Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: [email protected]Measuring Social Progress -- Labour Market Position of 1 st and 2 nd Generation Minority Ethnic Groups in Great Britain and the USA (1990/1-2000/1) For presentation at SAR Conference CCSR, Manchester University 2 nd Sept 2008
20
Embed
Yaojun Li Institute for Social Change Manchester University Email: [email protected]@Manchester.ac.uk Measuring Social Progress -- Labour.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
• UK: British disease (sclerosis): characterised by class immobility and persistent social inequality (Goldthorpe and Mills, 2004; Goldthorpe and Jackson, 2007, albeit with signs of improvement, Heath and Payne, 2000), but there is officially endorsed ethnic equality for the legal immigrants (managed immigrant incorporation: Heath, 2007)
• US: The American dream!: fewer class barriers, with affirmative race policies to address past harms but little official immigrant incorporation management: Waters, 2008)
3
Patterns and Trends
• Persistent ethnic disadvantage, with drag (origin) effects (Darity and Mason, 1998; Borjas, 1987, 2001, 2005)
• Gradual improvement with hypercyclical effects (Chiswick, 1978; Alba, 2005; Waters and Jimenez, 2005; Li and Heath, 2008)
• Segmented assimilation (Portes and Zhou, 1993) but does it really hold?
• Linear assimilation into middle class with White• Economic advancement but deliberate preservation of own values
and community solidarity• Permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass
4
Conventional concerns (mostly on men)
Ultimate concerns: social and ethnic equality Processes of social reproduction
Optimist: the economic and technical exigencies of modern societies demand the best use of every potential talent in society Social forces (law, human rights movements, civil society etc) also exert considerable pressures against social inequality of all kinds, whether based on gender, class, ethnicity, religion or sexuality, thus promoting social progress
Ascription -> achievement Meritocracy: talent + effort: education as the channel and generator of
upward social mobility, all ascriptive forces are going to fade away.
Pessimist: unintended consequences of intended actions: ‘in terms of individuals of differing class origins pursuing ‘mobility strategies’ that, while rationally adaptive to the constraints typical of their class situations, tend in their aggregate outcome to maintain relative rates unaltered, at all events in the absence of any external modification of these constraints that would constitute a reduction – or an increase – in class-lined inequalities of condition’ (Goldthorpe and Mills, 2004: 223; see also Goldthorpe 1987; 2007ab; Heath 1980). The famous FJH hypothesis (Featherman, Jones and Hauser, 1975) Socio-economic-cultural capital (resources) (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam 2000; Lin, 2001)
Returnee (no difference) Invisible (some historical-
cultural differences) Visible (skin colour,
language, former colonial connections)
Sources of differences Demographic Age, marital status, children, health and caring Socio-cultural Human capital (language fluency; foreign
qualifications; knowledge of local labour market) Social capital (community structure: bridging ties
with entrepreneurs/professionals within own community or with mainstream community for jobs)
People (soft) skills (dealing with people, symbols and paper)
Discrimination Statistical/direct/indirect Contact->less intolerance Conflict->hyper-cyclical Frames of reference 1stg (lengths of stay on subdued or rising aspirations) 2ndg (drag effects and subdued or rising aspirations) Contextual Ethnic density Levels of socio-economic development (regional) t t1 (generation, life cycle, and period effects: catching up?)
Outcomes Employment Class Earnings
6
Data
• The 1991 2% SARs for Great Britain
• The 2001 3% SARs for Great Britain
• The 1990 5% IPUMs for the US
• The 2000 5% IPUMs for the US
7
Outcome and predictor variables• Outcomes: employment and class
For men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59 in Great Britain and the USA
• Predictors1. Human capital: education, labour market experience
(age in bands and age square in similar vein following SAR2001: 16/19=1 20/24=2 25/29=3 30/44=4 45/59=5 60/64=6)
2. Health and dependent children3. Generational status (native and overseas born)
combined with ethnicity: White, Black Caribbean, Black African, Indian, Pakistani/Bangladeshi, Chinese and Other
8
Table 1 Distribution of ethnic minority groups in Britain and US Britain USA 1991 2001 1990 2000 White 94.56 91.67 82.23 77.91 Black Caribbean 0.99 1.34 0.18 0.27 Black African 0.38 1.04 9.97 11.18 Indian 1.62 2.03 0.33 0.63 Pakistani/Bangladeshi 1.03 1.75 0.04 0.09 Chinese 0.32 0.52 0.69 0.88 Other 1.10 1.65 6.56 9.04 N 653,882 1,090,174 1,528,130 1,738,852 Notes:
1. For men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59. 2. In the 1991 SAR, data are restricted to usual residents only.
Source: The 1991 2% SAR and 2001 3% SAR for Great Britain, and 1990 and 2000 5% IPUM for the USA (same below).
