Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 21 November 2014, At: 06:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Community, Work & FamilyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccwf20
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND SOCIALCOHESION OF MINORITY ETHNICCOMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALESDavid W. OwenPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: David W. Owen (2006) DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND SOCIAL COHESION OFMINORITY ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES, Community, Work & Family, 9:3, 251-272,DOI: 10.1080/13668800600743552
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668800600743552
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
David W. Owen
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES AND SOCIAL
COHESION OF MINORITY ETHNIC
COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
This paper presents a profile of the comparative economic, social and demographiccharacteristics of people from minority ethnic groups living in England and Wales,mainly using data from the 2001 Census of Population. The paper starts by brieflydiscussing the question of social cohesion and material progress for minority ethnicgroups, whose migration to the UK was relatively recent. The relative youth,geographical concentration and economic disadvantage of these ethnic groups arepresented as key characteristics for their social inclusion and social cohesion. Contrastsbetween ethnic groups in demography, family composition, social structure and labourmarket participation are discussed, highlighting the continued disadvantage of minorityethnic groups taken as a whole relative to white people, but also the economic progress ofsome ethnic groups.
Keywords minority ethnic groups; Census; demography; family structure;social cohesion; economic disadvantage
Cet article presente une comparaison des caracteristiques economiques, sociales etdemographiques de la population originaires des minorites ethniques residant enAngleterre et au Pays de Galles, utilisant surtout des donnees du recensement de lapopulation de 2001. Je commence par poser la question de la cohesion sociale et duprogres materiel pour les minorites ethniques dont la migration au Royaume Uni estrelativement recente. La jeunesse, la concentration demographique et les desavantageseconomiques de ces groupes par rapport a la population totale sont presentes comme descaracteristiques cles pour effectuer leur inclusion et leur cohesion sociales. Les contrastesentre les groupes ethniques en matiere de demographie composition familiale, structuresociale et participation au marche du travail sont exposes, en soulignant lesdesavantages persistants des minorites ethniques par rapport a la population blanche,mais mention est egalement faite des progres economiques de certains groupesethniques.
Mots Cles groupes ethniques minoritaires; recensement; demographie;structure familiale; cohesion sociale; desavantage economique
Community, Work and Family Vol. 9, No. 3, August 2006, pp. 251�272ISSN 1366-8803 print/ISSN 1469-3615 online – 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/13668800600743552
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Introduction
The ethnic minority population of the UK has its origins in relatively recent migrationfrom Third World countries, growing from 74,000 people in 1951 (Rose, 1969) to4.6 million in 2001. The first period of mass immigration from these countries lastedfrom the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, involving mainly the New Commonwealth.Since the mid-1990s, levels of net immigration to the UK from all parts of the worldhave revived, increasing to reach around 200,000 per annum by 2003 (Salt, 2005).The earliest New Commonwealth migrants (and many subsequent migrants) foundthemselves in the most disadvantaged position in the labour and housing markets, andalso the focus of hostility from the white population. Their UK-born descendants havecontinued to face disadvantage and discrimination (to varying degrees).
The UK government has the declared aim of maintaining good communityrelations between the established and new migrant populations. A dual approach ofattempting to restrict immigration, while protecting the rights of immigrants(Solomos, 1988) has been followed since the 1960s, but in the context of increasinglyfree movement of population, there has been a move towards the adoption of policiesactively promoting social or community cohesion. Social cohesion might best bedefined as the absence of hostility and violence between different religious, nationaland ethnic groups (Hansen, 2003).
The thrust of government policy and action (including a series of Race RelationsActs and other legislation since 1965 and the official encouragement of multi-culturalism) has moved away from bringing about the assimilation of new migrantgroups, towards achieving integration , which might be defined as achieving levels ofeducational, professional, social and political progress comparable to those of thebroader population. Indeed, the latest government document comments that‘increasing life chances for all is a fundamental element of building strong, cohesivecommunities and a dynamic society and economy’ (Home Office, 2005, p. 19).However, Zetter (2006) contends that there are contradictions between this kind ofstatement and the apparently tough approach to international migration which leavesit unclear as to ‘what it is they [migrant communities] should be cohering to, nor clearwho is, or should be, doing the cohering’ (Zetter, 2006, p. 8).
The aim of this paper is to highlight the way in which the minority ethnic groupcommunities of England and Wales remain distinctive in terms of demography, familyorganization and socio-economic composition and to point to some implications forsocial cohesion; the assumption is that the lesser the degree of material deprivationexperienced by an ethnic group, the greater the degree of integration and hence socialcohesion between ethnic groups. There are four key features of minority ethnicgroups as a whole, which can be seen as indicators of their material progress in theUK:
. On average, this is a youthful population (and therefore with greater needs foreducation and social services and a larger percentage of the population potentiallyseeking work).
. In general, minority ethnic groups are economically disadvantaged (stillexperiencing high unemployment and low employment rates).
2 5 2 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
. The minority ethnic group population is growing rapidly (due both to high birthrates in a youthful population and high rates of international migration, creatingincreased demand for housing and public services).
. Overall, the minority ethnic group population is still highly concentratedgeographically, often in the most deprived localities (which have the pooresteconomic opportunities and public services).
As this paper will demonstrate (mainly using data from the 1991 and 2001 Censusesof Population), these overall averages for all people from minority ethnic groupsobscure the situation of individual minority ethnic groups. While there is evidence ofsignificant material progress for some minority ethnic groups, others remain trappedin a position of disadvantage. Modood et al. (1997, p. 342) suggested that minorityethnic groups fell into three broad categories:
. Most advantaged: East African Asian and Chinese.
. Less disadvantaged: Caribbean and Indian.
. Most disadvantaged: Bangladeshi and Pakistani.
The Strategy Unit (2003, p. 4) commented that the relative prosperity of Indian andChinese people demonstrated that ‘there are no insuperable barriers to successfuleconomic and social integration’ but that ‘ethnic minority groups . . . are not doing aswell as they should be’. This paper starts by examining the pattern of populationchange between 1991 and 2001 by ethnic group and the age and sex structure of eachethnic group. Having established the broad demographic contrasts between ethnicgroups, it goes on to contrast household and family structures by ethnic group. Thefocus then changes to consider social class composition and contrasts in economicactivity.
The classification of ethnic groups in the British Census ofPopulation
The inclusion of an ethnic group question in each of the last two Censuses ofPopulation provides the potential for detailed trends in the minority ethnic grouppopulation to be analysed for the first time. Individuals completing the Census areasked to choose a category which best describes their own ethnic identification or thatof the person on whose behalf they are completing the form (e.g. a child living in thesame household). The question used by the Census was based on that introduced toother official government surveys such as the Labour Force Survey during the 1980s.It was the product of a long period of experimentation and debate, and reflected theadvice of the Commission for Racial Equality on ethnic data collection (Sillitoe &White, 1992). The aim of the ethnic group classification was to represent categorieswhich were both recognizable to people being asked to complete the Census, andwhich represented the key minority communities for which evidence of discriminationand disadvantage was being collected. As a result, the ethnic group classificationarrived at was a pragmatic combination of skin colour and national origin, rather thanrepresenting the ethnic differentiation of the migrant groups. The question itself also
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 5 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
allowed individuals who felt that the standard categories did not adequately representtheir ethnic identity to provide a written description, but these were then coded bythe Census Offices to the standard categories used for statistical purposes.
