Page 2
unemployment differential between Protestants
and Catholics on an analysis of the many vari
ables involved is legitimate, the multiple regres sion method must be used appropriately. The
analysis must not go beyond the capabilities of
the data being studied and all reasonable vari
ables must be included. The factors included by the PSI in its model were not comprehensive, several were ill-defined and these inadequacies
were compounded by apparent errors in the
application of the statistical modelling tech
nique. It would therefore be extremely unwise to
draw conclusions about the causes of the unem
ployment differential from such an analysis. We would express particular concern about
the implication in the PSI's work that any differ
ence in unemployment rates not accounted for
by its statistical model is, ipso facto, the result of
'discrimination'. The results as presented can
not support such a conclusion. Moreover, there
is inadequate discussion by the PSI of the dis tinctions between direct, motivated discrimina
tion and practices, motivated or otherwise, which indirectly result in unequal opportunities.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights commissioned the PSI research
to "secure as authoritative an assessment of the
current situation as possible". There can be no
question that the PSI volumes contribute signifi
cantly to our understanding of employment
equity issues. The study of workplaces provides new and valuable material directly germane to
policy. Employment and Unemployment how
ever, for the reasons outlined, must best be
regarded as an interesting but ill-informed con
tribution to the debate, rather than the 'authori
tative' assessment the commission sought.
'No substance9
to criticisms DAVID SMITH of PSI replies THE POLICY STUDIES Institute's reports.
Employment and Inequality in Northern
Ireland, have been criticised in vague terms by the three members of the Standing Advisory
Commission who dissented from its report on
fair employment. Now the vague criticisms of
the dissenters have assumed a more definite
form in the attack on the Employment and
Unemployment volume by Compton, Cormack
and Osborne. None of these criticisms has sub
stance. None weakens any of the conclusions
drawn by the reports. Here they are rebutted
point by point.
'The lack of context': The critics claim that
the PSI * failed to be informed by the wealth of
studies available' (a thinly veiled reference to
their own writings) and, specifically, that we
paid too little attention to interpreting change. We paid considerable attention to their writ
ings: a key passage in the report is devoted to
showing that the theory for which Compton is
best known is totally wrong. And we gave a high
priority to interpreting the most important
change since 1971?the remarkable growth in
Catholic unemployment. Of course the PSI report is not an ecumenical
tour through the highways and byways of writ
ing on Northern Ireland. It was not meant to be.
A 'review of the literature' would have diverted
attention from the main purpose, which was
rigorously to consider certain closely-defined
questions, using the best and most up-to-date evidence. That aim was accomplished.
'Growth of the Catholic middle class':
Compton, Cormack and Osborne claim that one
of the most important changes to have taken
place in recent years is the growth of the Catho
lic middle class, and that the PSI ignored this
change. In fact any such change is small and
some growth is to be expected in line with the
overall growth of the middle class. This does not
affect the main conclusions of the PSI report. Evidence of the growth of the Catholic
middle class is by no means striking and it seems
the Protestant middle class is growing more
quickly. The PSI report referred to a recent study
by Osborne and Cormack in support of that con
clusion.
'Inadequate statistical techniques': None of
the technical criticisms is valid; none affects the
main conclusions of the PSI report. Without
getting into technicalities, it is worth briefly
replying on each point.
1) Continuous Household Survey sample .
Compton, Cormack and Osborne think the
household survey sample inadequate for the
purpose of analysis by four regions or 12 travel
to-work areas. Sampling errors can be estimated
and have been; the main conclusions of the
report are not affected by the range of sampling error. The British survey on which the Continu
\ \iy^M:%^\r: s*SE"&?t A
ous Household Survey is modelled is regularly used for regional analysis by the Office of Popu lation Censuses and Surveys and others.
2) Unit of geographical analysis . The critics
claim that 'the geographical factor is ill-de
fined'. On the contrary, it is correctly defined in
the PSI report for the first time?previous re
search has used an inappropriate definition.
Compton, in his analysis of the 1971 census,
produced exaggerated estimates of the impor tance of geography by using district councils as
the unit of analysis, when it is evident that
people travel across district council boundaries
to work. The PSI used travel-to-work areas.
3) Measure of dependent children . Compton,
Cormack and Osborne correctly point out, as
stated in the PSI report, that the measure of the
number of dependent children used was imper fect. However, from the figures they themselves
quote this has a negligible effect on the results.
It can be shown that if, as suggested, 10 per cent
of men are ascribed the wrong number of de
pendent children the effect of this error on the
estimated rates of unemployment will be trivial.
4) 'Lack of technical sophistication' .The critics
complain about the way that, in the analysis of
the contribution to the unemployment differen
tial of the many variables involved, characteris
tics like age and social class were defined. There
is a large mathematical literature to show that
the precise grouping used has very little effect on the results of an analysis like this.
They also demand a 'goodness of fit' meas
ure. No such measure is reported in the mathe
matical textbooks in the case of this form of
analysis, which proceeded by finding the model
that best predicted whether someone was unem
ployed. We know that the final model is the best
that can be found, but it is not possible to say how
good that is in the sense that Compton and the
others have in mind.
5) Other possible factors . They argue that there
are other factors, not included in the analysis, which if they were included would explain some
more of the unemployment differential. There is
a limited range of factors that are both important and relevant in this context. This has been estab
lished by cross-analysis, by a huge body of
previous research and by a large body of theory about how the labour market works. Of course,
there are factors we have not measured that
relate to an individual's employment prospects in an important way?inherited intelligence and
good looks, for example?but they are irrele
vant to this discussion: they cannot explain the
difference between Protestants and Catholics.
'The results are not evidence of discrimina
tion': Compton, Cormack and Osborne com
plain of the 'implication' that the results of this
analysis are evidence of discrimination. No such
claim is made in the PSI report. They also claim
that there was inadequate discussion of various
forms of discrimination. In fact the subject was
discussed, and the report made clear that all
forms of discrimination were possible mecha
nisms that might help to create the difference in
unemployment rates.
Education: The critics maintain that the analy sis took too little account of educational differ
ences between Protestants and Catholics. There
is no substance to this claim. The effect of the
level of qualifications on chances of employ ment was fully taken into account; it has been
shown to be rather small and to account for very little of the difference in unemployment rates.
The differences in choice of subjects be
tween Protestants and Catholics are interesting and important for educational policy, but it is
absurd to suggest that they can do anything to
explain the difference in unemployment rates
when the level of qualifications does so little.
In an article published in 1981, Paul Compton
put forward an argument that the difference in
unemployment rates arises from a difference in
rates of population growth. What he, Cormack
and Osborne omit to mention is that volume one
of the PSI report considered this argument in
detail and showed it to be based on an absurd
unstated assumption. The PSI analysis showed
that the population growth argument is not
generally valid and that population growth can
do very little to explain why the difference in
unemployment rates between Protestants and
Catholics was maintained between 1975 and
1985 as the overall rate more than doubled.
Paul Compton has engaged in an attempt to
give legitimacy to folklore, by putting forward
spurious arguments in an academic form. But
the most instructive aspect of this affair is that
none of the established academics in Northern
Ireland, including Cormack and Osborne, has
set out in a rigorous form why Compton's argu ment from population growth is simply wrong.
It was left to the unsophisticated innocent
from outside the magic circle to point out that the
emperor has no clothes.
12 January Fortnight
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:42:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
