Poverty, ethnicity and social networks - how are they related?Dharmi Kapadia, Nissa Finney & Simon PetersThe University of Manchester

The State of Social Capital in Britain11th November 2015, Society Building, London

• Report published March 2015• http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/poverty-and-ethnicity

• Blog published August 2015• http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2015/08/its-sch

ool-not-social-networks-that-will-get-the-poor-out-of-poverty/

Social networks as beneficial• Increased interest in social networks/ social capital/ social

relationships from policy perspective potential beneficial effects• E.g. increased social support/ social participation increase good

health and well-being (Ferragina et al., 2013; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Smith & Layton, 2010).

• Can social networks be thought of in a similar way in relation to poverty? Maybe…

• Close ties can be a source of material support, informal loans, informal labour market access (Curley, 2008; McCabe et al., 2013)

• BUT potential negativity too – practice of job-seeking through informal networks might serve to keep people in poverty (DiMaggio & Garip, 2012; Hudson et al., 2013)

What about ‘mixed’ networks?• Potential benefit of mixed networks – provide links to people

in higher socioeconomic positions improve access to knowledge about jobs, local services, resources and life chances (Blokland, 2008; Granovetter, 1973; McCabe et al., 2013)

• Composition of network can itself be influenced by ethnic group, socio-economic position & geographical location (Cattell, 2001; Fischer, 1982; Ryan, 2011; Vervoort, 2012).

• But how might these economic benefits (or disadvantages) of social networks vary for ethnic groups in the UK?

• Compared with majority White British, many ethnic minority groups in the UK have lower household incomes, live in more deprived neighbourhoods, have lower rates of participation in labour market, and poorer health (Clark & Drinkwater; Jivraj & Khan, 2015; Kapadia et al., 2015; Platt; 2007, 2011; Salway et al., 2007)

Research questions• Do ethnic and income groups have different types of social networks?Are some ethnic groups and income groups more likely to have mixed social networks and larger social networks? • Do mixed social networks reduce the risk of being poor?Are individuals with mixed social networks less likely than others to be living in poverty; and is this particularly the case for some ethnic groups?

• Does where you live affect your social networks? Does the relationship between social networks and poverty, for ethnic groups, vary across neighbourhoods in England and Wales? Are mixed social networks more beneficial for reducing the risk of being poor for individuals living in deprived neighbourhoods?

Data & methods

Data

• Understanding Society (UKHLS), wave 3 – social networks module

• UK survey of 35,000 households, including an ethnic minority boost sample (6,000)

Only national dataset allowing analysis of social networks, poverty, ethnicity and neighbourhood

• Cross sectional analysis (one point in time)• Special User Licence for MSOA (Middle Super Output

Area) linked data at household level, then individual level• Clustering at household level not considered for this

analysis

Defining ethnic group

Ethnic Group N %

White British 37,842 80.4 White Irish 1,078 2.29 Other White 1,220 2.59 Mixed 699 1.49 Indian 1,406 2.99 Pakistani 1,172 2.49 Bangladeshi 808 1.72 Black Caribbean 806 1.71 Black African 951 2.02 Other 1,085 2.31

Total 47,067 100

Including Gypsy/Irish Traveller

4 Mixed groups combined

Chinese, Other Asian, Other Black, Arab, Other

Defining social networksWhat proportion of your friends are of the same ethnic group as you?

What proportion of your friends live in your local area?

What proportion of friends are employed?

All the sameMore than halfAbout halfLess than half

How many close friends do you have? [0-100]

Defining mixed networksNon homogenous = mixed

1. All the same2. More than half3. About half4. Less than half

NOT MIXED

MIXED

Ethnic-mix: some friends from a different ethnic group

Area-mix: some friends from a different neighbourhood

Employment-mix: some friends unemployed

Defining poverty• Percentage below the poverty line

Poverty line is 60% of median gross household income: £989 per month.

• Income obtained from gross household income, equivalised (using OECD weights) to account for household composition, then allocated to all individuals in the household.