Inclusion of the ethnic group question in 1991 proved successful, as there wasalmost no public objection to the question, and the data it yielded proved extremelyvaluable in providing a better understanding of the minority ethnic group populationof Great Britain, it permitted improvements in service provision for minoritycommunities and it also yielded information to support the campaigning activities ofminority communities. However, some problems were evident in the way thequestion was answered, and therefore the question for the 2001 Census was revised.First, additional categories were incorporated in order to identify white Irish people,other white ethnic groups and people of mixed parentage. Secondly, the question waschanged into a two-level question, in which individuals first identified themselves aswhite, mixed parentage, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British or Chinese orOther ethnic origin, and then chose a detailed category (or wrote in a description)within one of these broad ethnic groupings. The aim was to make the question clearerfor British-born people of Asian or Black ethnic origin. Though the question wasimproved, these changes and others in the way the Census was collected have made itdifficult to measure change in the minority population over the decade.
First, the 1991 Census was thought at the time to have underestimated thepopulation by two per cent, because the number of people identified (after data fornon-respondents had been imputed) was around 1 million less than the estimateyielded by adding births, deaths and net migrants over the decade 1981� 91 to the1981 Census total. This occurred because the Census had been poor at obtainingresponses from certain groups: particularly young children, young men, older womenand people living in households in multiple occupation. These factors meant that moreyouthful and deprived ethnic groups (particularly the Black-Caribbean, Pakistani andBangladeshi ethnic groups) were also underestimated by the Census. Attempts weremade to adjust the 1991 Census data, which resulted in the estimates of minorityethnic group populations increasing substantially (over 100,000). The 2001 Census ofPopulation was therefore designed to build in data estimation (using the results of afollow-up survey (Martin, Dorling, & Mitchell, 2002)). However, analysis of the1991 and 2001 Censuses by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) cast doubt uponthe assumptions which led to the estimate of an undercount in 1991 and hence thevalidity of adjusting the 1991 Census count upward. The ONS provides no guidanceon the best way of comparing data from the two Censuses.
Secondly, the change in the design of the ethnic group question between 1991 and2001 means that comparison of some ethnic groups (especially Black ethnic groups) isdifficult, because some components are treated differently in 1991 and 2001. Forexample, children of Mixed: White/Black Caribbean parentage fell into the ‘Black-Other’ category in 1991, and the Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean category in 2001.Platt, Simpson, and Akinwale (2005) suggest that the comparison is made even moredifficult by the tendency for some people (especially those allocated to ‘Other’ ethnicgroups) to answer the ethnic group question differently in the two Censuses, andhence advise that the most reliable comparisons are for the major ethnic groupings(e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese).
2 5 4 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Population change, 1991�2001
The pattern of population change by ethnic group between 1991 and 2001 ispresented in table 1. Notwithstanding the discussion above, the table compares 1991data adjusted for under-enumeration with 2001 Census data, because the former iscloser to the latest ONS population estimate of England and Wales on 30 June 1991(50.75 million) than unadjusted 1991 Census data (49.9 million), and hence providesa better estimate of overall population change. The adjusted Census data reveals aminority ethnic group population 200,000 greater than the unadjusted total at 3.25million, forming 6.4% of the total population in 1991. The ethnic group classificationused in this table differs from that used in the rest of the paper (the 2001 Censusclassification) because ethnic groups are combined to create new categories broadlyconsistent in 1991 and 2001. The Black-Other category is split between Black-Caribbean and Black-African people and the ‘Other and Mixed’ ethnic grouping andpeople of Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean and Mixed: White/Black-African parentageare added to the Black-Caribbean and Black-African ethnic groups, respectively. TheAsian ethnic categories were the same in both Censuses, but the Mixed and Othercategory includes people of Mixed: White/Asian or ‘Other’ origin in 2001.
There was an increase of just over 1 million in the total population of England andWales (a two per cent increase), but the white population declined by 228,000 or
TABLE 1 Population change by ethnic group in England and Wales, 1991�2001
ethnic group 1991 2001 change
population percentage
share
population percentage
share
number %
Population 51,002,599 100.0 52,041,916 100.0 1,039,317 2.0
White 47,749,127 93.6 47,520,866 91.3 �228,261 �0.5
Minority ethnic
group
3,253,472 6.4 4,521,050 8.7 1,267,578 39.0
Black or Black British 992,727 1.9 1,359,839 2.6 367,112 37.0
Caribbean 706,401 1.4 801,263 1.5 94,862 13.4
African 286,326 0.6 558,576 1.1 272,250 95.1
Asian or Asian British 1,749,619 3.4 2,273,737 4.4 524,118 30.0
Indian 878,256 1.7 1,036,807 2.0 158,551 18.1
Pakistani 488,729 1.0 714,826 1.4 226,097 46.3
Bangladeshi 173,310 0.3 280,830 0.5 107,520 62.0
Other Asian 209,324 0.4 241,274 0.5 31,950 15.3
Chinese and Other 511,126 1.0 887,474 1.7 376,348 73.6
Chinese 160,491 0.3 226,948 0.4 66,457 41.4
Other and Mixed 350,635 0.7 660,526 1.3 309,891 88.4
Source: 1991 and 2001 Censuses of Population (Crown Copyright).
Note: Data for 1991 is adjusted for under-enumeration by the SOCPOP program created by
Manchester University.
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 5 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
0.5%. The minority ethnic group population was 39% larger in 2001 than 1991, anincrease of nearly 1.3 million people. The minority ethnic group share of thepopulation had increased by nearly half, to 8.7%. The largest individual minoritygroups were Indian, Caribbean and Pakistani people in both years, and the Indianpopulation had reached 1 million in 2001. However, the Indian and Caribbean ethnicgroups grew much more slowly than more recent migrant groups. The Africanpopulation and the number of people from ‘Other and Mixed’ ethnic groups nearlydoubled. The Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Chinese populations all increased by morethan 40%. The ethnic groups with the largest numerical increases were the ‘Otherand Mixed’, African and Pakistani, all of which increased by more than 200,000. Theincrease in the ‘Other and Mixed’ category is mainly the result of high birth rates in avery youthful population, but this category was also boosted by rapid migration duringthe 1990s from a diverse range of countries. The increase of the African populationwas mainly due to migration (reinforced by high fertility), while the Pakistanipopulation grew rapidly due to a revival of international migration and continued highbirth rates.
