Research findings report of DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTIONS OF ETHNIC MINORITIES AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS project. A project in the ESRC Understanding Population Trends and Processes Programme, maintained by the ReStore repository and archived to NCRM Eprints 2022

Coleman, David

Dubuc, Sylvie

National Centre for Research Methods: NCRM EPrints Repository

RESEARCH FINDINGS   October 2010DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTIONS OF ETHNIC MINORITIES AND RELIGIOUS GROUPSSylvie Dubuc and David ColemanDepartment of Social Policy and Social Work, University of OxfordU P T A Pchildren of immigrants from high fertility countries(e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh) whose proportion withintheir respective ethnic group is increasing.Fertility results underpin recent findings oneducational attainment of the second generation inthe UK.New population projections by ethnic groups underseveral scenarios reflect the striking increase of theethnically mixed group in the UK, projected to becomethe largest ethnic minority group before the end ofthe century, ahead of the non-British White.In contrast to reports in the US and hitherto scarceevidence in Europe, women with no religion have justsurpassed the Christian group in fertility over therecent years.Data and methodsBuilding on previous expertise, methodology has beenrefined and adapted for the purpose of this project. Theseinclude novel age-specific fertility rate (ASFR) and totalfertility rate (TFR) calculations by ethnic groups using thedetailed 2001 Census ethnic definition and, for the firsttime, fertility estimates by religious groups and estimatesdistinguishing between immigrant and UK-borngenerations of women.The Labour Force Survey (LFS) data together with the OwnChildren Method (LFS-OCM) were used to produce fertilityestimates from 1987 to 2006. The method uses surveyinformation (including relationship variables) to linkchildren to their mother and reverse survive children andwomen up to 14 years prior to the survey. The LFS-OCMwas refined to minimise mismatching and to account formortality to correct for otherwise slight underestimations.A detailed description and assessment of the applied LFS-OCM can be found in Dubuc (2009a). Although workintensive, the method permits from a single survey theMeasuring the demographic characteristics of minoritygroups, their trends and differences is essential forinforming projections of the whole population and itsfuture composition, and is of interest to society andpolicy. This includes societal concerns about socialcohesion, and is of practical value for planning and policy(e.g. family planning, schools, immigration, ageingpopulation and workforce forecasts).This project studied the ethnic and religious demographicdiversity in the UK quantitatively by combining variousavailable data sources and developed a refinedmethodology to enhance accuracy. The definition ofethnic and religious sub-populations was necessarilyconstrained by the available data and classifications. Thisproject estimated the level and age pattern atchildbearing of the various ethnic and religious (includingnon-religious) groups in the UK, their change over timeand generations, contributing to the ongoing debate onthe role of cultural and religious factors influencingfertility (e.g. McQuillan, 2004).The aims of the project were (i) to update and improvetime series of the demographic characteristics (notablyfertility) of the ethnic minority populations of Britainprepared under an earlier study up to 2001, especiallycontrasting those born abroad with those born in the UK;(ii) to analyse the convergence (or otherwise) of minorityfertility and its significance; (iii) to produce populationprojections to mid-century and beyond of the mainethnic minority groups; and (iv) to take advantage of thenew data available on religious affiliation to produce forthe first time fertility estimates of the various religiousgroups and those with no religion in the UK.The main findings of this project include:Convergence of fertility between ethnic groups in theUK is ongoing.Children of immigrants are leading the inter-ethnicconvergence, largely due to the lower fertility of theUNDERSTANDING POPULATION TRENDS AND PROCESSESUPTAP Findings DUBUC Sept 2010:UPTAP 