Exit, Voice or Accommodation?

January 6, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Social Science, Political Science
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Exit, Voice or Accommodation?...

Description

White Flight and White Nationalism in the UK Is there a Connection? Eric Kaufmann and Gareth Harris, Birkbeck College [email protected]; [email protected]

Community and Closure • 'The distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and, without it, cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life. If this distinctiveness is a value, as most people…seem to believe, then closure must be permitted somewhere.' – Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (1983)

Exit, Voice, Accommodation • Voice = White opposition to immigration and/or Far Right voting (Closure 1) • Exit = ‘White Flight’ or Avoidance (Closure 2) • Accommodation = White acceptance of diversity, immigration, • How are exit, voice, accommodation related?

Conceptual Frameworks •Dominant Ethnicity •Political Demography •Ethnic Status

Data and Methods • Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative • Quantitative First, then qual, then back to quant • Today mainly on quantitative findings to date • Sources: ESRC datasets: BHPS, Understanding Society, Citizenship Survey. Also ONS LS

ONS Longitudinal Study • The permission of the Office for National Statistics to use the Longitudinal Study is gratefully acknowledged, as is the help provided by staff of the Centre for Longitudinal Study Information & User Support (CeLSIUS). CeLSIUS is supported by the ESRC Census of Population Programme (Award Ref: RES-348-25-0004). The authors alone are responsible for the interpretation of the data.

Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Exit

10

USA, 1970-2000

0

5

Source: Andersson, Hammarstedt, Neuman 2012

0

20

40 60 Share of Minorities in 1970

80

100

Source: data from Card, Mas & Rothstein 2008

‘White Flight’ in England? •A number of leading geographers (Catney and Simpson 2010; Finney and Simpson 2007; Simon 2009) suggest that both whites and minorities leave dense, poor areas for leafier more attractive places

•But even they do not deny that ethnic preference plays some role •Flight v Avoidance

Counterurbanisation Method Wards Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Total

% White

7554

98

726

87

288

73

180

57

102 8850

34 91

Simpson (2007) argues that both whites and nonwhites are leaving poor urban areas at similar rates. ‘Counterurbanisation’ thesis. Yet even here, there is evidence of some ethnic difference.

Moved Out of Ward in 2000-2001: Wards

% White

Wh British Minorities WH Other White Irish

Quintile 1

7554

98

1.1%

4.7%

3.2%

1.5%

Quintile 2

726

87

5.4%

6.4%

7.7%

4.1%

Quintile 3

288

73

6.8%

6.0%

8.1%

5.6%

Quintile 4

180

57

7.0%

4.6%

7.8%

3.8%

Quintile 5

102

34

6.1%

2.9%

13.1%

3.2%

8850

91

Total

Source: Office for National Statistics. 2001. ONS Longitudinal Study.

Predictors of Quintile Shift, 1991-2001 (excluding area controls for ethnicity, density, poverty)

Source: Office for National ONS Longitudinal Study.

-100

White British ethnicity White working class Unskilled Partly unskilled Social Housing Mixed ethnicity household Skilled nonmanual 3+ child Class: Managerial and Technical Married Children: 1 child GCSE Skilled manual Other Remarried Divorced Armed Forces Not Applicable O level Widowed 2 child A level Degree Separated Age: 10-19 Statistics. 2001. 30-39 60-69 over 70 50-59 40-49 -80

-60

-40 Coefficient -20

0

20

40

Voice: Opposition to immigration • Citizenship survey 2006 to 2011 • Do you think the number of immigrants coming to Britain nowadays should be reduced • Majority view, about 80% since 2005 among white UK-born population

Bringing White Flight and Immigration Views Together • Puzzle: Why are whites (and even white working-class British) people living in diverse wards more tolerant of immigration?

Reduce the number of immigrants by social class and ward diversity for all white respondents 95 90

85 80 75 70

Upper Middle

65

Working class All

60 55 50

Threat or Contact? • Whites – even the white working class – living in diverse wards are more tolerant of immigration • US literature shows that diversity at ward/tract level (10-30k) is associated with less white hostility to immigrants, minorities, immigration • BUT at metro/county/LA level (100k-1m), more diversity is associated with more white hostility • Feeling of threat at metro level as minorities grow, but positive contact at local level creates accommodation?

Other Explanations.. • Contact or Threat is the usual framework • But other explanations: 1) Selection bias: whites who don’t like diversity leave 2) not diversity of context, but something about the white population in diverse areas that creates a different context. Young, educated, transient. Here we focus on transience.

