Poverty, ethnicity and
social networks - how
are they related?
Dharmi Kapadia, Nissa Finney & Simon Peters
The University of Manchester
The State of Social Capital in Britain
11th 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/itsschool-not-social-networks-that-will-get-the-poor-out-ofpoverty/
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
1,078
2.29
1,220
2.59
699
1.49
Indian
1,406
2.99
Pakistani
1,172
2.49
Bangladeshi
808
1.72
Black Caribbean
806
1.71
951
2.02
1,085
2.31
47,067
100
White Irish
Other White
Including Gypsy/Irish Traveller
Mixed
4 Mixed groups combined
Black African
Other
Total
Chinese, Other Asian, Other
Black, Arab, Other
Defining social networks
What 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 same
More than half
About half
Less than half
How many close friends do you have?
[0-100]
Defining mixed networks
Non homogenous = mixed
1.
2.
3.
4.
All the same
More than half
About half
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)
% Poor
Percent in each ethnic
group in a household with
gross income below the
poverty line (less than
£989 per month).
Note: unweighted.
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.
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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
Percent with
ethnic-mix
friendship
network
Bangladeshi
White British
White Irish
In poverty
Not in poverty
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
22%
Black African
19%
Pakistani
17%
Bangladeshi
17%
Black Caribbean
Indian
16%
Other
15%
White Irish
14%
12%
Other White
White British
11%
Mixed
10%
0
20
40
60
80
100
5 to 7 friends
8 or more
%
0 or 1 friend
2 friends
3 or 4 friends
2. Mixed social networks reduce
the risk of being in poverty….
Employment-mix:
Prosperous
to Poor Model
some friends
unemployed
Mixed Network Effect
Mixed Network Effect
1.5
1
.5
.5
Odds Ratio
1
1.5
NotPoor/Poor Model
Ethnic-mix: some
friends from a different
ethnic group
Area-mix: some friends
from a different
neighbourhood
0
0
Decreased chance of poverty
Employed
Not Mixed
Ethnic Grp
Area
Employed
Not Mixed
Ethnic Grp
Area
…but not as much as other factors
NotPoor/Poor Model
NotPoor/Poor Model
Decreased chance of poverty
2
1.5
0
.5
1
Odds Ratio
1.5
1
.5
0
Odds Ratio
2
2.5
Qualifications Effect
2.5
Marital Status Effect
Separated Divorced
Single
Widowed
Married
None/Other GCSE
A-levels Higher Deg Degree
… 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 multilevel models)
3. Having 2 or more close friends
reduces the likelihood of being in
poverty
Prosperous to Poor Mode
Decreased chance of poverty
.8
.6
0
.2
.4
Odds Ratio
.6
.4
.2
0
Odds Ratio
.8
1
Close Friends Effect
NotPoor/Poor Model
1
Close Friends Effect
0 to 1
2
3 to 4 5 to 7 8 to 9 10 plus
0 to 1
2
More close friends
3 to 4 5 to 7 8 to 9
Not Mixed
Not Mixed
All Friends Employed
Mixed Ethnic Group
Mixed Neighbourhood
Some Friends Unemployed
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
20
40
IMD score
60
80 0
20
40
60
80 0
IMD score
More area deprivation
20
40
IMD score
60
80
Decreased chance of poverty
4. The effects of having mixed
friendship networks vary depending
on neighbourhood deprivation.
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