1. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Ethnic Inequalities in Employment Census Conference 16th July, Manchester
Dharmi Kapadia & James Nazroo
Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE)
The University of Manchester

2. Book chapter: Have ethnic inequalities in the labour market persisted
Book chapter: Have ethnic inequalities in the labour market persisted? Dharmi Kapadia, James Nazroo, & Ken Clark

3. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Background
Ethnic minority groups have a history of higher rates of unemployment and lower rates of employment than the White majority group.
There has been significant policy concern in this field, although policy implementation has been inconsistent and partial:
Minority Outreach;
Specialist Employment Advisors;
Ethnic Minority Employment Stakeholder Group.
But much policy concern has focused on specific minority cultures:
Muslim women and labour market participation;
Black youth and unemployment.
Racial and religious discrimination in job application process & workplace
To what extent have these issues persisted into the 2010s?
EMESG – critical friend to the government. How to make sure employment opportunities are accessible equally across ethnic groups.

4. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Data and Methods
Analysis of 1991, 2001 and 2011 Census data for England and Wales.
Comparisons over time use an abbreviated (seven groups) ethnic categorisation that is reasonably consistent across Census years.
Focus on two age groups
25-49 years
50-74 years (N.B. people at higher end of this age group more likely to be retired)
More detailed categories are used in analysis that only focus on 2011 (i.e. White Gypsy or Irish Traveller group, Arab group, White minority groups, mixed groups).
Examine men and women separately.
Ec act: 85% compared to 63% for 16 – 65 yr olds.

5. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Employment Outcomes
Economic activity: In employment or actively looking for work i.e. employed, self-employed or unemployed. Those who are retired, students, looking after the home, or long-term sick or disabled are classed as economically inactive.
Unemployed: Not in employment and either actively looking for work, or waiting to start work already obtained.
Self-employed: People who operate their own businesses or work freelance, with or without employees.
Full-time employment: Working 31 or more hours per week in a main job, but (for this analysis) not self-employed.
Part-time employment: Working 30 or less hours per week in a main job, but (for this analysis) not self-employed.
We will focus on unemployment, some discussion of part-time work, self-employment and economic activity, and then on relative position in relation to an overall indicator of positive employment outcomes.

6. Economic activity in younger workers 1991-2001-2011

7. Persistent ethnic inequalities in unemployment 1991-2001-2011
Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Persistent ethnic inequalities in unemployment
Main message
Men:
1. Overall unemployment decreased , most change between 91 and 2001.
2. Lowest rates seen for White, Indian and Chinese men
3. Change in the relative disadvantage for Pakistani and Bangladeshi men. From 3 times to 1.5 times rate of White men.
4. Where we haven’t seen a reduction: Black African men – consistently high rates (3 times) over the period. Similar pattern for Black Caribbean men
Women:
1. Again, overall decline in unemployment
2. Disadvantage reduced for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women reduced, but still had rates 3 time that of White women.
3. Disadvantage for Black Caribbean women has not reduced. Was over 2 times the rate of White women in 1991 and this has persisted to 2011.

8. Growing ethnic inequalities in part-time employment
Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Growing ethnic inequalities in part-time employment
Turning to people who are in part time work
Reflect choice OR inaccessibility of more secure full time work?
Men:
Overall, rates in 2011 more than 4 times as high as the rate in 1991.
White men consistently had lowest rates of part time work
The massive increase in rates for Bangladeshi men – by 2011, 7 times the level of White men.
Women:
Slightly different picture for women: all groups’ rates increased apart from White women’s rate – REDUCED.
Greatest increases for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women.

9. Changing ethnic pattern of self-employment
Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Changing ethnic pattern of self-employment
Men:
Higher rates seen for Chinese and Indian men seen in 1991, disappeared by 2011.
Greatest increase seen for Pakistani men, who by 2011, had a rate of self-employment that was over 1.5 times that of White men’s.
Women:
1. Rates have converged from 1991, and most groups have a rate of between 5 and 10%, apart from Chinese women. But their rates relative to White women have reduced from 3x White women’s in 1991 to 1.5 x in 2011.

10. Older workers, economic activity rates, 1991-2001-2011

11. Ethnic patterning of inability to work due to sickness, 1991-2001-2011

12. Economic activity, 2011, younger & older men

13. Economic activity, 2011, younger & older women

14. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Ethnicity & full-time employment: men aged in 2011 compared with White British
1. FT – most positive employment outcome
2. Line represents rate of FT employment for White British men.
3. First focus on the darker bars: relative rate of FT employment of those that are economically active. All ethnic groups have lower rates of FT employment than White British men. Further away from this line, shows the extent to which a group’s FT employment is lower than that of White British men. Bangladeshi and White Gypsy or Irish Traveller men have the level of FT employment of White British men.
4. If we focus on lighter bars: relative rate of FT employment of all men aged High levels of men in Arab and White Gypsy or Irish Traveller group that are not in the labour market.
5. Four groups that are most disadvantaged.

15. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Ethnicity and full & part-time employment: women aged in 2011 compared with White British
Similar analysis for women, but includes those that are employed PT as well (due to higher rates of PT employment for women compared to men).
Same 4 groups show the highest disadvantage as did for men. Highlights those that are not in the labour market.

16. Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Summary
Advantage of White men and women compared with other ethnic groups.
But some convergence over the 20 years for Indian and Chinese people (particularly men) in relation to unemployment and self-employment.
Although two of the most disadvantaged groups – Pakistani and Bangladeshi people – have seen some improvements, they continue to experience substantial inequalities.
Inequalities faced by Black Caribbean and Black African people are consistent over the twenty years studied.
Those in mixed groups are close to their non-mixed minority counterparts.
The most substantial disadvantage is experienced by those in the White Gypsy or Irish Traveller group, with very low rates of economic activity and high rates of unemployment.
Those in the Arab group also experience considerable inequalities.

17. Possible explanations
Kapadia & Nazroo
6th December 2013
Possible explanations
The context of migration and evolution of contexts is important (region, occupational structures, economy, education, and processes of racialisation).
Consistent age group, so not the same generation studied over the 1991, 2001 and 2011 Census periods: composition, generation and period differences are at play.
The importance of geography: deprivation, schooling, and concentration in particular industries and occupations.
Education important for all groups, but not sufficient to offset the large ethnic penalty of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people across generations.
Institutional and interpersonal discrimination, ethnic penalty.
Far-reaching, national response needed to tackle persistent inequalities
Many factors which may explain these differences:
1. Economic and educational background of those who migrated here and the economic climate of the places they migrated to in England and Wales.
2. Differences that we are seeing are not comparing the same people over time, so possibility of effects in relation to a specific time periods.
3. Geographical differences are important to bear in mind. Levels of deprivation and access to employment varies. Some ethnic minority groups are more concentrated in level with high deprivation.
4. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, discrimination in the job market based on ethnic and religious background cannot be ruled out.