Clearly, the population of England and Wales is becoming more diverse, and themost recent migrant groups are slowly catching up the earlier migrant groups in termsof total population. The consequences are that the ethnic composition of the areas ofmigrant settlement will be more diverse, with new demands on public services andnew opportunities for entrepreneurs. Where a high birth rate is the mean reason forpopulation growth, an ethnic group will have a high percentage of children and youngpeople, but migration will tend to bring in adults of prime working age to an ethnicgroup. Those migrating for employment or asylum will probably be mainly male.
Age and gender structure, 2001
In terms of gender structure, there is a small difference between white and minorityethnic groups as a whole, with the excess of females over males slightly greater amongwhite people (mainly a consequence of the greater life expectancy of women). Thereare more Asian British males than females, with the excess greatest in the Other Asiancategory (table 2). In all other ethnic groups, females outnumber males, with thedifference greatest in the Chinese and Other ethnic groups. In the ‘Other’ ethnicGroups, there are only 803 males for every 1,000 females. The imbalance is smallerin other ethnic groups, but there are only 864 Black-Caribbean males per 1,000females. These contrasts may reflect the characteristics of migrants from these ethnicgroups and how recent their migration is. For example, the Other ethnic groups maycontain a number of recent migrants to jobs as nurses or in domestic service andcatering. However, this pattern may also reflect the tendency for men from someethnic groups (e.g. Black-Caribbean men) to avoid the Census.
The most salient difference between ethnic groups is the marked difference in agestructure between white and minority ethnic groups. White people are older onaverage than people from minority ethnic groups (39.6 years compared with 28.5years).
2 5 6 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
The percentage aged 0�4 years is twice as high in minority ethnic groups thanamong white people, and there is a similar differential in each age group up to the ageof 45. After that age, the share of the age group in the population is higher for whitepeople than for minority ethnic groups. There is a marked contrast in age structurebetween minority ethnic groups. Half of people of mixed parentage were aged under15 in 2001, compared with 18.8% of Chinese and Other, 19.6% of white, 26%of Black and Black British and 28.7% of Asian and Asian British people. Well overhalf of Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean people were under 15, and over a third ofBangladeshi and Pakistani people were children. The share of people aged 16 to 24 ishigher in most minority ethnic groups than for white people, with around a fifth ofPakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese people falling into this age group. A smallerpercentage of Indian people are in this age group, and the share of Black-Caribbeanpeople is similar to that of white people. The percentage aged 25 to 44 (prime
TABLE 2 Sex ratio and age breakdown of ethnic groups in England and Wales, 2001
males per 1,000
females
percentage of population in each age group
0�4 5�15 16�24 25�44 45�59/64 65�74 75�
All ethnic groups 948 5.9 14.2 10.9 29.1 21.3 10.9 7.6
White 946 5.6 13.6 10.4 28.7 22.1 11.4 8.2
White: British 949 5.7 13.9 10.4 28.3 22.1 11.4 8.2
White: Irish 892 1.8 4.1 6.4 28.1 30.0 19.7 9.9
White: Other White 872 4.7 9.1 14.2 42.0 17.6 7.7 4.7
Minority ethnic groups 966 9.8 20.3 16.2 33.7 13.5 5.0 1.5
Mixed parentage 968 17.6 32.4 16.2 23.7 6.6 2.3 1.2
White/Black-Caribbean 954 18.9 38.6 15.9 19.9 3.8 1.7 1.0
White/Black-African 964 18.1 27.3 15.5 28.6 7.6 1.8 0.9
White and Asian 1,013 17.2 30.3 16.1 24.5 7.6 2.9 1.4
Other Mixed 938 15.7 28.2 17.0 25.9 9.1 2.7 1.5
Asian or Asian British 1,026 9.2 19.5 17.3 32.3 15.0 5.2 1.5
Indian 989 6.6 16.3 15.8 34.4 18.5 6.4 2.0
Pakistani 1,027 11.9 23.1 19.3 29.3 11.2 4.1 1.1
Bangladeshi 1,019 13.1 25.3 19.7 28.6 9.0 3.6 0.6
Other Asian 1,210 7.7 15.8 15.0 36.7 18.4 4.9 1.6
Black or Black British 894 8.3 17.7 12.8 39.8 13.1 6.6 1.7
Black-Caribbean 864 5.7 14.7 10.8 39.1 16.3 10.7 2.7
Black-African 929 10.6 19.6 14.6 41.5 10.5 2.5 0.7
Other Black 906 12.2 25.8 16.2 35.1 6.9 2.8 1.1
Chinese or Other 863 5.3 13.5 19.2 39.5 17.2 4.0 1.3
Chinese 925 4.7 13.6 22.7 35.2 17.3 4.9 1.6
Other Ethnic Group 803 6.0 13.3 15.5 44.1 17.2 3.0 0.9
Source: 2001 Census of Population (Crown Copyright).
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 5 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
working age) is higher for minority ethnic groups than for white people, notably forIndian, Other Asian, Black-Caribbean, Black-African and ‘Other’ people.
The share of older people in the population is smaller for minority ethnic groups thanfor white people. However, the ageing of the population is also apparent for these ethnicgroups, with 18.5% of Indian, 18.4% of Other Asian, 16.3% of Black-Caribbean and17.3% of Chinese people aged 45 to 59 or 64 (retirement age). The population share forpensioners is much smaller for minority ethnic groups than white people, but the oldestminority ethnic groups are Black-Caribbean, Indian and Chinese people. In all threeof these, the elderly population is set to increase substantially in the coming decades.
Figure 1 emphasizes the contrasts in age structure between ethnic groups, using‘population pyramids’, which present the percentage of the male and female
Wh
ite
eth
nic
gro
up
s
106
22
610
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
0 to
4 5
to 9
10
to 1
4 1
5 to
19
20
to 2
4 2
5 to
29
30
to 3
4 3
5 to
39
40
to 4
4 4
5 to
49
50
to 5
4 5
5 to
59
60
to 6
4 6
5 to
69
70
to 7
4 7
5 to
79
80
to 8
4 8
5 to
89
90 a
nd o
ver
Per
cent
of f
emal
esP
erce
nt o
f mal
esP
erce
nt o
f fem
ales
Per
cent
of m
ales
Per
cent
of f
emal
esP
erce
nt o
f mal
esP
erce
nt o
f fem
ales
Per
cent
of m
ales
Per
cent
of f
emal
esP
erce
nt o
f mal
esP
erce
nt o
f fem
ales
Per
cent
of m
ales
Min
ori
ty e
thn
ic g
rou
ps
84
04
812
Mix
ed p
aren
tag
e
2016
128
40
48
1216
20
Asi
an a
nd
Asi
an B
riti
sh e
thn
ic g
rou
ps
84
04
812
Bla
ck a
nd
Bla
ck B
riti
sh e
thn
ic g
rou
ps
1612
84
04
812
16
Ch
ines
e &
Oth
er e
thn
ic g
rou
ps
128
40
48
12
FIGURE 1 Age and gender structure of broad ethnic groups, England and Wales, 2001. Source:
Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
2 5 8 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
population falling into each five-year age group. The white population is relatively‘mature’, with a high percentage of older people and fewer children and young peoplethan people of working age. The greater life expectancy of women is reflected in thelarger number of older women than older men. The pyramid for minority ethnicgroups as a whole clearly demonstrates that this is a much more youthful populationwith strong continuing growth. Males outnumber females in the younger age groups.