Poverty and ethnicity (in Understanding Society W3)

Percent in each ethnic group in a household with gross income below the poverty line (less than £989 per month).

Note: unweighted.

% Poor

Pakistani 40.0

Bangladeshi 32.7

Black African 27.6

Black Caribbean 22.9

White Irish 22.3

Other 21.5

Mixed 21.2

Indian 21.0

White British 15.6

Other White 14.1

Results

1. Ethnic and income groups have different types of social networks.

Some ethnic minority groups and those in poverty are less likely to have mixed social networks.

Mixed

Black African

Black Caribbean

Other

Pakistani

Indian

Other White

Bangladeshi

White British

White Irish

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not in poverty In poverty

Percent with ethnic-mix friendship network

10%

11%

12%

14%

15%

16%

17%

17%

19%

22%

0 20 40 60 80 100%

Mixed

White British

Other White

White Irish

Other

Indian

Black Caribbean

Bangladeshi

Pakistani

Black African

0 or 1 friend 2 friends 3 or 4 friends 5 to 7 friends 8 or more

Ethnic minority groups are more likely to have few close friends.

Percent with 0-1, 2, 3-4, 5-7, 8+ close friends% WITH 0-1 CLOSE FRIENDS

2. Mixed social networks reduce the risk of being in poverty….

0.5

11.5

Odds R

atio

Employed Not Mixed Ethnic Grp Area

NotPoor/Poor ModelMixed Network Effect

0.5

11.5

Odds R

atio

Employed Not Mixed Ethnic Grp Area

Prosperous to Poor ModelMixed Network EffectEmployment-mix: some friends unemployed

Ethnic-mix: some friends from a different ethnic group

Area-mix: some friends from a different neighbourhood

Decreased chance of poverty

…but not as much as other factors0

.51

1.5

22.

5O

dds

Rat

io

Separated Divorced Single Widowed Married

NotPoor/Poor ModelMarital Status Effect

0.5

11.

52

2.5

Odd

s R

atio

None/Other GCSE A-levels Higher Deg Degree

NotPoor/Poor ModelQualifications Effect

Dec

reas

ed c

hanc

e of

pov

erty

… and limited evidence of difference by ethnic group• Interaction of ethnic group with:

• Mixed-ethnic group friendship: • Added effect of network for White British lower odds of

being poor

• Mixed-area friendship: • Added effect of network for White lower odds of being poor• Reduced effect of network for Pakistani & Bangladeshi

higher odds of being poor (this disappeared when neighbourhood deprivation was taken into account in multi-level models)

3. Having 2 or more close friends reduces the likelihood of being in poverty

0.2

.4.6

.81

Odds R

atio

0 to 1 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 8 to 9 10 plus

NotPoor/Poor ModelClose Friends Effect

0.2

.4.6

.81

Odds R

atio

0 to 1 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 8 to 9 10 plus

Prosperous to Poor ModelClose Friends Effect

Dec

reas

ed c

hanc

e of

pov

erty

More close friends

4. The effects of having mixed friendship networks vary depending on neighbourhood deprivation.

Dec

reas

ed c

hanc

e of

pov

erty

More area deprivation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Not MixedMixed Ethnic Group

IMD score

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Not MixedMixed Neighbourhood

IMD score

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

All Friends EmployedSome Friends Unemployed

IMD score

Discussion & Conclusions

Discussion

• Mixed social networks (ethnic-mix, area-mix, employment-mix) associated with lower odds of poverty• BUT not as much as other factors (e.g. education)• And reduction felt most by those less likely to be in poverty

(White British)

• People living in least deprived neighbourhoods most likely to feel benefits of ethnic-mix and area-mix networks• Those in poverty gain much less from mixed social networks

Policy implications

• So, where should policy be focussed? • Maybe some benefit in trying to develop people’s social

networks so they can be used as a resource especially for those more likely to be in poverty

• BUT… focusing efforts on improving social networks is not the answer to reducing poverty

• Wider structural problems of inequality in education, racism and discrimination in job market need to be tackled at a national level