Selection Bias? • No one has properly tested • Test with BHPS/Understanding Society • Compare those who enter and leave diverse wards • Compare movers (enter/leave) with those who stay

Same White stayer

Less

More

119316

1596

1468

122380

90.7%

White inter-ward mover

6774

1670

1421

9865

7.3%

White intra-ward mover

2565

38

37

2640

2.0%

White Movers to more or less diverse wards as % of movers Moved to less diverse Class Party Vote Tabloid/Broadsheet English Identifier 17-25 26-35 36-45 46-54 55-64 65+ owner social rented degree & above A-level O- level none no child 1 child 2 child 3 or more child total child couple single

Source: BHPS/ Understanding Society, 1991-2011

Total

Moved to more diverse

All Movers n/s n/s n/s n/s

32.4 34.2 14.2 6.7 5.6 5.9 61.3 12.4 26.3 30 31.1 23.7 15.1 74.4 12.6 9.9 3.1 25.6 64.9 35

44.2 31.2 11.7 4.8 3.3 4.2 39.7 10.5 49.8 26.7 38.7 24.4 10.2 82 9.4 6 2.5 16.9 5.7 49.1

37.8 32.8 13 5.8 4.5 5*** 51.5 11.5 37*** 28.5 34.6 24 12.9*** 78 11.1 8 2.8 21.7*** 58.4 41.5***

Not Selection: Those who ‘exit’ do not ‘voice’ • BHPS and Understanding Society • Whites moving to diverse areas and those leaving them are identical when it comes to voting, family values, English national identity, British patriotism, newspaper readership • No measure of immigration opinion, but research in Sweden identical conclusion

Managers

Stayer Mover Total 19.9 21.1

Stayer

Mover

Total

20

Intermediate Own acc

42.8 5.8

45.6 4.7

43 5.7

working class

29.4

26.2

29.1

never worked

2

2.2

2.1 ***

17-25 26-35 36-45 46-54 55-64 65+

8.4 16.2 19.8 16.5 15.3 22.4

29.3 31.7 16.1 8.6 6.3 7

10.4 17.7 19.4 15.8 14.5 21 ***

Con Labour Liberal Other none

28.8 40 13.9 4.7 12.6

25.2 38 14.4 5.2 17.1

28.5 39.8 14 4.7 13 ***

redtop

67

63.4

66.8

broadsheet

26.9

31.9

27.9 ***

owner social rented

79.6 15 5.3

54.6 15.9 29.5

77.3 15.2 7.5 ***

degree & above A-level O- level none

10.9 23.2 31.3 34.6

18 30.6 33 18.3

11.6 23.8 31.4 33 ***

Not Religious Religious

52.9 47

66.6 33.4

54.2 45.8 ***

Homosexuality wrong agree neither disagree

21.5 36.8 41.7

13.8 29.5 56.8

20.8 36.2 43 ***

Husband should earn agree disagree

18.9 52.8

12.2 64.7

18.3 54 ***

16 52

7.7 73.8

15.2 30.8 ***

74.8 17 8

65.4 22.8 11.7

74 17.6 8.4 ***

Britain has much to learn from other countries agree 45.2 neither 31.7 disagree 23.1

45.6 34.3 20.1

45.2 32 22.8 **

Cohabitation wrong Agree disagree Brit Citizenship is Best agree neither disagree

Source: BHPS/ Understanding Society, 19912011

Stayers and far right support • Harris’ work on support for the far right in Greater London 2007-10: electoral support for the BNP stronger in wards with less in- and – outflow • Far right support linked with white enclaves nested within more ethnically diverse areas (Goodwin 2011, Bowyer 2008) • Positive relationship at Local Authority (threat) against negative at ward level (contact)

Two caveats • Far Right support not linked to ethnic diversity per se but rate of ethnic change on a low base, ie Barking & Dagenham (see also Newman 2013 for US anti-immigration sentiment) • Higher levels of far right support found in areas with a higher proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi residents, rather than Black Caribbeans, who are more established

Reduce the number of immigrants by social class and ward diversity for all white respondents 95 90

85 80 75 70

Upper Middle

65

Working class All

60 55 50

% Minorities Softens Views on Immigration

Source: Home Office Citizenship Surveys, 2006-11

…Adding Mobility & Contextuals

Focusing on Working Class

Conclusion • Local ethnic geography and demography matter for national issue perceptions and vice-versa • Little white flight, but lots of white avoidance • Anti-immigration and far right vote (closure 1) not linked to white flight/avoidance (closure 2) • But white working class are more likely to be both ‘white flighters’ and white nationalists • Some support for contact theory but much of the positive effect of diversity is due to other aspects of diverse areas (transient, urban). No effect on white working class • White attitudes to immigration may be softened by contact; or may be hardened by white consolidation and by jumps in minority presence in formerly lily-white areas

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF