and compare with whitesMethod: Multilevel logistic regressionMethod: Multilevel logistic regressionCross-sectional data

ModelsAll ethnic groups modelled togetherAll ethnic groups modelled together

Unemployment (male)Unemployment (male) age, qualifications, co-ethnic concentration, deprivation

Limiting Long Term Illnessage, sex, co-ethnic concentration, deprivationg , , , p

No Qualificationsage, sex, CoB, co-ethnic concentration, deprivation

Predicted male unemployment rate by co-ethnic concentration

14

16

18

t rat

e

10

12

14

ploy

men

t

White

PB

4

6

8

cted

une

m

White

Indian

0

2

4

Pred

ic

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Co-ethnic concentration

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

Predicted male unemployment rate by deprivation

25

rate

15

20

ploy

men

t r

White

10

ted

unem

p PBIndian

0

5

Pred

ict

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Neighbourhood Deprivation

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

Predicted LLTI rate by co-ethnic concentration

3 5

4

3

3.5

LLTI

rat

e

WhitePB

2

2.5

redi

cted

L PBWhiteIndian

1

1.5

P

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Co-ethnic concentration

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

Predicted LLTI rate by deprivationPredicted LLTI rate by deprivation

5

6

e

3

4

LLTI

rat

e

WhitePB

2

3

Pre

dict

ed PB

Indian

0

1

P

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Neighbourhood deprivation

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

Predicted no qualifications rate by co-ethnic concentration

8

9

s R

ate

5

6

7

alifi

catio

ns

WhitePB

2

3

4

ed N

o Q

ua WhiteIndian

0

1

2

0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8

Pred

icte

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Co-ethnic Concentration

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

Predicted no qualifications rate by deprivation

14

16

s R

ate

8

10

12

alifi

catio

n

WhitePB

4

6

8

ed N

o Q

ua PBIndian

0

2

Pre

dict

e

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Neighbourhood Deprivation

Source: 2005 Citizenship Survey

SummarySummaryMost areas of high South Asian concentration are gmaterially deprived areas due to history of settlement in the UK.

Co-ethnic concentration can represent many thingsthings…

At the neighbourhood level when both deprivationAt the neighbourhood level, when both deprivation and co-ethnic concentration are considered, neighbourhood deprivation is significantly associated with socio-economic outcomes for all ethnic groups, while co-ethnic concentration is not.