The contrasts between pyramids for broad ethnic groups are striking. Thepopulation of mixed parentage is revealed to be very youthful and increasing rapidly,with the percentage of children much larger than any adult age category. The pyramidfor Asian and Asian British people displays similarities, with the percentage in each agegroup increasing with decreasing age, but the percentages in age groups under 15remaining fairly constant. This is indicative of rapid population growth in the past,now slowing. The pyramid for Black and Black British people is very distinctive, withbulges corresponding to the original migrant generation, now entering retirement,and their British-born children (much larger). There is a smaller bulge for the thirdgeneration, many of whom will fall into the mixed parentage category. The pyramidfor Chinese and Other people is also highly distinctive, with few old people and adultsgreatly outnumbering children. This pattern suggests that international migration ofpeople of working age represents a major part of the growth of ethnic groups in thiscategory.
Geographical distribution
Migrants from the New Commonwealth who came to Britain in the 1950s and 1960sin search of work tended to settle in London, Birmingham and other industrial citiesand towns of the Midlands and northern England, where jobs in manufacturingindustry and public sector services were readily available (Mason, 1995). The legacyof this pattern of initial settlement is still apparent in the highly concentratedgeographical distribution of minority ethnic groups within the UK. The main areas ofconcentration in 2001 were Greater London, the West Midlands, GreaterManchester, West Yorkshire and the Leicester/Nottingham corridor in the EastMidlands (Table 3). More than a quarter of the population of Greater London wasfrom minority ethnic groups, while a fifth of the population of the West Midlands(former) metropolitan county was from a minority ethnic group. Elsewhere, theminority share of the population only exceeded the UK average in GreaterManchester. At the other extreme, only just over two per cent of the populationsof the northern region of England, Wales and Scotland (and less than one per cent ofthe Northern Ireland population) were from minority ethnic groups.
In contrast to the general tendency for people to leave the cities and move tosmaller towns and rural areas, and the massive loss of jobs in the larger urban areas(Champion, 1989), people from minority ethnic groups have remained geographicallyconcentrated in the major cities. Table 3 demonstrates that the share of minorityethnic groups in the main areas of settlement steadily increased between 1971 and2001, at the same time as these regions and metropolitan counties were losingpopulation in relative terms to the areas of more recent employment growth, notably
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 5 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
East Anglia and South West England. Thus, the spatial separation between the whiteand minority ethnic groups has been maintained over this period. Since the mid-1980s, the population decline of the larger cities has been halted by the growth of theminority ethnic group population, and London’s population has been increasing overthis period, driven by high rates of net international migration.
Table 4 emphasizes the regional concentration of minority ethnic groups withinthe UK in 2001. Greater London contains only one-eighth of the population of theUK, but nearly half the minority population (and a fifth live in Inner London). Afurther eighth lives in the West Midlands metropolitan county. More than two-thirdsof people from Black ethnic groups live in Greater London, the bulk of the remainderliving in the West Midlands metropolitan county and the South East beyond London.More than a third of South Asian people live in Greater London (a larger share ofwhom live in Outer London), with the second largest concentration being in the WestMidlands, followed by the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the EastMidlands.
Figure 2 presents the detailed local distribution of the minority population ofGreat Britain in 2001. This highlights the highly localized geographical distributionof people from minority ethnic groups within regions. The largest concentrations ofpeople from minority ethnic groups are found in London Boroughs (with minorityethnic groups outnumbering white people in Brent and Newham LBs), the West
TABLE 3 Minority population change by region, 1971�2001
region, country or
metropolitan county
population 2001
(thousands)
% change
1971�2001
minority ethnic group population
1971
%
1981
%
1991
%
2001
%
2001
thousands
South East 18,386.9 12.7 4.3 7.4 9.9 13.4 2,460.5
Greater London 7,172.1 �0.6 7.9 14.3 20.2 28.8 2,068.9
East Anglia 2,174.0 35.2 0.7 1.5 2.1 3.2 69.0
South West 4,928.4 26.4 0.8 1.5 1.3 2.3 113.1
West Midlands 5,267.3 5.3 4.1 6.4 8.2 11.3 593.0
West Midlands m.c. 2,555.6 �7.0 6.8 10.9 14.6 20.0 512.4
East Midlands 4,172.2 17.6 2 3.7 4.8 6.5 271.8
Yorkshire and Humberside 4,964.8 4.1 1.9 3.2 4.5 6.5 323.6
West Yorkshire m.c. 2,079.2 2.7 3.4 5.9 8.2 11.4 236.4
North West 6,242.2 �3.1 1.3 2.7 3.9 5.9 370.7
Greater Manchester m.c 2,482.3 �7.5 2.1 3.9 5.9 8.9 221.8
North 3,003.0 �2.2 0.4 0.9 1.3 2.1 63.6
Tyne and Wear m.c. 1,075.9 �9.6 0.4 1 1.8 3.2 34.0
Wales 2,903.1 9.2 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.1 61.6
Scotland 5,062.0 0.2 0.4 � 1.2 2.0 101.7
Great Britain 57,103.9 9.0 2.4 4.2 5.5 8.1 4,622.7
Source: Censuses of Population for 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001 (Crown Copyright).
Note: Comparable data not available for Scotland in 1981.
2 6 0 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Midlands, the Pennine towns and the cities of the East Midlands. A trend for theminority population to spread outwards into the remainder of the South East and intothe Midlands and North West is apparent. However, in Wales and Scotland theminority population remains concentrated in the major cities, while the minorityshare of the population remains very small in areas of England outside the main axis ofurbanization stretching from London to Leeds.
Household and family types
There have been major changes in household and family structures in the UK in recentdecades. The ‘traditional’ family of married parents living with (on average two)children has become much less common, as the percentage of lone parent families,step families, people living alone and pensioner households have increased. It has beenargued that the apparent weakening of family structures reduces social cohesion and
TABLE 4 Regional distribution of ethnic groups 2001
government office
region
All
people
All White Mixed South
Asian
Black Chinese
and other
Minority
ethnic groups
percentage of UK population of each ethnic group
England 49,138,831 83.6 82.5 95.0 96.5 98.6 92.8 96.2
North East 2,515,442 4.3 4.5 1.8 1.5 0.3 1.9 1.3
North West 6,729,764 11.4 11.7 9.2 10.3 3.6 7.6 8.1
Greater Manchester 2,482,328 4.2 4.2 4.9 6.3 2.6 3.9 4.8
Yorkshire and the
Humber
4,964,833 8.4 8.6 6.6 10.1 3.0 4.7 7.0
West Yorkshire 2,079,211 3.5 3.4 3.7 8.3 1.8 2.4 5.1
East midlands 4,172,174 7.1 7.2 6.4 7.5 3.4 4.4 5.9
West midlands 5,267,308 9.0 8.6 10.8 17.5 9.1 7.0 12.8
West Midlands
(former m.c.)
