For Cambridge OCR A Level Sociology, John Rex and Sally Tomlinson are important because they explain ethnic inequality through competition for scarce resources, particularly housing, employment and education. Their work is usually described as Weberian rather than Marxist: it focuses on unequal life chances, social closure and conflict between groups competing for limited opportunities.

Their research helps students move beyond the idea that ethnic inequality is only caused by individual prejudice. Rex and Tomlinson argued that ethnic minority groups could be disadvantaged by the ways in which local institutions, including housing departments, landlords, schools and employers, distributed scarce resources.

Background to the research

Rex and Tomlinson’s major work, Colonial Immigrants in a British City: A Class Analysis, was published in 1979. It was based on a four-year study of Handsworth, Birmingham, an area with significant settlement by people from Caribbean and South Asian backgrounds. The study examined the relationship between ethnic minority communities and the class structure of a British city.

The language used in the title reflects the historical context in which the study was written. Today, sociologists would normally use more specific and respectful ethnic descriptions, while recognising that the study was concerned with people whose migration to Britain was shaped by the legacy of the British Empire.

Rex and Tomlinson developed ideas from John Rex’s earlier work with Robert Moore on housing and ethnicity in Sparkbrook, Birmingham. Their approach was influenced by Weber’s view that class is linked to unequal life chances in both the labour market and other markets, including housing.

The central argument

Rex and Tomlinson argued that ethnic minority groups could become an underclass: a group systematically disadvantaged in employment, housing and education, even when living alongside White working-class communities.

They did not argue that all ethnic minority people experienced the same disadvantage. Instead, they suggested that some groups were more likely to be excluded from the best housing, more secure work and effective political representation. This made it harder for them to improve their social position.

Their key argument was that ethnic inequality is produced through social closure. Social closure occurs when more powerful groups protect scarce opportunities for themselves and restrict access for others. In this case, White working-class groups could gain better access to council housing, trade unions, political representation or stable employment, while ethnic minority groups were more likely to be excluded.

Rex and Tomlinson argued that this exclusion was not simply the result of open racism by individuals. It could also be produced through institutions, routines and decisions about who was viewed as suitable for housing, employment or educational opportunities.

Key concepts

Life chances
A Weberian concept referring to a person’s opportunities to gain valued resources such as income, housing, education, health and security. Rex and Tomlinson argued that ethnic minorities could have poorer life chances because they faced barriers in several areas at once.

Social closure
The process through which one group protects its advantages by limiting another group’s access to scarce resources. For Rex and Tomlinson, exclusion from housing, employment and local political power could prevent ethnic minority groups from achieving the same opportunities as White groups.

Housing classes
Rex’s earlier work with Moore developed the idea that people could occupy different positions in the housing system, even where they had similar class positions in employment. Access to home ownership, council housing, private renting and poor-quality accommodation could create distinct “housing classes”.

Underclass
Rex and Tomlinson used this term to describe ethnic minority groups who were systematically disadvantaged compared with White peers and detached from the institutions that could improve their position, such as trade unions and mainstream political organisations.

Institutional racism
Disadvantage produced through the practices, policies or routines of organisations rather than only through openly racist attitudes. This is relevant to Rex and Tomlinson because they focused on how housing officers, landlords, schools and employers could shape unequal outcomes.

Competition for scarce resources
Groups may come into conflict when they compete for limited resources, such as affordable housing, secure jobs, school places or welfare support. Rex and Tomlinson argued that this competition could encourage conflict between White and ethnic minority working-class groups.

How Rex and Tomlinson explain ethnic inequality

Housing and unequal life chances

Housing was central to Rex and Tomlinson’s explanation. They argued that ethnic minority groups were often pushed towards poorer-quality housing in declining urban areas. This could happen because of discrimination by housing officers, landlords and estate agents, but also because ethnic minority households had fewer economic resources and less access to political influence.

Their study of Handsworth suggested that competition for housing, education and employment left minority groups in poorer housing, with weaker access to local labour markets and schools. They argued that White workers had often improved their position through trade unions and the Labour Party, while ethnic minority workers were less effectively represented through these institutions.

This matters because poor housing can affect other areas of life chances. Overcrowding can make studying more difficult, increase stress, harm health and limit privacy. Living in insecure private rented housing can also make it harder to build long-term security.

Employment and occupational exclusion

Rex and Tomlinson argued that ethnic inequality was not only about housing. Groups excluded from secure jobs or better occupational positions could have fewer resources to compete in the housing market.

Current evidence suggests that occupational inequalities remain significant. In 2021, 13.2% of Black workers were employed in elementary occupations, compared with 9.4% of all workers. At the same time, 33.9% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers were employed in elementary, sales and consumer-service, or process-plant and machine-operative jobs: occupational categories associated with lower socio-economic circumstances.

This supports Rex and Tomlinson’s wider claim that ethnic inequality can be shaped by unequal access to valued positions in the labour market. However, the same data also show variation: 39.8% of Indian workers were in professional jobs, demonstrating that ethnic minority experiences are highly diverse.

Exclusion from working-class institutions

A distinctive feature of Rex and Tomlinson’s argument is that they did not assume all working-class groups shared the same interests or opportunities. They suggested that White working-class people could gain advantages through unions, local politics and access to public housing, while ethnic minority groups might be excluded from these routes to social mobility.

This is a Weberian point. Conflict is not only between the capitalist and working classes, as Marxists argue. It can also occur between groups competing for status, security and scarce resources. White working-class groups may not be economically powerful compared with employers, but they may still have greater access to particular resources than ethnic minority groups.

