ethnic penalties in the labour market: what role does discrimination play? anthony heath department...
TRANSCRIPT
Ethnic Penalties in the Labour Market: What Role does
Discrimination Play?Anthony Heath
Department of Sociology
Oxford University
Aims
To review both the gross and the net disadvantages (ethnic penalties) of ethnic minorities in the British labour market, focusing on unemployment in the second generation
To explore some evidence on discrimination by employers
To assess what role discrimination might play in accounting for the ethnic penalties
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.
Hence we need to look at the net disadvantages, after taking account of age and education.
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 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’, differences in aspirations and preferences, or alternative opportunities eg through the informal economy.
Ethnic penalties in the labour market are quite distinct from pre-labour market penalties, eg in education (on which there is also considerable evidence)
Generations
It is very important to distinguish between the • First generation – born overseas and usually
arriving in early adulthood – from the• Second generation – born and educated in
Britain.
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 familiarity with British practices.
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 one factor in contributing to social disorder.
Inequalities of opportunity are also economically inefficient as well as socially unjust.
Data sources
• General Household surveys (pooled)
• Labour Force surveys (pooled)
• Public use sample of the 2001 Census
• Home Office Citizenship survey 2003.
Ethnicity
Following standard Census practice we focus on ‘visible’ ethnic minorities, namely
• Black Africans
• Black Caribbeans
• Black mixed
• Indians
• Pakistanis
% unemployed
Men Women Born
outside UK Born in the
UK Born
outside UK Born in the
UK White British 4.2 4.5 4.1 3.7 Irish 6.2 6.1 6.1 3.9 Other white 5.7 7.6 5.9 6.3 Dual ancestry – white and black Caribbean
* 11.5 * 10.4
Dual ancestry – white and Asian
* 5.2 * 5.1
Chinese 5.1 3.7 7.0 * Indian 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.1 Pakistani 11.1 12.4 9.9 13.0 Bangladeshi 17.4 * 25.5 * Black Caribbean 13.3 12.7 9.6 6.5 Black African 14.1 11.8 16.2 12.5 Source: SARS 2001, respondents aged 30-44 living in England and Wales.
% in semi-routine or routine occupations Men Women Born
outside UK Born in the
UK Born
outside UK Born in the
UK White British 13.7 21.2 18.7 27.9 Irish 14.4 13.3 17.0 11.3 Other white 12.4 13.2 14.4 17.2 Dual ancestry – white and black Caribbean
* 29.3 * 26.9
Dual ancestry – white and Asian
16.5 12.7 * 19.9
Chinese 17.4 3.9 22.7 11.5 Indian 21.1 17.5 33.6 16.8 Pakistani 34.1 16.4 36.6 21.2 Bangladeshi 41.9 34.3 * * Black Caribbean 27.5 24.4 25.0 17.5 Black African 20.7 14.1 30.6 13.0 Source: SARS 2001, respondents in employment, aged 30-44 and living in England and Wales.
Mean hourly earnings Men Women
Born outside UK
Born in the UK Born outside UK
Born in the UK
White British £15.41 £12.55 £10.61 £9.31
Other white £16.43 £13.42 £12.55 £11.12
Dual ancestry – white and Black Caribbean
* * * £10.78
Indian £13.74 £12.50 £9.65 £9.48
Pakistani £9.31 £11.31 £8.37 £9.25
Bangladeshi £6.80 * * *
Black Caribbean £10.24 £11.61 £9.05 £10.17
Black African £10.08 £11.84 £8.67 £11.03
Source: Pooled LFS 2001-2004, respondents in work aged 30-44 living in England and Wales.