2,555,592 4.3 3.8 8.1 15.6 8.3 5.3 11.1
Eastern 5,388,140 9.2 9.5 8.6 5.2 4.2 6.7 5.7
London 7,172,091 12.2 9.4 33.4 35.2 68.1 45.0 44.6
Inner London 2,766,114 4.7 3.4 15.9 12.3 39.6 17.9 20.5
Outer London 4,405,977 7.5 6.1 17.5 22.9 28.6 27.0 24.1
South East 8,000,645 13.6 14.1 12.7 7.8 5.0 11.8 8.4
South West 4,928,434 8.4 8.9 5.5 1.3 1.8 3.7 2.4
Wales 2,903,085 4.9 5.2 2.6 1.1 0.6 2.0 1.3
Scotland 5,062,011 8.6 9.2 1.9 2.3 0.7 4.4 2.2
Great Britain 57,103,927 97.1 96.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.7
Northern Ireland 1,685,267 2.9 3.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.3
United Kingdom 58,789,194 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 6 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
increases insecurity and disorder. However, average trends are not typical of all ethnicgroups. Asian ethnic groups are generally assumed to maintain ‘traditional’ familystructures with early and near universal marriage and relatively large and oftenmulti-generational households, with older relatives often living with their children andthe mother of the family less likely to be in the formal labour market than in otherethnic groups. In contrast, the Caribbean family is much more likely to be headed byan unmarried woman, who is also the main earner for the household. Thesecontrasting family types are often assumed to be associated with high and low levels ofcommunity cohesion, respectively.
In 2001, couples still represented the most common type of household type(44.8%), with 20.8% of couples living with dependent children (table 5). More thanhalf of minority ethnic group households are couples, and 28% live with dependentchildren. This percentage is much higher for Asian and Asian British households(38%), with nearly half (48.4%) of Bangladeshi couples living with dependent
Percent minority
37 to 60.626.8 to 3716 to 26.88.7 to 164.9 to 8.71.5 to 4.90.3 to 1.499
FIGURE 2 Percentage of resident population from minority ethnic groups in local authority
districts, Great Britain, 2001. Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
2 6 2 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
TABLE 5 Household type by ethnc group (percentage of all households)
all households one personhouseholds
pensionerhouseholds
marriedcouple
cohabitingcouple
couple withchildren
loneparent
otherhouseholds
All ethnic groups 21,660,475 30.0 14.8 36.5 8.3 20.8 9.5 6.7White 20,250,117 30.4 15.5 36.5 8.5 20.3 9.2 6.0White: British 19,336,648 30.4 15.7 36.6 8.5 20.4 9.2 5.7White: Irish 357,289 37.5 18.5 29.7 6.7 13.9 9.9 7.6White: Other White 556,180 28.2 8.9 36.4 8.8 21.7 7.7 13.6Minority ethnicgroups
1,410,358 24.2 4.9 37.3 4.9 28.0 14.7 16.7
Mixed parentage 146,309 30.4 5.6 25.1 10.8 20.3 18.4 13.2White/Black-Caribbean 45,709 31.0 5.2 16.9 12.4 17.3 26.7 11.2White/Black-African 20,666 29.7 4.1 24.0 9.9 20.7 19.9 15.5White and Asian 41,638 29.8 6.2 30.9 11.0 22.5 12.3 13.1Other Mixed 38,296 30.9 6.2 29.2 9.3 21.3 14.3 14.3Asian or Asian British 630,149 14.2 3.3 51.5 2.4 38.0 9.3 20.4Indian 314,952 15.4 3.9 52.6 2.3 34.9 8.0 18.6Pakistani 172,510 11.9 2.6 50.6 2.2 41.7 11.1 22.8Bangladeshi 61,939 8.8 1.7 54.2 2.1 48.4 10.9 23.5Other Asian 80,748 18.4 3.9 47.7 3.3 34.0 8.8 19.7Black or Black British 483,282 34.9 7.0 21.0 6.6 17.2 22.4 13.2Black-Caribbean 275,628 38.0 9.9 19.3 7.1 14.7 23.5 9.2Black-African 176,436 30.1 2.9 24.2 5.6 21.3 19.8 19.6Other Black 31,218 34.2 4.9 17.0 7.4 15.4 27.7 12.4Chinese or Other 150,618 25.8 3.8 42.3 4.4 28.4 9.5 16.4Chinese 77,384 27.8 4.5 41.0 4.2 26.4 8.5 16.2Other Ethnic Group 73,234 23.6 3.0 43.6 4.5 30.5 10.5 16.5
Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
MIN
OR
ITY
ET
HN
ICC
OM
MU
NIT
IES
INE
NG
LA
ND
AN
DW
AL
ES
26
3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
children. Caribbean couples (both Black-Caribbean and Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean) are less likely than average to live with dependent children.
Overall, 30.4% of white households contain one person, compared with 24.2%of minority ethnic group households. Only 14.2% of Asian and Asian Britishhouseholds contain only one person, compared with more than a third (34.9%) ofBlack and Black British households. Black-Caribbean people are most likely to livealone, with 38% of households from this ethnic group containing a single adult.Households of mixed parentage are close to average, but only 8.8% of Bangladeshiand 11.9% of Pakistani households contain a lone adult. This partly reflects contrastsin age structure, since 15.5% of white households are pensioner households, many ofwhom are living alone. Only 4.9% of minority ethnic group households consist ofpensioners, and this percentage falls to 3.3% for Asian and Asian British households(1.7% for Bangladeshis). However, 9.9% of Black-Caribbean households containpensioners, highlighting the growing need for social care for the elderly Caribbeanpeople. The highest percentage of pensioner households occurs among white Irishpeople (18.5%).
The number of lone parent households has been growing steadily in recentdecades, representing 9.5% of all households and 14.7% of households from minorityethnic groups in 2001. This percentage is highest in the Black and Black British(22.4%) and mixed parentage (18.4%) ethnic categories, and close to average forAsian and Asian British and Chinese and Other people. However, 27.7% of Black-Other, over a quarter (26.7%) of Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean and 23.5% ofBlack-Caribbean households consist of lone parents. Only eight per cent of Indian and8.5% of Chinese households are lone parent families.
Other types of household (such as groups of unrelated adults living together)represent six per cent of white households but 16.7% of minority ethnic grouphouseholds. This percentage is highest for Asian and Asian British households,reaching 23.5% for Bangladeshi households, and twice as high for Black-African thanBlack-Caribbean households. This partly reflects differences in age structure, sincestudent households are included in this total, but may also reflect the differentialimpact of international migration by ethnic group, with young migrant workerssharing accommodation.
Overall, 58.9% of people lived in a married couple household in 2001, with afurther 10.4% in cohabiting couple families (table 6). People from minority ethnicgroups were less likely than white people to live in cohabiting family households, butmore likely to live in lone parent families. It is striking that 30.1% of people of mixedparentage live in lone parent families, including 43.7% of those of Mixed: Whiteand Black-Caribbean heritage and 40.3% of Mixed: White/Black-African heritage.Similarly high percentages are displayed in the Black and Black British ethnic groups,reaching 41% for the small Other Black category. In contrast, three-quarters or so ofIndian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi people live in married couple families. Thepercentage living in cohabiting couple families is highest for white and mixedparentage ethnic groups. Overall 17.1% of people do not live in a family, with aslightly smaller percentage for minority ethnic groups than white people. A fifth ofBlack-Caribbean and Black-African people and a fifth of Chinese and Other people donot live in a family, compared with under a fifth of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people.
2 6 4 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Figure 3 investigates people not living in families a little further, by presenting thepercentage of men not living in families by age group. The percentage of men livingoutside families increases with increasing age, but there is a clear contrast by ethnicgroup. Black and Black British men and men of mixed parentage are more likely tolive outside families (around a third), while Asian and Asian British men are leastlikely to (around 10% in the prime working ages). The percentage living outside afamily increases from the age of 60 onwards, most rapidly for Asian and Asian Britishmen.
The mean family size (persons living in families with a head from a given ethnicgroup divided by the number of family heads) is slightly larger for minority ethnicgroups than for white ethnic groups in each family type. Families headed by a personof mixed parentage are largest on average, with the average lone parent familycontaining 6.2 persons, just smaller than the average married coupe family at 6.5
TABLE 6 Family type and size by ethnic group, England and Wales, 2001
ethnic group percentage living in family type mean persons per family
lone
parent
married or
remarried
cohabiting not in
family
lone
parent
married or
remarried
cohabiting
All ethnic groups 11.7 58.9 10.4 17.1 2.6 3.0 2.7
White 11.1 59.0 10.9 17.3 2.5 2.9 2.7
White: British 11.2 59.3 10.9 16.9 2.5 2.9 2.7
White: Irish 9.2 50.3 9.2 28.8 1.5 2.3 2.1
White: Other White 7.7 52.8 10.8 24.4 2.0 2.8 2.4
Minority ethnic groups 18.3 57.8 6.0 15.8 3.1 3.7 3.1
Mixed parentage 30.1 42.2 12.2 13.3 6.2 6.5 4.4
White/Black-Caribbean 43.7 28.8 14.8 10.9 7.2 7.6 5.5
White/Black-African 30.3 39.4 11.5 16.1 4.7 5.4 3.8
White and Asian 19.1 54.6 10.7 13.2 6.0 6.8 3.9
Other Mixed 22.5 49.0 10.5 15.4 5.3 5.8 3.9
Asian or Asian British 10.5 74.3 2.8 11.2 2.9 3.7 2.9
Indian 8.4 76.1 2.5 11.5 2.6 3.4 2.6
Pakistani 12.7 74.3 2.8 9.5 3.2 4.2 3.4
Bangladeshi 13.2 74.1 3.0 9.1 3.4 4.5 3.8
Other Asian 9.7 66.4 3.9 17.4 2.5 3.2 2.6
Black or Black British 30.5 34.3 9.0 24.2 2.6 3.2 2.7
Black-Caribbean 31.7 32.2 9.6 24.9 2.4 2.8 2.4
Black-African 27.0 37.6 8.1 24.7 2.9 3.5 2.9
Other Black 41.0 29.8 9.8 17.5 3.8 4.6 3.5
Chinese or Other 9.5 56.7 5.0 21.3 2.4 3.4 2.7
Chinese 8.8 56.0 4.8 21.8 2.6 3.3 2.6
Other Ethnic Group 10.2 57.4 5.3 20.9 2.4 3.4 2.8
Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 6 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
persons, while cohabiting families are smaller. In Asian and Asian British ethnicgroups, lone parent and cohabiting couple families are smaller than married couplefamilies, and smaller than families of mixed parentage. Black and Black British andChinese and Other families tend to be of similar size to white families, with marriedcouples having the largest families.
Social class
Social class is an indicator of prosperity and thus might be seen as an indicator of socialcohesion. The higher the percentage of people from higher status social groups, thegreater the degree of economic and social progress experienced by an ethnic group,and (possibly) the greater the degree of social cohesion experienced. The social classbreakdown of each ethnic group is presented in table 7, using the Office for NationalStatistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). Social status (and mean income)increases from ‘never worked and long term unemployed’ to ‘higher managerial andprofessional’ occupations.
People from minority ethnic groups are slightly more likely than white people tobe in higher managerial jobs (reflecting the higher percentage of entrepreneurs insome minority ethnic groups), but are less likely than white people to work in lowermanagerial and professional occupations (e.g. administrators and jobs such as nursing),and more likely to work in semi-routine occupations. Moreover, the percentage ofpeople from minority ethnic groups who have never worked or who are long termunemployed is far higher than the corresponding percentage for white people. Thispercentage is particularly high for Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black-African people.Chinese, Indian and Other Asian people are more likely than people from other
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
16-24 25-34 35-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75 and over
% m
en n
ot
in f
amili
es
WhiteMinorityMixedAsianBlackOther
FIGURE 3 Men not living in families by age group, England and Wales, 2001 (percentages).