9
Table 2a Employment status of ethnic minority groups in Britain 1991 2001 Employed Unemployed Inactive Employed Unemployed Inactive Men
White 76.1 10.7 13.1 77.1 4.9 17.9 B Caribbean 63.0 23.7 13.3 63.9 13.0 23.1 B African 45.6 22.1 32.4 58.7 12.8 28.5 Indian 69.3 12.9 17.8 71.3 6.1 22.6 P/B 50.1 24.7 25.3 56.8 11.6 31.6 Chinese 61.3 9.8 28.9 60.1 4.8 35.1 Other 61.9 18.3 19.8 60.9 8.3 30.8
Women White 62.3 5.2 32.5 68.7 3.1 28.2 B Caribbean 61.7 10.9 27.3 63.5 7.1 29.4 B African 41.8 16.5 41.8 50.5 9.6 39.9 Indian 50.6 8.9 40.6 58.9 4.6 36.5 P/B 15.5 9.9 74.6 24.4 5.8 69.8 Chinese 51.0 5.2 43.8 52.1 4.5 43.4 Other 47.9 10.2 41.9 51.7 5.6 42.8
10
Table 2b Employment status of ethnic minority groups in the US 1990 2000 Employed Unemployed Inactive Employed Unemployed Inactive Men
White 80.7 4.6 14.8 77.7 3.9 18.5 B Caribbean 72.8 8.6 18.6 69.9 6.3 23.7 B African 63.1 9.6 27.3 56.4 8.1 35.6 Indian 80.9 3.6 15.4 77.7 3.2 19.1 P/B 79.1 4.3 16.6 72.6 2.9 24.6 Chinese 76.4 3.1 20.5 72.7 2.9 24.4 Other 72.8 7.8 19.4 66.8 6.1 27.2
Women White 67.1 3.7 29.2 68.1 3.3 28.6 B Caribbean 74.4 5.4 20.2 69.8 6.0 24.2 B African 59.6 8.5 31.9 60.1 7.6 32.3 Indian 57.9 4.3 37.8 53.9 3.5 42.7 P/B 35.8 6.7 57.5 40.9 3.9 55.1 Chinese 63.7 3.0 33.3 62.2 2.9 34.8 Other 55.3 6.6 38.2 53.7 5.9 40.3
11
Table 3a Class position of ethnic minority groups among the economically active in Britain 1991 2001 I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl Men
Women White 27.4 39.4 25.4 7.8 36.8 31.4 28.1 3.8 B Caribbean 29.5 30.7 24.4 15.4 40.9 30.1 21.3 7.6 B African 25.6 22.9 22.5 29.1 39.1 24.8 25.6 10.6 Indian 18.3 36.4 30.1 15.2 35.4 31.3 28.2 5.2 P/B 13.2 26.9 19.8 40.1 28.8 30.2 29.9 11.1 Chinese 29.8 38.4 22.5 9.3 40.4 32.3 22.2 5.1 Other 29.2 32.4 20.8 17.7 41.8 26.9 24.8 6.5
12
Table 3b Class position of ethnic minority groups among the economically active in the US 1990 2000 I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl I+II III-V VI+VII Unempl Men
Women White 32.2 53.4 9.8 4.6 37.2 50.4 8.3 4.1 B Caribbean 28.8 61.1 4.5 5.6 31.1 57.9 4.2 6.8 B African 22.4 52.6 14.8 10.2 26.6 52.5 11.1 9.8 Indian 40.3 44.2 10.3 5.1 50.3 37.6 7.7 4.6 P/B 42.7 35.4 12.2 9.8 33. 9 52.5 7.3 6.3 Chinese 37.4 43.2 15.9 3.5 47.7 37.5 11.2 3.6 Other 20.8 53.8 16.9 8.6 24.4 53.1 14.3 8.2
13
Figure 1 Degree-level qualifications in Great Britain and the USA
9.9
3.0
17.314.4
7.1
20.7
16.4
31.2
23.8
57.2
47.4
31.1
54.6
49.8
020
40
60
80
Perc
ent
1991 2001
Degree for men in Great Britain
Based on 2% SAR for 1991 and 3% SAR for 2001.
W British B Caribbean B African Indian
Pak/Bang Chinese Other
21.8
14.9
8.8
57.2
47.9
41.6
11.5
23.6
14.410.5
62.4
47.4 48.3
11.9
020
40
60
80
Perc
ent
1990 2000
Degree for men in the USA
Based on 5% IPUM of the US Censuses for 1990 and 2000.
W British B Caribbean B African Indian
Pak/Bang Chinese Other
6.13.3
9.06.7
2.2
11.79.0
31.2
36.2
48.7
41.8
24.3
51.8 50.7
020
40
60
80
Perc
ent
1991 2001
Degree for women in Great Britain
Based on 2% SAR for 1991 and 3% SAR for 2001.
W British B Caribbean B African Indian
Pak/Bang Chinese Other
18.615.3
10.4
45.1
36.7 35.3
11.4
23.5
19.2
13.4
53.1
35.2
44.2
13.8
020
40
60
80
Perc
ent
1990 2000
Degree for women in the USA
Based on 5% IPUM of the US Censuses for 1990 and 2000.