2010  07/10/2010  09:59  Page 2Period MeanStandarddeviationCoefficientof variationSamplesize1987–1994 2.12 0.753 0.355 1,023,2671995–1999 2.09 0.575 0.276 889,6232000–2006 2.00 0.487 0.243 763,295TABLE 1: DECREASING STANDARD DEVIATION OF TFR BY ETHNIC GROUP Source: Dubuc and Haskey (2010)UPTAP RESEARCH FINDINGSproduction of birth counts for 15 years and pooling datafrom several surveys drastically increases sample sizeallowing estimates by ethnic sub-groups to be obtainedwith good confidence, as shown in Dubuc and Haskey(2010). Combined with earlier estimates, the resultsprovided long-term trends from the late 1960s to 2006 forthe main ethnic categories (Coleman and Dubuc, 2010).No data on mortality by ethnic and religious sub-populations are currently available. Producing mortalitydata was explored: data on immigrants in England andWales were used to derive life tables for ethnic groups andshowed modest mortality differentials. No ethnic-specificmortality corrections were used in the projection models.Migration data were produced to project populations byethnic groups. The census and LFS data on recent migrants,International Passenger Survey (IPS) and Office for NationalStatistics (ONS) migration data according to birthplace andother sources were used to produce estimates of netmigration by ethnic groups up to 2006. A cohort-component projection method was used. Projections foreach of the 12 ethnic groups were combined to give theaggregate UK totals. A ‘standard’ projection was based onsimilar assumptions on long-term overall total fertility, andnet migration to those of the ONS Principal Projection.Variant projections adopted different assumptions(Coleman, forthcoming).The refined LFS-OCM methodology (above) provedespecially efficient in estimating fertility of mixed ethnicunions (Dubuc, 2009a). Additionally the method has beenrecognised to minimise the increasingly documentedproblem (e.g. Toulemon, 2004; Sobotka and Lutz, 2009) ofover-estimation of immigrant fertility by more commonlyused calculations of period TFRs (Dubuc, 2010a; 2010b).Fertility by ethnic groupsLong time-series fertility estimates from the late 1960s to2006 have evidenced the general decreasing fertility of themain ethnic groups in the UK, including immigrants fromhigh fertility sending countries (Coleman and Dubuc, 2010).An overall convergence in the TFR trends of the variousethnic groups (Figure 1, based on the detailed 2001 Censusethnic categorisation) over the period 1987-2006 wasmeasured (Table 1). However, departures from the generaltrend were also identified and contrasting age patterns atchildbearing remain (Dubuc and Haskey, 2010).With a peak of childbearing in their late 20s, thechildbearing age profile of Indian women is the closest tothe White British women, albeit with less teenage birthsfor the former (Figure 2). White Other women tend to havetheir children later than the other groups. In the case ofthe Caribbean women, young-age childbearing appears tocombine with a relatively high ASFR for women in their30s (close to the White Other) and may evidence the co-existence of two markedly different social sub-groups.Pakistani and Bangladeshi women show the youngest ageprofile at childbearing.Signs of delayed childbearing are apparent for the WhiteBritish, White Other and Indian women. The decrease inFIGURE 1. TREND IN TFR BY MAIN ETHNIC GROUP, 1987-2006Source: Dubuc and Haskey (2010). Authors’ estimates based onLFS data (2001-2006). *95% confidence interval is shown.FIGURE 2. FIVE YEAR ASFRS OF WOMEN BY (SELECTED) ETHNICGROUP, 1987-2006 Source: Dubuc (2009). Authors’ estimates based on LFS data (2001-2006)UPTAP Findings DUBUC Sept 2010:UPTAP 2010  07/10/2010  09:59  Page 3the TFR of Pakistani women mostly results from a decreasein ASFR for women in their 20s. It is due to a decrease in thefertility of women in all age groups for Bangladeshi women.Fertility of immigrant and UK-born womenThe trend in the TFRs for all women, distinguishing thoseborn in the UK and those born abroad (Figure 3) shows thecontribution of immigrant women (i.e. foreign-born) to theTFR of the UK population. Immigrant women mainly belongto one or other of the different ethnic minorities (about82% of foreign-born women aged 15-49 in 2002-2006were not White British).The proportion of immigrants — defined as foreign-born —vary across ethnic groups (Figure 4) and has generallybeen increasing over time. In recent years, apart from theWhite British, Black Caribbean and women of Mixed origin— largely representing the first generation of the mixedethnic origin group — were mostly born in the UK. For thelatter group, it was especially true for the Mixed: Whiteand Black Caribbean, and Mixed: White and Asian groups.Fertility estimates distinguishing UK-born and foreign-bornwomen within ethnic groups were produced. Overall whencomparing the TFR of immigrants and UK-born women, thedifferences in fertility between the various ethnic groupswere less pronounced in the latter group. We measured aOctober 2010much lower coefficient of variation of the TFR betweenethnic groups for UK-born women than for foreign-bornwomen. The results highlight the respective contribution ofimmigrants and native-born women in shaping the fertilityof minorities and provided evidence that the overallconvergence of ethnic groups in the UK is largely driven bythe fertility behaviour of the children of immigrants. Thefertility level and timing at childbearing of the latter tendsto resemble that of the majority group (White British),compared with their contemporary immigrant peers.Additionally, results provided evidence for inter-generational adaptation of the minorities’ fertility behaviourto the UK norm (UK average profile) (Dubuc, 2010b).Fertility and religionFertility estimates by religious affiliation were produced forthe first time in the UK (Figure 5). Level of fertility and agepattern at childbearing measured over 1988 to 2006 werefound to vary across groups. TFRs in descending orderwere: Muslim women, Jewish women, Christian andwomen with no religion, Sikh, Hindu, Other and Buddhistwomen.The TFR was further estimated for two to three sub-periods(depending on sample sizes) to investigate trends. Theincreasing numerical and relative importance of StrictlyOrthodox Jews is likely to contribute to the increase in TFRsof the Jewish group in recent years. In contrast to reports inthe US and hitherto scarce evidence in Europe (e.g. Frejkaand Westoff, 2006), overall fertility of women with noreligion was close to those belonging to the Christiangroup, and the TFR of women with no religion has becomeslightly higher than that of the Christian group since theturn of the 21st century (Dubuc, 2009b).The fertility of UK-born Muslim women remains higher thanthat of other groups but significantly lower than fertility ofimmigrant Muslim women (Dubuc, 2010a). This isconsistent with findings for the mainly Muslim Pakistaniand Bangladeshi ethnic groups (both ethnic groupsrepresenting 57% of the Muslim women over the period ofthe study). When numbers allowed, it was possible tocross-classify ethnicity and religion for some groups, forinstance for the Indian group. In accordance with otherfindings in India (e.g. Dharmalingam and Morgan, 2004),FIGURE 3. TREND IN TFR OF UK AND FOREIGN-BORN WOMEN IN THEUK, 1987-2006 Source: Dubuc and Haskey (2010). LFS data, third quarter 2000-2006.FIGURE 4: WOMEN AGED 15-49: PROPORTION OF UK-BORN BYETHNICITY, 2002-2006 Source: LFS data, 3rd quarter 2002-2006.FIGURE 5: TFR BY   MAIN RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND NON-RELIGIOUSGROUPS IN THE UK, 1988-2006*Source: Dubuc (2010a). Authors’ estimates based on LFS data(2002-2006). *95% confidence interval is shown.UPTAP Findings DUBUC Sept 2010:UPTAP 2010  07/10/2010  09:59  Page 4     the Hindu group has the lower fertility while the highestwas recorded for the Muslim Indian women. Thissuggests an impact of religion on fertility, unlessdifferences across religious affiliation would mainlyreflect other determinants of fertility that vary acrossreligious groups. In India, the average larger family sizeof Muslims compared to Hindus has been attributed, atleast in part, to a lower socio-economic status of theformer and including reduced access to family planning(Jeffery and Jeffery, 2006). A recent decrease in the TFRof the Muslim minority is apparent, reducing inter-religious group differences within the Indian ethnicgroup.Population projectionsUpdated international migration data and results of thepopulation projections by main ethnic groups undervarious migration assumptions are summarised inColeman (Forthcoming). For instance, as a consequenceof the