2 6 6 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
TABLE 7 Percentages of people aged 16 and over in each National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) category by ethnic group, England and Wales,
2001
highermanagerialandprofessionaloccupations
lowermanagerialandprofessionaloccupations
intermediateoccupations
small employersand own accountworkers
lower supervisoryand technicaloccupations
semi-routineoccupations
routineoccupations
neverworked orlong termunem-ployed
notclassified
All ethnic groups 7.7 16.8 8.5 6.3 6.5 10.6 8.2 3.4 32.1
White 7.6 17.1 8.5 6.3 6.6 10.5 8.3 2.6 32.4White: British 7.4 16.9 8.6 6.3 6.7 10.7 8.4 2.5 32.4
White: Irish 8.6 17.7 6.3 6.2 5.0 8.1 7.3 3.5 37.3
White: Other White 14.0 20.5 8.0 6.3 4.4 7.5 6.0 5.4 28.1
Minority ethnic groups 8.5 14.0 8.0 6.0 4.6 11.1 7.3 12.3 28.1Mixed parentage 8.5 17.1 9.1 4.3 5.3 10.6 7.2 8.4 29.5White/Black-Caribbean 4.9 14.8 9.6 3.8 6.4 13.5 9.8 9.3 27.9
White/Black-African 7.8 16.5 8.8 4.1 5.7 11.2 7.8 10.5 27.6
White and Asian 10.8 18.6 8.9 4.8 4.5 8.7 5.6 7.5 30.6
Other Mixed 10.1 18.3 8.8 4.6 4.6 9.1 5.9 7.5 31.1
Asian or Asian British 9.1 11.4 7.1 7.3 4.1 10.9 7.8 15.4 26.9Indian 12.1 13.8 8.8 7.6 4.4 10.8 8.0 7.6 27.0
Pakistani 5.5 7.6 5.1 7.7 3.3 10.2 8.5 24.9 27.1
Bangladeshi 3.4 6.6 4.4 5.2 5.0 13.2 7.7 27.8 26.7
Other Asian 10.8 15.1 7.8 6.7 4.2 10.8 5.5 13.2 25.9
Black or Black British 6.8 17.5 10.2 3.4 5.6 12.3 7.1 9.3 27.8Black-Caribbean 5.6 18.5 11.7 3.6 6.1 12.5 8.0 6.6 27.3
Black-African 8.6 16.2 8.1 3.1 4.7 11.6 5.8 13.0 28.9
Other Black 5.4 17.3 11.2 3.0 6.0 13.9 7.8 9.5 26.0
Chinese or Other 10.2 14.8 5.9 8.4 3.5 9.7 5.0 9.5 33.2Chinese 11.2 12.1 5.3 11.9 3.1 9.2 3.6 5.9 37.8
Other Ethnic Group 9.1 17.7 6.6 4.7 3.8 10.2 6.4 13.2 28.4
Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
MIN
OR
ITY
ET
HN
ICC
OM
MU
NIT
IES
INE
NG
LA
ND
AN
DW
AL
ES
26
7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
minority groups and white British people to work in higher managerial andprofessional occupations. Chinese people are also the ethnic group most likely towork as small employers and own account workers.
Rates of housing deprivation (defined as overcrowding and non-exclusive use ofamenities) are closely related to income, increasing as the social status of thehousehold reference person declines. Within this pattern, rates of housing deprivationare higher for minority ethnic group households than for white households at eachlevel of the classification (figure 4).
Economic position, economic activity and inactivity
The most important determinant of social exclusion (and hence social cohesionbetween ethnic groups) is the ability to access the labour market. Table 8 summarizesthe labour market circumstances of men and women from each ethnic group aged16�74 for England and Wales in 2001. Overall, white people are more likely to beactive in the labour market than people from minority ethnic groups, who are twice aslikely to be unemployed. Just under half of all people from minority ethnic groupsaged 16�74 were in work, compared to over 60% of white people. Economic activityand employment rates are higher for men than women, while the femaleunemployment rate is lower than that for men. In response to the Cabinet Officereport on ethnic minority disadvantage in the labour market (Strategy Unit, 2003),
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
All HRP's HigherManagerial
andProfessionalOccupations
LowerManagerial
andProfessionalOccupations
IntermediateOccupations
SmallEmployersand OwnAccountWorkers
LowerSupervisory
and TechnicalOccupations
Semi-Routine
Occupations
RoutineOccupations
NeverWorked andLong-Term
Unemployed
% d
epri
ved
on
ho
usi
ng
dim
ensi
on
WhiteMinority
FIGURE 4 Percentage of white and minority households experiencing housing deprivation by NS-
SEC of household reference person (HRP), England and Wales, 2001. Source: Census of Population
2001 (Crown Copyright).
2 6 8 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
TABLE 8 Economic activity by thnic group, England and Wales, 2001
ethnic group persons males females
economic
activity
rate
unemployment
rate
employment
rate
economic
activity
rate
unemployment
rate
employment
rate
economic
activity
rate
unemployment
rate
employment
rate
White 67.1 4.6 61.6 74.2 5.4 68.1 60.2 3.8 55.4
White: British 67.3 4.6 61.8 74.4 5.3 68.3 60.3 3.7 55.5
White: Irish 59.8 5.4 55.1 65.6 6.7 59.9 54.4 3.9 50.7
White: Other White 65.7 5.9 58.6 73.2 6.3 65.4 59.4 5.4 52.9
Minority ethnic groups 60.2 10.0 49.1 69.0 11.0 56.2 51.9 8.7 42.5
Mixed parentage 63.8 10.6 50.6 69.0 12.4 54.3 59.1 8.6 47.2
White/Black-Caribbean 65.1 13.6 49.5 70.6 16.3 52.8 60.4 10.9 46.6
White/Black-African 63.1 11.9 48.9 69.1 13.8 52.9 57.5 9.9 45.1
White/Asian 63.6 8.1 52.5 68.7 9.5 56.5 58.5 6.5 48.4
Other Mixed 63.0 9.1 50.5 67.6 10.7 53.9 59.0 7.6 47.5
Asian and Asian British 57.1 9.3 47.5 70.0 9.6 58.6 44.2 8.6 36.4
Indian 65.4 6.2 57.1 73.6 6.2 64.7 57.4 6.1 49.7
Pakistani 47.5 14.1 36.6 66.1 13.8 52.1 28.5 14.8 20.8
Bangladeshi 44.8 16.1 32.6 64.3 15.9 48.5 25.2 16.5 16.6
Black and Black British 65.4 12.3 51.5 69.7 14.9 53.4 61.7 9.7 49.8
Black-Caribbean 66.4 11.1 55.3 69.3 14.9 55.6 64.0 7.8 55.0
Black-African 63.9 13.3 46.7 70.0 14.3 51.0 58.4 12.2 42.9
Other Black 66.1 14.9 50.1 70.2 18.6 51.3 62.7 11.4 49.2
Chinese and Other 58.3 7.6 49.1 65.6 8.2 55.0 51.4 6.9 43.4
Chinese 57.6 5.4 48.8 62.2 5.4 53.0 53.4 5.3 45.0
Other Asian 60.9 8.6 51.3 69.4 8.8 58.5 50.0 8.2 42.0
Other Ethnic Group 56.4 8.7 47.2 64.4 10.2 52.8 50.5 7.3 43.0
ALL PEOPLE 66.5 5.0 60.6 73.8 5.8 67.1 59.5 4.1 54.3
Source: Census of Population 2001 (Crown Copyright).
MIN
OR
ITY
ET
HN
ICC
OM
MU
NIT
IES
INE
NG
LA
ND
AN
DW
AL
ES
26
9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force (EMETF) was set up under theleadership of the Department for Work and Pensions, which was given the task ofreducing this disparity in economic activity and employment rates. There has beensome reduction in the two years since the Task Force was formed (EMETF, 2005).
