ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward Analyses of census data at district and ward scales scales John Stillwell and Adam Dennett John Stillwell and Adam Dennett School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds g p y y g p y y LS2 9JT LS2 9JT

Presentation at the Session on Presentation at the Session on ‘Migration, Mixing and Ethnic Integration’ ‘Migration, Mixing and Ethnic Integration’ at the RGS at the RGS-

• IBG Annual Conference,

IBG Annual Conference, University of Manchester University of Manchester 26 26 28 A g st 2009 28 A g st 2009 26 26-28 August 2009 28 August 2009

Acknowledgements

• ESRC Small Grant within the UPTAP

programme entitled ‘Internal Migration of Britain’s Ethnic Groups’ (RES-163-25-0028)

• ESRC Census Programme grant to the Centre

for Interaction Data Estimation and Research CIDER (RES 348 25 005) CIDER (RES-348-25-005)

• Serena Hussain - the researcher on the

UPTAP j t f J 2007 t J 2008 UPTAP project from June 2007 to June 2008

• Terry Familio - at ONS Customer Services for

idi th i i d d t providing the commissioned data

Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation

• Brief context

Brief context

• Aims and data used
• Ethnic migration at national level: flows and rates

Ethnic migration at national level: flows and rates

• Ethnic migration at district level: churn,

effectiveness and spatial connectivity y

• Distance moved and the effect of distance on

migration within London

• Ethnic migration at ward level outside London:

patterns of net migration by population concentration and by level of deprivation concentration and by level of deprivation

• Conclusions

Brief context

• Plenty of attention has been paid to migration in

l t f last few years

• Over 6 million people moved usual residence

ithi B it i i 2000 01 f hi h l th 10% within Britain in 2000-01, of which less than 10% were non-white ethnic minorities I i b f h t di f th i

• Increasing number of research studies of ethnic

internal migration: Champion (2005), Stillwell and Duke Williams (2005) Finney and Simpson and Duke-Williams (2005), Finney and Simpson (2008, 2009), Simpson and Finney (2008, 2009), Stillwell et al (2008) Stillwell and Hussain Stillwell et al. (2008) Stillwell and Hussain (2009), Simon (2009), Raymer and Giuletti (2009), ……. and others ( ),

OUR AIMS

• To show ethnic and age variation in migration

propensities and that non-white migration remains concentrated in certain (urban) parts of the GB

• To explore how effective net migration has been in

p g distributing ethnic populations across GB

• To examine differences in spatial connectivity by

To examine differences in spatial connectivity by ethnic group – GB and within London

• To assess how the frictional effect of distance varies
• To assess how the frictional effect of distance varies

by ethnic group – model inter-borough flows within London since inter district matrix is very sparse London since inter-district matrix is very sparse

• To examine the relationship at ward level outside

L d b t t i ti d (i) th i London between net migration and (i) ethnic population concentration and (ii) deprivation

Firstly…… something about data Firstly…… something about data

• All data used come from 2001 Census and refer to the

2000-01 period (12 months before the Census)

• Special Migration Statistics provide:
• Migrants by age by sex (Table MG201)

Migrants by age by sex (Table MG201)

• Migrants by ethnic group by sex (Table MG203)

i b kd f i t b th i it d i.e. no breakdown of migrants by ethnicity and age

• Commissioned tables from ONS:

CO711: District to district flows CO723: Part 1: ward to region flows P t 2 i t d fl Part 2: region to ward flows disaggregated by 7 age groups (0-15, 16-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-44 45-59 60+) and 7 ethnic groups 30 44, 45 59, 60+) and 7 ethnic groups

Ethnic groups used Ethnic groups used

Label used in Ethnic group defined in Special Migration Statistics Ethnic group defined in Key Statistics project (Level 1) White White White British; White Irish; Other White White Indian Indian Indian POSA Pakistani and Other South Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian POSA Pakistani and Other South Asian Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian Chinese Chinese Chinese Black Caribbean, African, Black British and Black Other Caribbean; African; Other Black Mixed Mixed White and Black Caribbean; White Mixed Mixed White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Other mixed Other Other Other

Ethnic population concentration: location quotients in Ethnic population concentration: location quotients in 2001 by 2001 by decile decile across 408 districts across 408 districts 2001 by 2001 by decile decile across 408 districts across 408 districts

Location Quotient: LQie = (Pie/Pi*)/(Pe*/P**) Concentration relative to national average Mean LQe = Σi LQie / Number of districts

How much ethnic group migration occurred in How much ethnic group migration occurred in GB during 2000 GB during 2000-

• 01?

