Social identity, relative deprivation and patterns of minority partisanship

Anthony HeathSteve Fisher

David SandersMaria 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 socio-demographic 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

EMBES BESWhite British 0 3126Other white 0 57Mixed 113 32Indian 587 52Pakistani 668 17Bangladeshi 270 8Black Caribbean 598 31Black African 525 38Other 26 59

Party ID

Lab Cons LD Other/none

White British 30 29 12 29

Indian 55 16 10 19

Pakistani 55 8 15 22

Bangladeshi 57 9 9 26

Black Caribbean 68 5 5 21

Black African 71 5 5 20

All EM 61 9 9 22

Class differences in Labour ID

Middle class Working class

White British 24 41Indian 52 66Pakistani 46 64Bangladeshi 58 60Caribbean 67 72Black African 70 72All EM 57 66

% with great deal in common with own ethnic group

Middle class Working class

Indian 40 44Pakistani 33 48Bangladeshi 31 52Caribbean 53 53Black African 61 56

NB large generational differences on this question

% with all or most friends from same ethnic background

Middle class Working class

Indian 43 57Pakistani 51 66Bangladeshi 58 71Caribbean 43 44Black African 48 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 43 51Pakistani 53 47Bangladeshi 60 40Caribbean 67 69Black African 63 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 36 34Indian 49 58Pakistani 54 57Bangladeshi 53 47Caribbean 57 61Black African 70 71Consistent 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 co-ethnic friends

All most half few

Indian 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9Pakistani 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1Bangladeshi 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0Caribbean 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3Black African 1.7 1.5 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

Model 1 Model 2

Indian (ref) 0

Pakistani -0.07 -0.10

Bangladeshi -0.01 -0.04

Caribbean 0.33* 0.30*

African 0.44* 0.40*

MC -0.44* 0.44*

MC*Black 0.37* 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

Model 1 Model 2

Closenessi 0.08* 0.09*

Social involvementi 0.07 0.07

Relative deprivationi 0.18** 0.15**

% Closenessj 0.51***

% Social involvementj -0.18*

% Relative deprivationj 0.24***

Level 2 variables entered singly

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