Transcript The Ethnic Minority British Election Survey (EMBES)

Social identity, relative deprivation
and patterns of minority partisanship
Anthony Heath
Steve Fisher
David Sanders
Maria Sobolewska
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?
Previous research in Britain
• We cannot explain minority support for
Labour in terms of standard sociodemographic 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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Sample characteristics
White British
Other white
Mixed
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Black Caribbean
Black African
Other
EMBES
0
0
113
587
668
270
598
525
26
BES
3126
57
32
52
17
8
31
38
59
Party ID
Lab Cons
White British
30
29
Indian
55
16
Pakistani
55
8
Bangladeshi
57
9
Black Caribbean 68
5
Black African
71
5
All EM
61
9
LD Other/none
12
29
10
19
15
22
9
26
5
21
5
20
9
22
Class differences in Labour ID
Middle class Working class
White British
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
All EM
24
52
46
58
67
70
57
41
66
64
60
72
72
66
% with great deal in common with own
ethnic group
Middle class Working class
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
40
33
31
53
61
44
48
52
53
56
NB large generational differences on this question
% with all or most friends from same ethnic
background
Middle class Working class
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
43
51
58
43
48
57
66
71
44
51
NB large generational differences on this question
too
% who agree there is often a large gap
between what ethnic group expects and gets
Middle class Working class
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
43
53
60
67
63
51
47
40
69
61
Few generational differences on this question
% who agree Labour is best party to
improve life for ethnic minorities
Middle class Working class
White British
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
36
49
54
53
57
70
34
58
57
47
61
71
Consistent with labour’s track record of introducing
equality legislation
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
Strength of Labour ID by proportion of coethnic friends
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
Black African
All
most
half
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
few
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
Supports theory of normative reference groups
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
An individual-level model
Indian (ref)
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Caribbean
African
MC
MC*Black
Model 1
0
-0.07
-0.01
0.33*
0.44*
-0.44*
0.37*
Model 2
-0.10
-0.04
0.30*
0.40*
0.44*
0.34*
Model 2 includes controls for closeness (NS), social involvement (NS),
relative deprivation**, individual discrimination (NS). Interactions
with relative deprivation NS
A multilevel approach
Closenessi
Social involvementi
Relative deprivationi
% Closenessj
% Social involvementj
% Relative deprivationj
Model 1
0.08*
0.07
0.18**
Level 2 variables entered singly
Model 2
0.09*
0.07
0.15**
0.51***
-0.18*
0.24***
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
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