01?

Ethnic group Inter-district Intra-district Total migrants* Number % Number % Number % White 2,215,010 90.4 3,295,652 91.4 5,510,662 91.0 Black 61,748 2.5 78,063 2.2 139,811 2.3 POSA 44,567 1.8 87,051 2.4 131,618 2.2 Indian 50,997 2.1 52,460 1.5 103,457 1.7 Mixed 40,930 1.7 56,519 1.6 97,449 1.6 Other 17,498 0.7 18,380 0.5 35,878 0.6 Chinese 19,476 0.8 16,317 0.5 35,793 0.6 Total 2,450,226 100.0 3,604,442 100.0 6,054,668 100.0 Total 2,450,226 100.0 3,604,442 100.0 6,054,668 100.0

* Excludes persons with no usual address 12 months previously (456,736 in total) Source: Special Migration Statistics

Do migration rates vary by ethnic group? Do migration rates vary by ethnic group? Do migration rates vary by ethnic group? Do migration rates vary by ethnic group?

18.0 14.0 16.0

Inter-district Intra-district Total

10.0 12.0 rates (%) 6.0 8.0 Mirgration r 2.0 4.0 M 0.0 White Indian Pak and OSA Chinese Black Mixed Other Total OSA

Source: Special Migration Statistics Table MG103 and Standard Table

Are there age variations in migration Are there age variations in migration rates and shares by ethnic group? rates and shares by ethnic group?

Source: Commissioned Table CO711

How concentrated is migration by ethnic group: How concentrated is migration by ethnic group: migration churn by district? migration churn by district? migration churn by district? migration churn by district?

White flow White rate Churn = In-migration + out-migration + intra-migration

Churn: Three larger non Churn: Three larger non-

• white groups

white groups

I di POSA Bl k Indian POSA Black

Churn: Three smaller non Churn: Three smaller non-

• white groups

white groups

Chinese Mixed Oth Chinese Mixed Other

N t i ti b l N t i ti t

How does net migration vary by LQ How does net migration vary by LQ decile decile? ?

Net migration balances Net migration rates

How How does does migration effectiveness migration effectiveness vary vary between ethnic groups? between ethnic groups?

16 18 20 12 14 16 iveness 6 8 10 tion effect 2 4 6 Migra Total White Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other

Migration effectiveness is computed as 100(∑|Di-Oi|/ ∑|Di+Oi|) where Di is in-migration and Oi is out-migration for district i

Whit d Whit d White and White and non non-

• White

White migration migration effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness

(Di-Oi)/(Di+Oi)*100 (

i Oi)/( i Oi)

00

Ethnic migration effectiveness ranked by district Ethnic migration effectiveness ranked by district

What are the levels of district connectivity? What are the levels of district connectivity?

Districts most connected by ethnic group migration

• utflows/inflows

White Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other

Connectivity scores between districts in Connectivity scores between districts in Britain and London by ethnic group Britain and London by ethnic group

Migration connectivity of London Migration connectivity of London boroughs for whites and boroughs for whites and blacks in London blacks in London

Whit Bl k Whites Blacks

Mean migration distance and frictional effect of Mean migration distance and frictional effect of distance on migration in London distance on migration in London distance on migration in London distance on migration in London

• London is the major concentration of ethnic
• London is the major concentration of ethnic

minorities in Britain and is the engine of the internal migration system g y

• Previous work at ward level shown that within

London, areas with high concentrations of , g ethnic minorities are losing ethnic minority migrants in net terms whereas areas of low concentration are gaining non white migrants concentration are gaining non-white migrants i.e. ethnic minorities are deconcentrating

• Migrants of all ethnic groups in London are
• Migrants of all ethnic groups in London are

moving from areas of higher to areas of low deprivation deprivation

• What is happening in provincial Britain?
• What is happening in provincial Britain?

Ethnic migration outside of London Ethnic migration outside of London Ethnic migration outside of London Ethnic migration outside of London

District level

• District level

analysis revealed around 75% of around 75% of migration activity

• utside London
• utside London
• ccurring in top two

non White location non-White location quotient deciles 67 di t i t i

• 67 districts in

England and Wales 1 455 ST W d – 1,455 ST Wards

Is there evidence of ethnic de Is there evidence of ethnic de-

• concentration in provincial Britain?

concentration in provincial Britain?

Mi ti f h

• Migration of each

ethnic group examined from ward Mean location quotients by decile examined from ward

• f origin to (i) region
• f destination (same

y

5.00 6.00 Black

• f destination (same

region) and (ii) region

• f destination (other

2.00 3.00 4.00 Black Chinese Indian Mixed

( region) and vice versa

• Each ward ranked

0.00 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other POSA White

according to LQ of ethnic group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LQ Decile

Ward Ward – – Region net migration patterns Region net migration patterns

When flows are with same region:

• Aggregate net outflow of all

Net flows with same region

2000

• Aggregate net outflow of all

non-White groups from wards with highest LQs

• Large outflows of Whites from

‐6000 ‐4000 ‐2000 Black Chinese Indian Mixed

• Large outflows of Whites from

least concentrated areas, small inflow into most concentrated

‐12000 ‐10000 ‐8000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixed Other POSA White

When flows are with other regions (longer distance moves):

Net flows with other regions

7000 LQ Decile

(longer distance moves):

• Almost opposite trend
• Net inflow of all non-White

ethnic groups (except Indian)

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Black Chinese Indian

ethnic groups (except Indian) into decile with highest LQs

• Large net inflow of Whites into

areas with lowest White LQs

‐3000 ‐2000 ‐1000 1000 2000 Indian Mixed Other POSA White

areas with lowest White LQs – student migrants?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LQ Decile

Net migration (ward to same region), White Net migration (ward to same region), White Net migration (ward to same region), White Net migration (ward to same region), White

Net migration (ward to other regions), White Net migration (ward to other regions), White

Net migration (ward to same region) POSA Net migration (ward to same region) POSA Net migration (ward to same region), POSA Net migration (ward to same region), POSA

Net migration (ward to other regions) POSA Net migration (ward to other regions) POSA Net migration (ward to other regions), POSA Net migration (ward to other regions), POSA

20 40 60

White

Ethnic group net Ethnic group net migration by LQ migration by LQ

‐80 ‐60 ‐40 ‐20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions

migration by LQ migration by LQ decile decile

<‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> ‐4 ‐2 2 4 6

Indian

‐5 5 10

POSA

Evidence of ethnic

‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions ‐25 ‐20 ‐15 ‐10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions

deconcentration from most

1 2 3 4 5

Chinese

‐2 2 4 6 8

Black

concentrated non-White areas where moves are

‐3 ‐2 ‐1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions

where moves are shorter distance – slightly offset by

‐2 ‐1 1 2 3

Mixed

0.5 1 1.5 2

Other

g y y net gains in longer-distance

‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions ‐1.5 ‐1 ‐0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 <‐‐ High Concentration ‐‐ Location Quotient Decile ‐‐ Low Concentration ‐‐> mean within region net migration mean net migration with other regions

moves

Does ethnic migration vary by deprivation? Does ethnic migration vary by deprivation?

• Positive correlation

between ethnic

Relationship between ethnic location quotient and deprivation

Whole System LQ Decile 1 LQ Decile 10 Correlation R² Correlation R² Correlation R²

between ethnic concentration and deprivation for some

White ‐0.61 0.37 ‐0.11 0.01 ‐0.59 0.35 Indian 0.28 0.08 0.38 0.14 0.13 0.02 POSA 0.55 0.30 0.65 0.42 0.26 0.07 Chinese 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.26 0.07

p non-White groups (Black, POSA, Mi d)

Black 0.48 0.23 0.51 0.26 0.19 0.04 Mixed 0.56 0.32 0.50 0.25 0.09 0.01 Other 0.22 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.34 0.11

4000

Mixed)

• Negative correlation

f Whit

‐10000 ‐8000 ‐6000 ‐4000 ‐2000 2000 Black Chinese Indian Mixed

Migration with same

for Whites

• Very similar net

i ti tt t

‐16000 ‐14000 ‐12000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Townsend Decile Other POSA White 0000

with same region

migration patterns to LQs for non-Whites – whites opposite

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Black Chinese Indian Mixed

Migration with other

whites, opposite

‐4000 ‐2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Townsend Decile Other POSA White

regions

Are system Are system-

• wide patterns replicated

wide patterns replicated ll i ? ll i ? across all regions? across all regions?

