Transcript Ethnic Disadvantages in the Labour Market Anthony Heath Oxford University Sin Yi Cheung Oxford Brookes University.

Ethnic Disadvantages in the
Labour Market
Anthony Heath
Oxford University
Sin Yi Cheung
Oxford Brookes University
Aims
To review both the gross and the net
disadvantages experienced by ethnic minorities
in the British labour market, focusing on
• Unemployment
• Occupation
• Income
To compare the first and second generations
To compare Britain’s record with that of other
developed countries
Ethnicity 1
Following standard Census practice we focus on
the larger ‘visible’ ethnic minorities, namely
• Black Africans
• Black Caribbeans
• Indians
• Pakistanis
• Bangladeshis
We also include the Irish, Britain’s largest ethnic
minority. Numbers are too small to reliably
investigate the Chinese.
Ethnicity 2
Ideally one would make finer distinctions within
some of these groups, eg Indian Sikhs and
Muslims might be distinguished from Hindus,
Muslim Somalis might be distinguished from
Christian Kenyans or Nigerians.
It will increasingly be important to distinguish the
growing ‘mixed’ groups and white groups such
as East Europeans.
The situation of Roma is of particular concern
throughout Europe but they cannot be identified
in the usual data sources.
Generations 1
It is very important to distinguish between:
• First generation – born overseas and usually
arriving in early adulthood – from
• Second generation – born and educated in
Britain.
• There will also be some third generation
individuals (eg Irish)
We can also identify a ‘one and a half’ generation
who arrived during their years of schooling, but
we do not do so in this presentation.
Generations 2
There are many reasons why the first generation
might fare badly in the labour market:
• Foreign qualifications
• Lack of fluency in English
• Foreign labour market experience
• Lack of knowledge about the British labour
market.
These reasons would not apply to the second
generation to anything like the same extent.
Generations 3
Hence experience of the second generation
is the key test of whether Britain extends
principles of ‘equality of opportunity’ to
ethnic minorities.
Recent French experience suggests that
grievances among the second generation
over perceived inequalities of opportunity
may be a factor contributing to social
disorder.
Inequalities of opportunity are also
economically inefficient as well as socially
unjust.
Gross and net disadvantages
Gross disadvantages are the overall disadvantages, eg with
respect to unemployment, before taking account of
differences in age or education. They must not be equated
with inequality of opportunity.
Some ethnic groups are relatively young and have relatively
low levels of education, and this might account (in part) for
their high unemployment rates.
Net disadvantages take account of differences in age and
education and are conventionally regarded as indicators of
inequality of opportunity.
Note that some groups, eg Black Africans, may not show
gross disadvantages but may nonetheless experience
major net disadvantages.
Ethnic penalties
Ethnic penalties are defined as the net
disadvantages experienced by ethnic minorities
after controlling for their educational
qualifications and age (experience in the labour
market).
That is, they are estimates of the disadvantages
experienced in comparison with equally-qualified
members of the charter population of the same
age.
Ethnic penalties are estimated with techniques of
multiple regression.
Ethnic penalties 2
Ethnic penalties cannot be equated with
discrimination, although discrimination is
likely to be a major factor. Other possible
factors include lack of ‘bridging’ social
networks, ‘spatial mismatch’ or possibly
differences in aspirations.
Ethnic penalties in the labour market are
quite distinct from pre-labour market
penalties, eg in education (on which there
is also considerable evidence)
Data sources
• General Household surveys (1991-2001
pooled)
• Labour Force surveys (2001-2004 pooled)
• Public use sample (SARS) of the 2001
Census
• Home Office Citizenship survey 2003.
We draw primarily on the pooled GHS in this
presentation but have replicated our
results with the LFS and SARS.
