Since most census data are released for spatial aggregates, the microscale of people and the macroscale of places are confounded in analyses. Although regrettable, this situation is usually tolerated owing to the other obvious attractions of census data. In this paper, we consider how multilevel statistical procedures offer a solution to this problem. Importantly, we show how they allow places to be considered in terms of several different scales simultaneously. As we demonstrate, this provides important connections with recent moves towards performance review in several areas of public policy. An analysis of data on illiteracy from the 1991 Indian Census provides an illustration of multilevel approach and its usefulness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AitkinMLongfordN T, 1986, “Statistical modelling in school effectiveness studies”Journal of Royal Statistical Society A1491–43.
2.
BestN GSpiegelhalterD JThomasABrayneC E G, 1996, “Bayesian analysis of realistically complex models”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A159232–342.
3.
BlakelyT AWoodwardA J, 2000, “Ecological effects in multi-level studies”Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health54367–374.
4.
BoyleM HWillmsJ D, 1999, “Place-effects for areas defined by administrative boundaries”American Journal of Epidemiology149577–585.
5.
BrykA SRaudenbushS W, 1992Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
6.
BullenNJonesKDuncanC, 1997, “Modelling complexity: Analysing between-individual and between-place variation—a mutlilevel tutorial”Environment and Planning A29585–609.
7.
Diez-RouxA V, 1998, “Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis”American Journal of Public Health88216–222.
8.
DiPreteTForristalJ, 1994, “Multilevel models: Methods and substance”Annual Review of Sociology20231–357.
9.
DuncanCJonesKMoonG, 1996, “Health-related behaviour in context: A Multilevel modelling approach”Social Science and Medicine42817–830.
10.
GehlkeC EBiehlK, 1934, “Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material”Journal of the American Statistical Association Supplement29169–170.
11.
GoldsteinH, 1991, “Nonlinear multilevel models, with an application to discrete response data”Biometrika7845–51.
GouldM IFieldhouseE, 1997, “Using the 1991 Census SAR in a multilevel analysis of male unemployment”Environment and Planning A29611–628.
14.
GouldM IJonesK, 1996, “Analyzing perceived limiting long-term illness using UK Census microdata”Social Science and Medicine42857–869.
15.
HaggettP, 1967, “Scale components in geographical problems”, in Frontiers in Geographical Teaching Eds ChorleyRHaggettP (Methuen, London) pp 164–185.
16.
HarveyD, 1968, “Pattern, process and scale problem in geographical research”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers4571–78.
17.
HauserR M, 1970, “Context and consex: A Cautionary tale”American Journal of Sociology75645–664.
18.
HoxJKreftI, 1994, “Multilevel analysis methods”Sociological Methods and Research22283–299.
19.
JonesK, 1991, “Specifying and estimating multi-level models for geographical research”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series16148–160.
20.
JonesK, 1995, “Re-modelling a classic: a multilevel perspective on ‘ecological’ correlations and the behaviour of individuals”, unpublished paper, Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth.
21.
JonesK, 1997, “Multilevel approaches to modelling contextuality: From nuisance to substance in the analysis of voting behaviour”, in Places and People: Multilevel Modelling in Geographical Research Eds WestertG PVerhoeffR N, The Royal Dutch Geographical Society, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, pages 19–43.
22.
JonesKBullenN, 1993, “A multilevel analysis of the variations in domestic property prices: Southern England, 1980–1987”Urban Studies301409–1426.
23.
JonesKBullenN, 1994, “Contextual models of urban house prices: A Comparison of fixed- and random-coefficient models developed by expansion”Economic Geography70252–272.
24.
JonesKDuncanC, 1996, “People and places: The multilevel model as a general framework for the quantitative analysis of geographical data”, in Spatial Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment Eds LongleyPBattyM (Geoinformation Group, Ely, Cambs) pp 79–104.
25.
JonesKGouldM IWattR, 1998, “Multiple contexts as cross-classified models: The labour vote in the British General Elections of 1992”Geographical Analysis3065–93.
26.
KleinbaumD G, 1994Logistic Regression—A Self Learning Text (Springer, New York).
27.
LangfordI HBenthamGMcDonaldA-L, 1998, “Multilevel modelling of geographically aggregated health data: A Case study on malignant melanoma mortality and UV exposure in the European community”Statistics in Medicine1741–57.
28.
MacintyreS, 1997, “What are the spatial effects and how can we measure them?”, in Exploiting National Surveys and Census Data: The Role of Locality and Spatial Effects Ed. DaleA, OP 12, Centre for Census and Survey Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, pp 1–28.
29.
MacintyreSEllawayA, 2000, “Ecological approaches: Rediscovering the role of physical and social environment”, in Social Epidemiology Eds BerkmanL FKawachiI (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 332–348.
30.
MacintyreSMacIverSSoomanA, 1993, “Area, class and health: Should we be focusing on people or places”Journal of Social Policy22213–234.
RasbashJWoodhouseG, 1995MLn Command Reference: Version 1.0 Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
33.
RavallionMWodonQ, 1997, “Poor areas, or only poor people?”, policy research WP-1798, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
34.
RobinsonW S, 1950, “Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals”American Sociological Review15351–357.
35.
SchwartzS, 1994, “The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: The potential misuse of a concept and the consequences”American Journal of Public Health84819–823.
36.
SubramanianS V, 2000Illiteracy in India: A Multilevel Analysisunpublished PhD thesis, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth.
37.
SubramanianS VDuncanCJonesK, 2000, “Illiterate people or illiterate places: The Indian evidence”Indian Social Science Review2 forthcoming.
38.
SusserM, 1994, “The logic in the ecological: I, the logic of analysis, II, the logic of design”American Journal of Public Health84825–835.
39.
The Hindu1998, “Government funds for village on performance basis”, 30 December, page 6.
40.
WoodhouseG, 1995A Guide to MLn for New UsersInstitute of Education, University of London, London.
41.
WrigleyN, 1985Categorical Data Analysis for Geographers and Environmental Scientists (Longman, Harlow, Essex).
