neighbourhood effects, social capital and spatial mobility: evidence from the british household...
TRANSCRIPT
Neighbourhood effects, social capital and spatial mobility: evidence from the
British Household Panel Survey Nick Buck
ISER, University of Essex
Motivation• Part of a research project examining how far where people live
has effects on their life chances independent of personal characteristics
• … including how it relates to the longer term development of life chances and social mobility
• Longitudinal focus makes it essential to take account of migration and residential mobility: – not just a nuisance factor, but an important aspect of
individual social and economic mobility, both as a consequence and with potentially causal effects
• Previous analysis shows limited and not very strong effects of area deprivation on individual deprivation and social exclusion
• Perhaps the effects are indirect, via social capital and other factors hypothesised to influence life chances
Motivation (2)
• Presentation investigates three way inter-relationships between neighbourhood deprivation, social capital and migration
• Social capital is hypothesised to have positive effects on both collective and individual outcomes – not something tested here
• Many potential dimensions of social capital, as well as significant measurement issues
• Hypothesised negative relationship between social capital and neighbourhood deprivation
• Hypothesised associations between social capital, especially local and residential mobility
• Methodological challenges in identifying area effects
Approach
• This research uses individual level survey data with local area census and other data attached
• It uses British Household Panel Survey data which has a rich array of social capital measures
• We exploit the longitudinal dimension provided by these data• In this analysis main longitudinal focus is on residential
mobility– For intrinsic reasons: how does mobility relate to the
development and maintenance of social capital– Provides evidence on impact of change in area
characteristics (but needs further evidence on degree of choice in migration)
Four questions
• Do we find cross-sectional associations between area deprivation and a range of social capital measures?
• Do social capital measures influence residential mobility probabilities?
• How does residential mobility affect social capital measures?
• Does change in area deprivation associated with mobility affect social capital measures?
Data sources
• BHPS waves 8 (1998) and 13 (2003) carry additional neighbourhood and social capital questions
• Approximately 8,500 cases at wave 8, 6,000 at wave 13, 2000+ movers.
• Matched to Townsend area deprivation score, calculated from 2001 Census data at ‘Lower Super Output Area’ (average population 1,400 people)
Social Capital measures
• Trust: ‘generally people can be trusted’• Activity in voluntary organisations• Whether meet with friends at least once per week• Whether talk to neighbours at least once per week• Whether three best friends all live within 5 miles (8
kilometres)• Whether none three best friends in employment• Neighbourhood affiliation score
Neighbourhood affiliation score number of positive responses to:
• I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood• The friendships and associations I have with other people in
my neighbourhood mean a lot to me• If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in
my neighbourhood• I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours• I would be willing to work together with others on something
to improve my neighbourhood• I plan to remain a resident of this neighbourhood for a number
of years• I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in
this neighbourhood• I regularly stop and talk to people in my neighbourhood
Cross-sectional models
• Fit regressions (logistic or OLS) to each social capital measure – Townsend score alone, and then include a range of personal characteristics (next slide)
• Explore non-linear effects of area deprivation (Are effects especially strong in most deprived areas?)
• Present graphs showing differences in dependent variable (values in OLS, relative odds in logistic) at deciles of Townsend scoere. NB: more deprived have higher scores.
Individual characteristics included in models
• Age, age squared• Sex• Equivalised household income• Education qualifications (6 categories)• Social class (7 categories)• Housing tenure (4 categories)• Activity status (5 categories)Effects of personal characteristics not shown here –
generally positive associations with age, income, higher education and higher social class, negative effects of being in rented accommodation
Trust: ‘generally people can be trusted’
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend Score
Rela
tive o
dd
s o
f re
po
rtin
g t
rust
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Number of organisations in which respondent is active
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Mean
nu
mb
er
of
org
an
isati
on
s
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Whether all three best friends live within 8 Kilometres
Increasing with area deprivation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Rela
tive o
dd
s 3
best
frie
nd
s l
ocal
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Whether none of three best friends are employed
NB: differences are not significant with individual factors
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Rel
ativ
e o
dd
s n
on
e o
f 3
bes
t fr
ien
ds
emp
loty
ed
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Meets with people at least once per week
NB: generally increasing with area deprivation, but non-linear effects
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Rela
tive o
dd
s m
eets
fri
en
ds r
eg
ula
rly
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Talks with neighbours at least once per week
NB: clear non linear effects; area differences stronger after controlling for individual factors
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Rel
ativ
e o
dd
s ta
lks
to n
eig
hb
ou
rs
reg
ula
rly
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Mean value of neighbourhood affiliation score
No difference in area effects after controlling for individual factors
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Neig
hb
ou
rho
od
aff
ilia
tio
n s
co
re
no indiv factors with indiv factors
Summary on cross-sectional area effects
• Generally negative associations between social capital measures and area deprivation, except for measures related to close friendship networks (bonding social capital)
• Effects are mainly weaker, but still significant after introducing individual characteristics,
• But effect disappears for economically salient friendship networks
Residential mobility
• A range of reasons for being interested:• Migration can be related to positive career returns, and can be
an expression of positive choice over housing and neighbourhood
• Migration may disrupt social networks, and thus harm social capital; conversely strong social capital may be disincentive to migration
• Models of the probability of migration suggest it is positively associated with income, social class, and negatively associated with age
• Relationship with area deprivation different for all moves and longer distance only – these associations are attenuated with other individual controls.
Migration between 1998 and 2003: association with initial area deprivation
Clear non-linear effect: some increase in migration risks from most deprived areas
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deciles of Townsend score
Rel
ativ
e o
dd
s o
f m
ovi
ng
all, no indiv factors all, with indiv factors
20km+, no indiv factors 20km+, with indiv factors
Influence of social capital measures on residential mobility
• Non-significant for: organisation membership, trust (weakly significant on its own, disappears with controls)
• Simple positive association with meeting regularly, which disappears with individual controls
• Measures related to area embeddedness have strong negative association
• Association also negative with whether no employed people amongst close friends
All moves Moves over 20 km
variable alone
+ area deprivation
+ individual factors
variable alone
+ area deprivation
+ individual factors
Neighbourhood affiliation score (effect of 1SD change) 0.6044 0.6064 0.7496 0.5504 0.5435 0.6624
Talks regularly with neighbours 0.5391 0.5372 0.7192 0.4555 0.4559 0.6342
3 best friends live within 8 KM 0.8185 0.7878 0.7817 0.5550 0.5541 0.5847
None of 3 best friends employed 0.6513 0.6391 0.8157 0.6835 0.6870 (0.8920)
Influence of Social Capital measures on relative odds of residential mobility
Influence of residential mobility on change in social capital measures
• Meeting people regularly – substantial negative distance effect
• Talking to neighbours - no mover effect, negative distance effect
• Trust – no mover or distance effect• Organisation activity – no mover or distance
effect• Neighbourhood affiliation – weak mover
effect and small negative distance effect
Association of change in area deprivation with change in social capital, for movers only
• No effects for:– Meeting people – talking to neighbours – organization membership – trust
• Strong effect for neighbourhood affiliation score, similar in scale to cross-sectional association
• Asymetric effect - those who move to worse areas are especially unlikely to experience substantial reduction in neighbourhood affiliation: need to investigate whether this relates to degree of choice over neighbourhood
Summary on mobility analysis
• Area embeddedness significantly reduces mobility prospects
• Evidence on the disruption of social networks and sociability
• Neighbourhood affiliation is sensitive to neighbourhood characteristics – how far does it also measure social capital
• Some social capital measures (trust, organisation activity), people appear to carry with them