Gross disadvantages in
unemployment
British white
African 1
Caribbean 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
Pakistani / Bangladeshi 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
Pakistani/Bangladeshi 2
Men
9.1
14.9
17.2
10.6
10.6
25.7
6.7
24.5
13.0
11.7
30.2
Women
5.7
13.1
10.1
4.9
5.4
8.5
14.7
15.8
5.6
-
Gross disadvantages in occupation
men
34.4
38.9
14.8
27.6
24.3
12.0
Routine
nonmanual
7.5
6.3
5.2
7.2
5.2
5.3
37.8
28.1
42.3
40.1
19.2
3.8
11.1
20.0
7.5
19.2
Salariat
British white
African 1
Caribbean 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
Pakistani /
Bangladeshi 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
Pakistani /
Bangladeshi 2
Petty
bourgeoisie
Skilled
manual
Semi-and
unskilled
12.3
13.5
9.3
22.3
18.3
17.5
27.4
15.9
37.1
19.9
26.3
19.8
18.3
25.4
33.6
23.0
25.8
45.5
18.9
9.4
12.6
14.4
10.6
16.6
29.8
12.6
23.5
21.2
23.0
21.7
12.6
14.6
29.8
Gross disadvantages in occupation
women
Salariat
British white
African 1
Caribbean 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
27.3
34.1
35.8
21.1
31.3
33.2
36.6
31.2
36.4
Routine
nonmanual
31.5
26.4
16.0
20.9
21.4
20.4
41.3
39.6
33.3
Petty
bourgeoisie
Skilled
manual
Semi-and
unskilled
4.7
0
3.0
8.3
3.8
6.5
1.0
3.9
2.9
5.5
3.1
6.5
6.4
4.5
6.7
2.0
2.6
4.2
31.0
36.4
38.8
43.3
38.9
33.2
19.1
22.7
23.2
Gross disadvantages in hourly
earnings
British
African 1
Caribbean 1
Pakistani/Bangladeshi 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
Pakistani/Bangladeshi 2
Men
6.45
6.21
5.42
4.27
6.65
6.43
6.84
6.34
6.55
6.63
4.99
Women
4.93
5.89
5.55
4.49
5.04
5.76
6.11
4.88
5.86
-
Net disadvantages in
unemployment
British
African 1
Caribbean 1
Pakistani/
Bangladeshi 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
Pakistani/
Bangladeshi 2
Men
0
-1.21
-0.78
-1.27
Women
0
-0.98
-0.90
-
-0.54
-0.16
0.32
-0.80
-0.39
-0.30
-1.11
-0.04
-0.06
-0.48
-0.74
-0.86
0.11
-
Emboldened coefficients
indicate significance
at the .05 level of better;
Control variables not
shown.
Predicted probability of
unemployment - Men
Predicted probability of
unemployment - women
Unemployment - conclusions
• All visible minorities, both men and
women, experience ethnic penalties in
finding work
• Little sign that penalties are reduced in the
second generation
• Penalties operate at all educational levels
• Discrimination is probably a major factor
HOCS 2003 on self-reported
discrimination
May I check, in the last five years, have you been
refused or turned down for a job?
• [IF YES} Do you think you were refused the job for
any of the reasons on this card?
•
Your gender
•
Your age
•
Your race
•
Your religion
•
Your colour
•
Where you live
HOCS results - men
Has been refused
job on non-racial
grounds
Has been
refused job on
racial grounds
Overall
reported
refusals
White
21.2
0.4
21.6
African
28.0
25.7
53.7
Caribbean
21.6
11.3
33.9
Black Mixed
24.1
11.1
35.2
Indian
18.9
8.4
27.3
Pakistani
27.3
8.7
36.0
Bangladeshi
20.5
7.5
28.0
Chinese
18.9
1.9
20.8
Other
22.9
11.2
34.1
All ethnic minorities
22.6
11.4
34.0
HOCS results - women
Has been refused
job on non-racial
grounds
Has been
refused job on
racial grounds
Overall
reported
refusals
White
17.5
0.3
17.8
African
19.9
15.9
35.8
Caribbean
17.3
8.6
25.8
Black Mixed
27.2
6.2
33.4
Indian
22.1
6.7
28.8
Pakistani
23.0
5.6
28.6
Bangladeshi
21.8
6.9
28.7
Chinese
20.4
13.0
33.4
Other
21.8
6.0
27.8
All ethnic minorities
20.6
9.2
29.8
Net disadvantages in access to
professional and managerial work
(the salariat)
British white
African 1
Caribbean 1
Indian 1
Irish 1
Pakistani /Bangladeshi 1
West European 1
Caribbean 2
Indian 2
Irish 2
Pakistani/Bangladeshi 2
Men
0
-1.62
-0.66
-0.52
0.47
-1.62
0.11
-0.11
0.67
0.24
-0.17
Women
0
-1.54
-0.06
-0.74
0.47
0.02
0.62
0.0
0.45
-
Predicted probabilities of access to
the salariat - men
Predicted probabilities in access to
the salariat - women
Occupation - conclusions
Apart from Caribbean women, all visible minorities
experience disadvantages in the first generation.
But in the second generation these disadvantages
are very largely reduced.
In the first generation minorities may be willing to
accept ‘inappropriately’ low level jobs because
their frame of reference is their country of origin.
But in the second generation minorities may have
the same frame of reference as their white
British peers and hence be unwilling to accept
inappropriately low level jobs.