Aggregate net migration balances for wards with highest ethnic LQ quintile

Black Chinese Indian Mixed Other POSA White Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter Intra Inter E Midlands ‐147 164 ‐8 57 ‐414 82 ‐61 41 1 118 ‐174 74 ‐253 ‐526 E Midlands 147 164 8 57 414 82 61 41 1 118 174 74 253 526 E of England ‐116 575 ‐30 ‐41 ‐47 32 ‐26 16 15 16 ‐64 99 128 ‐451 North East 6 ‐18 ‐25 15 ‐40 ‐31 ‐6 ‐14 ‐7 ‐59 ‐60 ‐84 ‐45 North West ‐223 295 18 127 ‐187 ‐14 ‐182 93 ‐6 ‐6 ‐565 ‐101 ‐223 ‐1618 South East ‐105 408 14 240 ‐215 257 33 61 22 42 ‐299 107 ‐554 ‐535 South West ‐5 34 ‐62 6 ‐67 86 107 20 ‐17 ‐39 17 ‐293 ‐30 W Midlands ‐499 221 76 163 ‐1226 ‐410 ‐369 107 6 118 ‐750 163 574 ‐1572

• Variation across all regions although areas of highest LQ for all non

Wales ‐19 22 ‐14 13 47 64 3 ‐11 5 8 ‐14 7 189 ‐345 Yorks & Hum ‐171 ‐40 15 22 ‐164 ‐166 ‐145 100 59 12 ‐665 ‐99 989 ‐995

• Variation across all regions, although areas of highest LQ for all non-

White ethnic groups exhibiting most migrant activity

• Lowest LQ quintile experiencing average 13 migrants moving in non-

White groups – most migrant activity for Whites. Selected wards in White groups most migrant activity for Whites. Selected wards in Wales losing White migrants to other regions but gaining from rest of Wales – opposite to national picture

Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions

• There are distinct variations between ethnic minority

migration propensities and significant differences migration propensities and significant differences between the migration churn patterns of whites and non- white groups g

• Net migration is considerably more effective in

redistributing ethnic minority than white populations, particularly for Blacks particularly for Blacks

• White migrants are leaving districts with low white

population concentrations in overall net terms whereas population concentrations in overall net terms whereas the non-White groups (except Chinese) are leaving districts with high concentrations of their own ethnicity Bi i h i h ll d di i i GB f

• Birmingham is the most well-connected district in GB for

most ethnic groups

• Indians and Chinese move the furthest on average in
• Indians and Chinese move the furthest on average in

London and have the lowest distance decay parameters

Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions

• The relationship at ward level outside London (in 67

The relationship at ward level outside London (in 67 districts identified) between net migration and ethnic population concentration differs according to whether the migrants are moving within or between regions N Whit i t i t f f hi h

• Non-White migrants moving out of areas of high

concentration when moves are within region, moving into areas of high concentration when moves into areas of high concentration when moves between regions. Opposite is true of Whites.

• Ethnic group net migration (within and between

g p g ( regions) by location quotient also varies by region – patterns are complex

Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions

• Relatively high correlation between deprivation and

high ethnic concentration for Black, POSA and Mi d t i ti tt i il t Mixed groups – net migration patterns similar to those associated with LQs Whit hibit ti l ti b t

• Whites exhibit negative correlation between

deprivation and LQ – net migration patterns vary accordingly with high net in migration to deprived accordingly with high net in-migration to deprived wards from other regions (students) and net out- migration to areas in same region migration to areas in same region

Contact details Contact details Contact details Contact details

J h Still ll John Stillwell j.c.h.stillwell@leeds.ac.uk j @ Adam Dennett Adam Dennett a.r.dennett@leeds.ac.uk CIDER CIDER www.census.ac.uk/cider

Net migration (ward to same region), Indian Net migration (ward to same region), Indian g ( g ) g ( g )

Net migration (ward to other regions) Indian Net migration (ward to other regions) Indian Net migration (ward to other regions), Indian Net migration (ward to other regions), Indian

Net migration (ward to same region), Net migration (ward to same region), Black Black

Net migration (ward to other regions), Net migration (ward to other regions), Black Black