Ethnic minorities benefit from higher education but at all levels of education have higher unemployment than the white British Men Women
White British
First generation Non-white
Second generation Non-white
White British
First generation
Second generation
Level 4 or 5
2.3 6.5 5.9 2.1 6.6 5.5
Level 3 3.4 10.0 8.7 3.0 9.3 7.1
Level 2 3.8 10.3 10.5 2.9 9.1 7.5
Level 1 3.7 10.5 10.3 3.8 9.3 8.6
Other 5.4 11.0 15.6 6.1 11.3 8.6
None 10.7 16.1 23.7 8.3 12.6 17.6
Ethnic penalties in unemployment
Men Women
Black African -1.03 (.13) -.96 (.14) Black Caribbean -.91 (.10) -.87 (.11)
Black mixed -.81 (.16) -.73 (.17) Indian -.22 (.11) -.50 (.11)
Pakistani -.84 (.11) -1.15 (.13) Bangladeshi -1.04 (.15) -.71 (.24)
Chinese -.11 (.22) -.30 (.23) British, Other
Whites
0 0
Born overseas .15 (.09) .04 (.10)
Born in Britain 0 0 Source: LFS 2001-2004. Model controlling for ethnicity, generation, qualification, age, age squared, marital status, year of survey and region.
Predicted probability of unemployment - Men
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
no/primary qual lower sec full sec lower tert upper tert
British African1 Caribbean 1 Indian1 Pak/Bang1 Caribbean2 Indian2 Pak/Bang2
Predicted probability of unemployment - women
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
no/primary qual lower sec full sec lower tert upper tert
British African1 Caribbean 1 Indian1 Caribbean2 Indian2
Unemployment - conclusions
• All visible minorities apart from Chinese experience ethnic penalties in finding work
• No sign that these penalties are reduced in the second generation
• These penalties operate at all educational levels
• Discrimination is possibly a major factor
Discrimination
There are many different mechanisms that generate discrimination.
• Direct versus indirect discrimination by employers
• Statistical discrimination, error discrimination, tastes for discrimination
• Chill factor or prejudice from co-workers
In practice hard to distinguish.
Methods for assessing presence of discrimination
• Statistical analysis – control for other processes and discrimination is the unexplained gap.
• Self-report studies of job refusals.
• Field experiments (audit studies).
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
First-generation ethnic minorities report higher rates of job refusals than the white British
Has been refused
job on non-racial grounds
Has been refused job on racial
grounds
Overall reported refusal rate
White British 23.0 0.3 23.3 Indian 16.8 7.2 24.4 Pakistani 25.4 9.4 34.8 Bangladeshi 23.0 5.7 28.7 Black Caribbean 17.7 7.1 24.8 Black African 24.9 21.9 46.8 Source: HOCS 2003, non-UK born men and women aged under 45 resident in England and Wales).
Second-generation ethnic minorities report even higher rates of job refusal than the first generation Has been
refused job on non-racial grounds
Has been refused job
on racial grounds
Overall reported
refusal rate
White British 23.0 0.3 23.3 Indian 31.2 9.5 40.7 Pakistani 32.3 7.1 39.4 Bangladeshi 22.9 12.5 35.4 Black Caribbean 25.1 11.3 36.4 Black African 33.8 18.9 52.7 Source: HOCS 2003, UK-born men and women aged under 45 resident in England and Wales.
Self-reported job refusals explain around one-third of the ethnic penalties
Model 1 Model 2
Ethnicity
Black African -1.17 (.42) -0.73 (.44) Black Caribbean -1.32 (.19) -1.07 (.21)
Black mixed -.47 (.48) -0.04 (.54) Indian -1.36 (.22) -1.01 (.23)
Pakistani -1.43 (.27) -1.29 (.29) Chinese -1.60 (.64) -1.06 (.80)
British Whites 0 0 Job refusals
Racial grounds 1.39 (.12) Non-racial grounds 1.54 (.19)
None 0 Source: HOCS 2003, second generation
Conclusions
There is a pressing need for new field experiments to investigate discrimination.
Statistical evidence suggests that
• There is a large ethnic penalty that is unexplained by standard variables
• Self-reported discrimination accounts statistically for around one-third of the penalty
A final thought
We may be in the position of the early statistical analyses of the relation between smoking and lung cancer: we do not have proof of a causal connection, but the evidence strongly points in a particular direction. Policy would be wise to move in the same direction.