Predicted hourly earnings within
occupational classes - men
18
16
Salariat (full tert)
14
Skilled (full sec)
Petty Bour (low sec)
12
semi/unskilled (no qual)
10.75
£ 10
8
6.52
5.90
6
4.46
4.83
4
3.69
3.99
3.30
Indian 2
Indian 1
Pak/Bang 1
Carib 2
Carib 1
African 1
British nationals
National origin
Irish 1
2.35
2
Predicted hourly earnings within
occupational classes - women
12
10
9.63
8.63
8
7.81
7.35
6.59
6.14
£ 6
6.39
5.56
4.69
4
4.83
4.12
Salariat (full tert)
2
RNM (full sec)
Semi/unskilled (no qual)
0
British nationals
African 1
Carib 1
Carib 2
Indian 1
National origin
Indian 2
Irish 1
Irish 2
EEC1
Earnings - conclusions
• Within most occupational classes, ethnic
minorities appear to receive broadly
similar hourly earnings to their white peers
• There are however differences among the
self-employed – South Asian selfemployed earn rather less.
• Perhaps among South Asians selfemployment is less of a positive choice but
is more a strategy to deal with
discrimination in the labour market.
Britain in comparative perspective
2nd generation from non-European origins
unemployment
Men
Australia
Lebanese
-0.63
Austria
Turkish
-0.30
Belgium
Moroccan
-1.49
Turkish
-1.93
Canada
Lebanese
+0.11
Chinese
+0.14
Indian
-0.03
Caribbean
-0.49
France
Maghrebin
-1.67
Germany
Turkish
-0.69
Israel
Middle Eastern -0.50
North African
-0.65
Jews
Netherlands Surinamese
-1.14
Antillean
-0.41
Turkish
-0.82
Moroccan
-1.11
Sweden
African
-1.13
Latin
-0.46
American
UK – GB
Indian
-0.43
Caribbean
-0.80
Pakistani
-1.11
US
Cuban
+0.19
Black
-0.84
Mexican
-0.39
Puerto Rican
-1.08
Women
-0.67
-1.10
-1.84
-1.02
-0.08
-0.03
-0.48
-1.69
-0.61
-0.29
-0.59
-0.23
-0.42
-0.56
-0.90
-0.90
-0.55
-0.86
-0.74
-1.13
+0.02
-1.11
-0.65
-0.77
Britain in comparative perspective
2nd generation of non-European origins
access to salariat
Men
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Lebanese
Turkish
Moroccan
Turkish
Canada
Lebanese
Chinese
Indian
Caribbean
France
Maghrebin
Germany
Turkish
Israel
Middle Eastern
North African
Jews
Netherlands Surinamese
Antillean
Turkish
Moroccan
Sweden
African
Latin
American
UK – GB
Indian
Caribbean
Pakistani
US
Cuban
Black
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Women
+0.68
-1.62
-1.56
-1.44
+0.64
+0.96
+0.32
+0.12
-1.19
-1.25
-0.55
-0.46
+0.67
-0.40
-0.08
-0.75
-0.69
+0.02
+0.31
-0.40
-0.23
-0.78
-1.11
+0.22
+0.22
+0.67
-0.11
-0.17
+0.52
-0.15
-0.33
-0.19
+0.00
+0.62
-0.15
+0.86
+0.37
-0.02
+0.04
-1.18
-1.33
-0.18
+0.57
+0.38
+0.32
-1.13
-0.88
-0.27
-0.09
Britain’s record in comparative
perspective
With regard to ethnic penalties in unemployment,
Britain’s record is similar to that of Sweden and
the USA, better than that of Belgium and France,
but not as good as Canada.
In occupational terms, the British pattern of small
ethnic penalties in the second generation is also
apparent in Australia, Canada, Sweden and the
USA.
The children of guestworkers fare very badly in
Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands and
Germany
Key lessons
Access to jobs is the key obstacle for the second
generation – those who are lucky enough to
have jobs tend to get similar level work to their
equally-qualified white peers.
Access to jobs is an issue at all educational levels
and is not solely a problem faced by those with
low or no qualifications
Discrimination is a plausible explanation for this
pattern.
Policy implications 1
Low unemployment rates may help ethnic
minorities – employers may have less
scope for discrimination when the labour
market is tight.
Competitive pressure in a less-regulated
labour market may penalize employers
who discriminate.
Anti-discrimination legislation has not solved
the problem in Britain.
Policy implications 2
Ethnic monitoring – if linked to ‘naming and shaming’ – may
have a role.
The balance of evidence suggests that affirmative action
policies can be effective.
The Northern Ireland model of affirmative action appears to
be both effective and politically acceptable.
A voluntary pilot scheme on the NI model with targets for
improving minority representation might be worthwhile.
Government contracts might also be linked to progress on
minority representation.