Among men, white British men have higher economic activity and employmentrates and lower unemployment rates than men from all minority ethnic groups. Indianmen have the highest economic activity rates and Chinese and Bangladeshi men thelowest. The unemployment rate is highest for Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi menand men of Mixed: White/Black-Caribbean ethnicity. Chinese and Indian menexperience unemployment rates similar to white men.
Amongst women, Black-Caribbean women exhibit the highest economic activityrates, followed by white, Black-African, Indian, Black-Other and Chinese women. Avery low percentage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are economically active(which has been a consequence of early marriage and childbearing, together with alack of educational qualifications, though there is evidence of change for youngerwomen (Dale, 2002)). The unemployment rate is highest for Pakistani andBangladeshi women, followed by Black-African and Black-Other women and lowestfor Indian and Chinese women. The percentage of women in work is highest for thewhite, Black and Indian ethnic groups and lowest for the Bangladeshi and Pakistaniethnic groups. These figures emphasize the extremely marginalized labour marketposition of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women, who also tend to be employed in anarrow range of occupations, with a high reliance on the public sector foremployment (Owen, Green, Pitcher, & Maguire, 2000).
The effect of relative exclusion from employment opportunities upon socialcohesion and life opportunities is reinforced by relatively poor rates of pay for manypeople from minority ethnic groups in work. In 2004, workers from minority ethnicgroups earned an average of £7.50 per hour, compared with £8.00 per hour forworkers from white backgrounds (Low Pay Commission, 2005). Within the overallaverage for ethnic minorities, earnings were highest for Indian and lowest forPakistani and Bangladeshi workers. The relative pay of each ethnic group remainedfairly constant between 1998 and 2004, except that the pay rate of Black people hastended to fall behind that of Indian people. In spring 2004, on average, white maleemployees earned about £1.80 per hour more than male employees from minorityethnic groups. Pakistani and Bangladeshi men, however, were the most disadvantagedminority groups, being paid about £3.00 per hour less than white men. Indian menwere paid about the same as white male workers. In contrast, women from minorityethnic groups earned about £0.70 per hour more than white women (because a largerproportion of white women work part time, which does not pay as well as full-timework).
Conclusion
The UK government has promoted increasing economic deregulation and liberal-ization since the late 1970s, but it has been alarmed by the increasing erosion of socialcontrol, represented by higher rates of crime, disorder and insecurity, which has
2 7 0 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
emerged over the same period. The ‘disturbances’ in northern England and recentterrorist incidents involving minority ethnic groups have led government to identifythe lack of social and community cohesion as one of the key causes of disorder andinsecurity. However, it has also been recognized that lack of social cohesion is relatedto exclusion from the social and economic mainstream, and the importance ofpromoting equal life chances across ethnic groups (Home Office, 2005).
This paper has demonstrated the features of the minority ethnic group populationsof England and Wales which may be salient to social cohesion. It has discussed the keycontrasts in population and household structure and economic circumstances betweenethnic groups in England and Wales and the reasons for these differences. Whilecharacteristics typical of some ethnic groups are associated with negative socialchanges (for example, the high rates of lone parenthood in the Caribbeancommunity), other features of minority ethnic groups are regarded as positive forsocial cohesion, such as the ‘traditional family values’ and high educationalachievements of Asian and Asian British communities.
The minority ethnic group population of England and Wales has increased rapidlyin the last half-century, and is likely to continue to grow rapidly. Its share of the totalpopulation will continue to increase. However, the nature of the minority ethnicgroup population has also changed and it will become increasingly diverse. Migrantsfrom areas of the world with a less close connection to and knowledge of the UK thanthose with origins in the New Commonwealth are increasingly numerous (in the‘Other’ ethnic groups) and seeking accommodation and housing in the major cities,which still contain the largest concentrations of minority ethnic groups. UK-bornchildren with migrant or minority parents are increasingly likely to find partners fromother ethnic groups and the number of people of ‘mixed parentage’ is increasing.
The main challenge for social cohesion is to ensure the social and economicsuccess of existing minority ethnic groups and new migrant communities. There isevidence that some minority ethnic groups have achieved considerable economicprogress, but others face continuing economic disadvantage.
References
Champion, A. G. (Ed.). (1989). Counterurbanization: The changing pace and nature ofpopulation deconcentration . London: Edward Arnold.
Dale, A. (2002). Social exclusion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. Sociological ResearchOnline , 7 (3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk//7/3/dale/html
Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force (EMETF). (2004). Employment. Opportunity.Success. Year 1 progress report . London: Department for Work and Pensions.
Hansen, R. (2003, Summer). Measures of integration. CRE Connections .Home Office. (2005). Improving opportunity, strengthening society: The Government’s strategy to
increase race equality and community cohesion . London: Home Office.Low Pay Commission. (2005). National minimum wage (Cmnd 6475).Martin, D., Dorling, D., & Mitchell, R. (2002). Linking censuses through time: Problems
and solution. Area , 34(1), 82�91.Mason, D. (1995). Race and ethnicity in modern Britain . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
M I N O R I T Y E T H N I C C O M M U N I T I E S I N E N G L A N D A N D WA L E S 2 7 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Mitchell, R., Dorling, D., Martin, D., & Simpson, L. (2002). Bringing the missingmillion home: Correcting the 1991 small area statistics for undercount. Environmentand Planning A , 34 , 1021�1035.
Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., et al. (1997).Ethnic minorities in Britain: Diversity and disadvantage . London: Policy StudiesInstitute.
Owen, D., Green, A., Pitcher, J., & Maguire, M. (2000). Minority ethnic participation andachievements in education, training and the labour market (Research Report 225).Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Platt, L., Simpson, L., & Akinwale, B. (2005). Stability and change in ethnic groups inEngland and Wales. Population Trends , 121 , 35� 46.
Rose, E. J. B. (1969). Colour and citizenship . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Salt, J. (2005). International migration and the United Kingdom, 2004 (Report of the UK
SOPEMI correspondent to the OECD). Paris: OECD.Sillitoe, K., & White, P. (1992). Ethnic group and the British census: The search for a
question. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A , 155(1), 141� 163.Solomos, J. (1988). Race and racism in contemporary Britain . London: Macmillan.Strategy Unity. (2003). Ethnic minorities and the labour market final report . London: Cabinet
Office.Zetter, R. (with Griffiths, D., Sigona, N., Flynn, D., Pasha, T., & Beynon, R.). (2006).
Immigration, social cohesion and social capital . York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
David W. Owen is principal Research Fellow at the University of Warwick. He was
previously a researcher at Durham, Newcastle and Cardiff universities. He specializes in
the quantitative analysis of population and the socio-economic circumstances of
minority ethnic groups in Britain. Address: Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations,
University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. [email: [email protected]]
2 7 2 C O M M U N I T Y, W O R K & F A M I L Y
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Aga
Kha
n U
nive
rsity
] at
06:
09 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