W British B Caribbean B African Indian
Pak/Bang Chinese Other
14
Table 4a Logit coefficients on male employment among the economically active in Great Britain 1991 2001 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Figure 2 Net gaps in employment between White and minority ethnic groups in Great Britain
100.0
90.3
78.4
98.4
77.8
99.2
74.0 72.2
84.0
68.3
90.3 88.0
020
40
60
80
10
012
0W
hite m
en
in 1
991
= 1
00
Men's employment among the economically active in 1991
100.094.8
91.3
99.2
90.3
98.7
88.8 87.3
94.0
79.4
94.3 94.7
020
40
60
80
10
012
0W
hite m
en
in 2
001
= 1
00
Men's employment among the economically active in 2001
100.097.2
79.8
94.1
66.9
99.5
85.8
70.6
83.5
64.4
87.6 89.5
020
40
60
80
10
012
0
Wh
ite w
om
en
in 1
991 =
10
0
Women's employment among the economically active in 1991
100.096.2
87.5
98.2
86.4
97.793.2 91.8
94.7
83.2
96.3 94.4
020
40
60
80
10
012
0
Wh
ite w
om
en
in 2
001 =
10
0
Women's employment among the economically active in 2001
Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.
17
Figure 3 Net gaps in access to the salariat between White and minority ethnic groups in Great Britain
100.0
41.3
89.594.8
42.2
97.4
50.8
60.864.9
45.1
147.8
114.9
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
016
0W
hite
men
in 1
991
= 1
00
Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1991
100.0
67.3
115.5
100.3
52.2
92.3
85.3
109.4113.2
73.7
101.6
114.3
020
40
60
80
10
012
0W
hite
men
in 2
001
= 1
00
Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2001
100.0
131.2
97.4
67.9
50.4
109.6
79.1 80.2
62.2
43.7
100.3106.4
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
0W
hite w
om
en
in 1
991 =
10
0
Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1991
100.0
116.7
100.6
79.7
71.9
101.9
110.3
131.9
123.4
86.1
123.2
112.6
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
0W
hite w
om
en
in 2
001 =
10
0
Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2001
Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.
18
Figure 4 Net gaps in employment between White and minority ethnic groups in the US
100.094.7 94.8
101.2 100.5 101.5
92.9 91.6
99.5
79.2
101.5
95.4
020
40
60
80
10
012
0W
hite m
en
in 1
990
= 1
00
Men's employment among the economically active in 1990
100.097.0 96.6
101.7 101.4 101.0
92.4 91.489.0
94.2
100.796.2
020
40
60
80
10
012
0W
hite
men
in 2
000
= 1
00
Men's employment among the economically active in 2000
100.0 98.493.8
98.0
88.3
100.397.4
92.2
100.8 102.4
94.2
020
40
60
80
10
012
0
Wh
ite w
om
en
in 1
990 =
10
0
Women's employment among the economically active in 1990
100.0 97.794.5
99.295.6
100.4
89.892.9 93.4 95.7
98.394.4
020
40
60
80
10
012
0
Wh
ite w
om
en
in 2
000 =
10
0
Women's employment among the economically active in 2000
Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.
19
Figure 5 Net gaps in access to the salariat between White and minority ethnic groups in the US
100.0
73.5 77.3
194.6
148.2 151.8
82.1
52.1
132.5
88.7
180.7
57.6
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
016
018
020
0W
hite
men
in 1
990
= 1
00
Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1990
100.0
69.2
85.1
207.4
136.0
182.8
72.4
56.2
165.0
123.4
187.2
56.0
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
016
018
020
022
0W
hite
me
n in
20
00
= 1
00
Men's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2000
100.0
88.2
73.8
126.4
135.8
107.6
99.3
69.4
100.4
150.2
64.6
020
40
60
80
10
012
014
016
0W
hite w
om
en
in 1
990 =
10
0
Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 1990
100.0
82.2 79.6
136.8
85.9
124.8
91.3
71.0
121.3
152.0144.5
65.60
20
40
60
80
10
012
014
016
0W
hite w
om
en
in 2
000 =
10
0
Women's access to the salariat among the economically active in 2000
Note: Controlling for education, age, age squared, marital status, limiting long-term illness and presence of dependent children in the family.
20
Main findings
• More minority groups in Britain and US during the decade• Inactivity increased for Chinese, P/B and B Caribbean men in Britain,
reduced for P/B women although it still remains a major obstacle for LM participation
• Inactivity increased for B African and remains a major gaol for P/B women in the US
• Among the active in Britain, B Caribbean and P/B men, and P/B women are least likely to have access to the salariat, but notable progress
• In the US B African men and women least likely to be in the salariat, and progress is not less notable
• Controlling for human capital and health and children, minority groups in Britain are still disadvantaged in gaining access to the labour market and to salariat but there are signs of progress; similar stories in the US
• Whilst Pakistanis/Bangladeshis in Britain fare quite badly, they do much better in the US, and Black Americans do worse in the US than in Britain, especially in access to the labour market