This helps explain why racism can divide working-class communities. Instead of seeing poor housing or insecure work as a shared structural problem, some groups may blame migrants or ethnic minorities for shortages in jobs, homes or public services.

Contemporary UK evidence

Overcrowding and housing inequality

Recent English Housing Survey data strongly support the view that housing remains an important source of ethnic inequality. In the three years to March 2023, 3% of households in England were overcrowded. However, the figure was 25% for Arab households, 18% for Bangladeshi households, 16% for Black African households and 16% for Mixed White and Black African households. In comparison, only 2% of White British households were overcrowded.

Importantly, the gap remains even when social class is considered. Among households in routine and manual occupations, 13% of households from ethnic minority groups other than White minorities were overcrowded, compared with 3% of White British households.

This is particularly useful for applying Rex and Tomlinson. It suggests that class alone does not fully explain housing disadvantage: ethnicity can still affect life chances within similar occupational groups.

Unequal access to home ownership

Home ownership is an important marker of security and wealth in Britain. In the two years to March 2023, 70% of White British households in England owned their home, compared with 22% of Black African households, 24% of Black households overall and 37% of Bangladeshi households. The figure was only 14% for Mixed White and Black African households.

These gaps do not prove that every difference is caused by discrimination. Income, age, location, migration history and family wealth also matter. However, the patterns are consistent with Rex and Tomlinson’s argument that unequal access to housing can create different life chances between ethnic groups.

Employment inequalities

Employment data also show continuing differences. In 2022, 77% of White people aged 16–64 were employed, compared with 69% of people from all other ethnic groups combined. The employment rate for the combined Pakistani and Bangladeshi group was 61%.

The difference was especially large among young people: 58% of White people aged 16–24 were employed, compared with 39% of ethnic minority people excluding White minorities.

These inequalities partly support Rex and Tomlinson’s claim that ethnic minority groups can have weaker access to secure labour-market opportunities. Yet the gap between White people and ethnic minorities overall narrowed from 16 percentage points in 2004 to 8 points in 2022, suggesting that the situation is not fixed and that some groups have made progress.

Homelessness and institutional disadvantage

In the year ending March 2023, 298,430 households in England qualified for homelessness assistance from a local authority. Government data also notes research finding that discrimination in housing and other areas was associated with a greater risk of homelessness for ethnic minority groups, even after poverty was taken into account; the association was particularly strong for Black households.

This gives some support to Rex and Tomlinson’s focus on institutional barriers. It suggests that economic disadvantage alone may not explain unequal housing outcomes.

Applying Rex and Tomlinson to contemporary Britain

Rex and Tomlinson remain relevant because housing is still a scarce and highly unequal resource. High rents, long social-housing waiting lists and barriers to home ownership can make competition for housing more intense, particularly in urban areas such as London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Their work is especially useful for explaining why ethnicity and class can combine. A low-income White household and a low-income ethnic minority household may both face hardship, but an ethnic minority household may additionally encounter discrimination, weaker access to family wealth, language barriers, insecure immigration status or exclusion from local decision-making.

However, Britain has changed since the 1970s. Ethnic minority groups are more politically represented, anti-discrimination law is stronger, and there are substantial differences in educational and occupational outcomes between groups. It is therefore inaccurate to describe all ethnic minority communities as a single underclass.

Evaluation of Rex and Tomlinson

Strengths

A major strength is that Rex and Tomlinson link individual disadvantage to wider structures of power. They show that ethnic inequality is not simply about prejudice between individuals. It can be created through competition for scarce resources and through institutional decisions about housing, jobs and education.

Their approach is also supported by contemporary evidence on overcrowding, home ownership and employment. The continuing gap in overcrowding between White British households and several ethnic minority groups is particularly relevant because it remains visible even within similar socio-economic groups.

Limitations

Their concept of an ethnic underclass can be criticised for being too broad. Ethnic minority groups have very different experiences. For example, Indian households had a home-ownership rate of 68% in the two years to March 2023, close to the 70% rate for White British households.

Rex and Tomlinson may also overstate the extent to which ethnic minority groups are detached from mainstream institutions. Many ethnic minority people now hold professional roles, participate in trade unions, vote, campaign and hold political office.

Their work has also been criticised for making overly general assumptions about cultural differences between groups. Later analysis noted that grouping minority communities together can overlook agency, internal diversity and changing identities.

Alternative explanations

Marxists such as Castles and Kosack would agree that ethnic inequality is linked to class and labour-market disadvantage. However, they focus more directly on capitalism’s need for a flexible workforce and on divisions within the working class.

By contrast, Rex and Tomlinson are more Weberian. They focus on how different groups compete for scarce resources and how some groups use social closure to protect their advantages. Their explanation is therefore especially useful for housing, education and local politics.

Feminists would add that ethnic inequality is also shaped by gender. For example, employment patterns vary significantly between men and women within ethnic groups, meaning that ethnicity cannot be analysed separately from gender and family roles.

Exam-ready conclusion

Rex and Tomlinson offer a valuable Weberian explanation of ethnic inequality because they show how ethnic minority groups can experience poorer life chances through exclusion from housing, employment, education and local political power. Their idea of social closure is particularly useful: dominant groups may protect access to scarce resources, leaving others in poorer-quality housing or lower-status work. Contemporary evidence on overcrowding, home ownership and employment gaps gives considerable support to their argument. However, the idea of a single ethnic underclass is too simplistic because ethnic groups have very different experiences and outcomes. Overall, Rex and Tomlinson remain highly useful for explaining how ethnicity and class interact, especially in relation to housing inequality, but their analysis needs updating to reflect the greater diversity of contemporary Britain.

You can download a summary of Rex and Tomlinson’s work below: