Welcome. The IFS Report is a wealth of information, giving a guide to the main trends in race and ethnicity across the main areas our society, but inevitably is also guided by particular tendencies which I try to explore. Comments, rejoinders, criticisms, corrections very welcome.
Review of ‘Race and Ethnicity’ report to the Institute of Fiscal Studies Deaton Review of Inequalities, by Heidi Safia Mirza and Ross Warwick.
A. Main Points.
1. Complexity.
Succinctly summarised by the opening paragraph of the Report’s ‘Executive Summary’:
‘There is no single story of advantage and disadvantage. Ethnic inequalitiesare complex and characterised by simultaneously by continuity rooted in historical orgins and conditions and rapid change fuelled by new and changing populations and opportunities. . . The populations of the UK’s diverse minority ethnic groups today arrived at different times, from different countries and cultures, and equipped with different levels of of educational and human capital.. . . Some are characterised by high levels of average qualifications, income and wealth, while others are persistently disadvantaged, faced with elevated levels of poverty and unemployment. Alongside different levels in outcomes are varied trajectories, both within and across generations. Within groups, there are less-explored, intersectional contours of difference, along the lines of gender, geography and class. Research and policy must acknowledge this diversity and complexity in order to inform effective policy prescriptions going forwards’ (p 1). (Church of England please note).
One consequence is that in its conclusion the report suggests that the standard ‘white norm/non-white deviation’ comparison is becoming obsolete: ‘This diversity of experience across groups renders the usefulness of comparisons between White British and the ‘ethnic minority’ population questionable at best’ (p 114).
2. Ethnicity is a fluid category.
‘The extent to which individuals relate to their ethnicity and the stability of their ethnic identity varies substantially’ (p 1). Thus people often self-identify themselves in different ways that the census form offers – in one survey only 28% closely matched the census questions; and people change over time - 4% responded differently in 2011 against 2001, with a change of 71% in the ‘Other Black’ category. In other words people very often don’t feel they fit comfortably in the neat boxes assigned to them – the problem of ‘treating a multi-dimensional, fluid and contextually and relationally specific concept as it were unidimensional, fixed and stable’ (p 12). For an emerging number of young people ‘Londoner’, or perhaps ‘urban’, may now be a more appropriate ‘ethnic’ category than any other term on offer!
3. Identity.
‘The strength of ethnic identity is inversely related to level of education for both minorities and the majority group, as education can provide an alternative source of identity directly, and through engagement and access to other identities (eg political identity) (p 14). By and large the more successful ethnic groups give less stress to ethnic identity, notably the Chinese, for whom profession and education are almost as important, whereas for Pakistanis, Black Africans and particularly Black Caribbeans ethnic background is of major importance.
4. Ethnic minority achievement.
‘Students from almost all minority ethnic groups are more likely to attend university than their White British counterparts’ (p 2); though ‘we do not fully understand the rapid increase in minority ethnic educational achievement at school in recent years’ (p 114). So too overall, ethnic employment gaps have closed substantially since the 1990’s, and especially among men’ (p 2), whilst ‘Minority ethnic individuals in the UK exhibit long-term upward social mobility – even more so than among the white population’ (p 2); as a notable example: ‘the high unemployment and low wealth of Bangladeshis is in sharp contrast to their high rates of university entrance’ (p 3). A further sign of the upward Bangladeshi trajectory is ‘the growth in the share of both male and female Bangladeshi teachers’ (p 105).
5. Continuing Inequality.
Set against the encouraging trends above. ‘Even where educational and occupational successes have facilitated faster relative wage growth (such as for Indian men) unexplained wage penalties remain’ (p 2). ‘Poverty rates among minority ethnic individuals are much higher than the White British majority – even more so among children’ (p 2). The report recognises that ‘there is undoubtedly a role for discrimination’ in employment as a source of disadvantage (p 56). As regards hourly wages ‘This evidence shows that, in almost all cases, racialised non-white ethnic minorities receive lower average wages than would be expected given their demographic, educational, occupational, family and health characteristics’ (p 64).
B. Significant Details.
* Proportion residing in London as of 2011: 58.4% black population; 49.7% Bangladeshis; 38.4% Indians; 19.9% Pakistanis (p 29).
* By 2061 estimated that white British share of population would fall from 83% to 62%; Black Caribbean only minority group not to increase its share (p 25); also the only minority group not to increase its population share between 2001 & 2011 (p 21).
* Ethnically mixed parenting: only 66% of Black Caribbean mothers transmitted their ethnicity to their children, as opposed to 90% of Pakistani mothers and 97% of white British mothers (p 25).
* Black Caribbean women are the only minority to have a higher employment rate than white women (p 48), and have £1 higher hourly median wage than white women (p 64).
* Black African men x7 work in social care than white British men (p 57).
* Indians account for 14% of doctors (p 58).
* In NHS Asian staff represented 50% higher than their working age population share; Black people 80% more.
* Life expectancy at Birth: Lowest for White & Mixed (83 for women; 79 & 78 for men). Black African women have highest (89), followed by Bangladeshi women. For men, Asian Other (84.5), followed by Other & Black African.
* ‘In the police force and in teaching, Black and Asian individuals remain vastly under-represented’ (p103).
* Asian students systematically choose subjects with high financial returns , such as business, law, computing, whereas black and white British students have higher propensity to choose lower returning subjects such as sociology, creative arts and social care (p 47).
* Black African and Black Caribbean workers more likely to work in the public sector than any other group (p 60).
* Leave voters: 51% of White British; 32% Asians; 29% Black (p 102). But majority of Sikhs vote Leave.
* 10% of MPs (65) in 2019 from ethnic minorities, 6.1% Labour (so 20% of their MPs, as opposed to being 6% of Conservative MPs). Minority ethnic MPs increased 15 to 27 between 2005 & 2010 (p 102).
* ‘Attitudes towards having an ethnic minority spouse or boss. . .presents evidence that (stated) prejudice has fallen substantially . . . in recent decades’ (p 110).
* ‘44% of Black Caribbeans report being discriminated against, and 35% of Black Africans. For Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, the figures are 28%, 25%, and 27%’ (p 111)
* Ethnic minorities perception of discrimination dropped below 25% in 2010, but rose up to 38%in 2018 (p 112).
C. Good Story or Bad Story?
The question of what story we tell ourselves about race in Britain is a recurring feature of these blogs. The IFS Review gives opportunity to tell both stories. Its opening paragraph highlights both ‘continuity rooted in historical origins and conditions’ (a bad past?) and ‘change fuelled by new and changing populations and opportunities’ (a hopeful future?). Do we focus on Progress, with the attendant risk of consolidating white injustice and complacency, or on Disadvantage, with the risk of enhancing non-white victimhood? Do put it another way, should we major on looking forward or looking back?
And am I right to sense in the Report a strong inclination to look back, with references to colonialism and past injustices, so slightly resisting being too carried away by positive recent developments, such as marked educational improvements, or reduced income gaps? Take the following sentence: ‘Unlike their racially identifiable Black, Brown and Asian counterparts, White privilege means they can live, love and move freely, unencumbered by scrutiny, judgement and surveillance in institutions that are historically and hierarchically organised for their survival and success’ (p 98). That is one way for portraying the experience of minority ethnic people, but is it the norm for most, or does the report over-egg the claim to victimhood? Does disquiet about ‘the normalcy of being White in a White-dominated society’ reflect a serious injustice or simply reflect a situation that a century ago was natural but is now adapting. The lack of ‘institutional trust . . .illustrated by stark gaps in vaccine uptake’ (p 2), indicates the damaging, indeed deathly, consequences of allowing a victimhood narrative to be determinative.
One sharp way to pose the question is comparing the trajectories of the Bangladeshi and African Caribbean minorities. The African Caribbean community is losing ground in terms of men’s wages, and experiences high rates of exclusions at school. By contrast, at several places in the report there are references to the upward educational, and increasingly occupational success of Bangladeshis. At first sight, encumbered by not speaking English as the home language, and vulnerable to Islamophobic hostility and prejudice this may seem surprising. One explanation is that these ‘drawbacks’ are in fact strengths: obvious differences from the white community have enabled a much stronger retention of, and security in, ethnic and especially religious identity. By contrast for Caribbean migrants the greater superficial affinity with English society, over language and religion especially, evidenced in the one-time self-description of Barbados as ‘Little England’, made the experience of racism as more disillusioning and embittering. The upshot is that young Black Caribbean people often opt for a stronger sense of ethnic identity. The report concludes that ‘historical injustices [unspecified: enslavement and/or the deep racism post-Windrush] have left deep psychic, cultural and economic scars that underlie intergenerational patterns of (dis)fortune, and reparative justice would both acknowledge the source of modern-day inequalities while potentially beginning to address them too’ (p 115).
This is compounded by much weaker family structures, an area which the report studiously avoids. To refer to the ’consistently shocking rates of school exclusion for Black and mixed-Race children’ (p 114) (plus the downstream impact of higher levels of incarceration), simply dismissed as the consequence of ‘cultural racism’ (p 8), without discussing the significance of the equally shocking absence of fathers from around two-thirds of Black Caribbean homes is the cowardice of being ‘missing in action’. Elsewhere it notes the frequency of Black Caribbean single adult households (p 31) but with no effort to consider any consequences for the children. There may be complexities of explanation here, for example in relation to the role of poverty, or of congruence and causation, but it is inexcusable not to raise the issue.
So does the report’s consciousness of the ghosts of past injustices, the ‘bad story’, serve ethnic minorities well, or does it sustain chains of victimhood that the above call for ‘reparative justice’ would only strengthen? Or are those minorities who have held on to a distinct cultural and religious heritage now looking forward as part of a ‘good story’.
Again the report and the blog raise important questions.. I was surprised that there seems to be no reference to regional and local issues.. I'd like more data and analyissis on social class and next generation social mobility.
As a national focused report it feels right for London and the South East, but I'm not sure it fits so well for Burnley, Bradford or Bradford. Then there is Blackpool, Boston and other peripheral coastal areas.. still overwhelmingly white but with large numbers of European migrantsl.. The stats also seem a bit dated especially for MPs
On the premium from ethnic / social capital promoting education and social mobility this recent paper from Karamat Iqbal and Tariq Modood is good.
Students' educational drive and ethnic capital
Karamat Iqbal, Tariq Modood
First published: 08 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23011