increasing number of mixed unions, the mixedethnic populations are progressing most rapidly, andlargely by natural increase. In the projections modelsthey are expected to become the main ethnic minoritygroup before the end of the century — shortly by 2071 insome projection scenarios — overtaking the current largerminority ethnic group, the ‘White Other’.This research has demonstrated the importance of takinginto account the generation order in the UK (firstgeneration versus second and over) when projectingfertility of the various minority ethnic groups. The novelfertility estimates (TFRs and ASFRs) distinguishingbetween UK-born and foreign-born women of the variousethnic groups have provided new data to developinformed fertility assumptions for future projectionmodels integrating ethnicity and immigration status.The findings highlight overall converging trends andremaining heterogeneity in fertility across ethnic andreligious groups. This calls for further investigations ofthe causes of childbearing behaviour as well as theprocesses of incorporation of immigrants and theirchildren in the UK.AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to John Haskey for his very helpfulcontribution to the project.ReferencesColeman, D. (Forthcoming) Projections of the ethnicminority populations of the United Kingdom, 2006-2056, Population and Development Review.Coleman, D. and Dubuc, S. (2010) The fertility of ethnicminority populations in the United Kingdom, 1960s-2006, Population Studies, 64(1): 19-41.Dharmalingam, A. and Morgan, S.P. (2004) PervasiveMuslim-Hindu fertility differences in India, Demography,41(3): 529-545.Dubuc, S. (2010a) Fertility variation across ethnic andreligious groups and the second generation in the UK, inMulti-state Demographic Estimates and Projections ofCulture, Religiosity and Migrants in Europe,International Workshop by the International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis and the Vienna Institute ofDemography, Vienna, 1-2 March.Dubuc S. (2010b) The convergence of fertility betweenethnic groups in the UK: the role of the immigrant andUK-born generations, Paper presented at the EuropeanPopulation Conference, Vienna, 1-4 September .(http://epc2010.princeton.edu/sessionViewer.aspx?sessionId=606).Dubuc, S. and Haskey J. (2010) Fertility and Ethnicity inthe UK: recent trends, in Stillwell, J. and van Ham, M.(eds.) Ethnicity and Integration UnderstandingPopulation Trends and Processes, Volume 3, Springer,Dordrecht, pp. 63-82.Dubuc, S. (2009a) Application of the Own-ChildrenMethod for estimating fertility by ethnic and religiousgroups in the UK, Journal of Population Research, 26(3):207-225.Dubuc, S. (2009b) Fertility and religion in the UK: trendsand outlook,’ Paper at the Annual Meeting of thePopulation Association of America, 29 April–2 May.(http://paa2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=90987)Frejka ,T. and Westoff, C.F. (2006) Religion, religiousnessand fertility in the U.S. and in Europe, Working Paper,2006-013, Max Planck Institute for DemographicResearch, p. 25.Jeffery, P. and Jeffery, R. (2006) Confronting SaffronDemography: Religion, Fertility and Women’s Status inIndia, Three Essays Collective, Gurgaon, India.McQuillan, K. (2004) When religion influence fertility?,Population and Development Review, 30(1): 25-56.Sobotka, T. and Lutz, W. (2009) Misleading policymessages from the period TFR: shouldwe stop using it?, European Demographic ResearchPapers. p. 43Toulemon, L. (2004) Fertility among immigrant women:new data, new approach, Population and Societies,400:1-4.Contact details of authorsSylvie Dubuc, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.Email: sylvie.dubuc@socres.ox.ac.ukDavid Coleman, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.Email: david.coleman@socres.ox.ac.ukU P T A P    For a full list of UPTAP Research Findings, visit www.uptap.netUPTAP Findings DUBUC Sept 2010:UPTAP 2010  07/10/2010  09:59  Page 1

Demographic characteristics and projections of ethnic minorities and religious groups

http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/4870/1/uptap-findings-dubuc-sept-10.pdf

Demographic characteristics and projections of ethnic minorities and religious groups

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

National Centre for Research Methods: NCRM EPrints Repository