ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward scales John Stillwell and...

ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN:ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward Analyses of census data at district and ward

scalesscales

John Stillwell and Adam DennettJohn Stillwell and Adam DennettSchool of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds

LS2 9JTLS2 9JT

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

at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference, at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference, University of Manchester University of Manchester

26-28 August 200926-28 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)

• Serena Hussain - the researcher on the UPTAP project from June 2007 to June 2008

• Terry Familio - at ONS Customer Services for providing the commissioned data

PresentationPresentation

• Brief context• Aims and data used• Ethnic migration at national level: flows and rates• Ethnic migration at district level: churn,

effectiveness and spatial connectivity • 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

• Conclusions

Brief context

• Plenty of attention has been paid to migration in last few years

• Over 6 million people moved usual residence within Britain in 2000-01, of which less than 10% were non-white ethnic minorities

• Increasing number of research studies of ethnic internal migration: Champion (2005), Stillwell and Duke-Williams (2005), Finney and Simpson (2008, 2009), Simpson and Finney (2008, 2009), 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 distributing ethnic populations across GB

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

• 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

• To examine the relationship at ward level outside London between net migration and (i) ethnic population concentration and (ii) deprivation

Firstly…… something about dataFirstly…… 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 ethnic group by sex (Table MG203)

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

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

Ethnic groups usedEthnic groups usedLabel used in project

Ethnic group defined in Special Migration Statistics (Level 1)

Ethnic group defined in Key Statistics

White White White British; White Irish; Other White

Indian Indian Indian

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 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 decile across 408 districts2001 by decile 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 2000-01?GB during 2000-01?

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

* 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?

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

White Indian Pak andOSA

Chinese Black Mixed Other Total

Mir

gra

tio

n r

ates

(%

)

Inter-district

Intra-district

Total

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?

Churn = In-migration + out-migration + intra-migration

White flow White rate

Indian POSA Black

Churn: Three larger non-white groups Churn: Three larger non-white groups

Chinese Mixed Other

Churn: Three smaller non-white groupsChurn: Three smaller non-white groups

Net migration balances Net migration rates

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

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Total White Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other

Mig

rati

on

eff

ecti

ven

ess

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

White and White and non-Whitenon-Whitemigration migration effectivenesseffectiveness

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

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

outflows/inflows

White Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other

Connectivity scores between districts in Connectivity scores between districts in

Britain and London by ethnic groupBritain and London by ethnic group

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

Whites Blacks

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

• London is the major concentration of ethnic minorities in Britain and is the engine of the internal migration system

• Previous work at ward level shown that within London, areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities are losing ethnic minority migrants in net terms whereas areas of low concentration are gaining non-white migrants i.e. ethnic minorities are deconcentrating

• Migrants of all ethnic groups in London are moving from areas of higher to areas of low deprivation

• What is happening in provincial Britain?

Ethnic migration outside of LondonEthnic migration outside of London

• District level analysis revealed around 75% of migration activity outside London occurring in top two non-White location quotient deciles

• 67 districts in England and Wales – 1,455 ST Wards

Is there evidence of ethnic de-Is there evidence of ethnic de-concentration in provincial Britain? concentration in provincial Britain?

• Migration of each ethnic group examined from ward of origin to (i) region of destination (same region) and (ii) region of destination (other region) and vice versa

• Each ward ranked according to LQ of ethnic group

Mean location quotients by decile

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LQ Decile

Black

Chinese

Indian

Mixed

Other

POSA

White

Ward – Region net migration patternsWard – Region net migration patterns

When flows are with same region:• Aggregate net outflow of all

non-White groups from wards with highest LQs

• Large outflows of Whites from least concentrated areas, small inflow into most concentrated

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

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

ethnic groups (except Indian) into decile with highest LQs

• Large net inflow of Whites into areas with lowest White LQs – student migrants?

Net flows with same region

Net flows with other regions

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LQ Decile

Black

Chinese

Indian

Mixed

Other

POSA

White

-12000

-10000

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LQ Decile

Black

Chinese

Indian

Mixed

Other

POSA

White

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

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

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

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

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

<-- High Concentration -- Location Quotient Decile -- Low Concentration -->

White

mean within region net migration

mean net migration with other regions

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Indian



-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


POSA



-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Chinese



-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Black



-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Mixed



-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Other



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

Evidence of ethnic deconcentration from most concentratednon-White areaswhere moves are shorter distance – slightly offset by net gains in longer-distance moves

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

• Positive correlation between ethnic concentration and deprivation for some non-White groups (Black, POSA, Mixed)

• Negative correlation for Whites

• Very similar net migration patterns to LQs for non-Whites – whites, opposite

Relationship between ethnic location quotient and deprivation

Whole System LQ Decile 1 LQ Decile 10

Correlation R² Correlation R² Correlation R²

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

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

-16000

-14000

-12000

-10000

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Townsend Decile

Black

Chinese

Indian

Mixed

Other

POSA

White

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Townsend Decile

Black

Chinese

Indian

Mixed

Other

POSA

White

Migration with same region

Migration with other regions

Are system-wide patterns replicated Are system-wide patterns replicated across all regions?across all regions?

• 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 Wales losing White migrants to other regions but gaining from rest of Wales – opposite to national picture

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 of England -116 575 -30 -41 -47 32 -26 16 15 16 -64 99 128 -451

North East 6 -18 -25 15 -40 -31 0 -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 0 107 20 -17 -39 17 -293 -30

W Midlands -499 221 76 163 -1226 -410 -369 107 6 118 -750 163 574 -1572

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

Aggregate net migration balances for wards with highest ethnic LQ quintile

ConclusionsConclusions• There are distinct variations between ethnic minority

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

• Net migration is considerably more effective in redistributing ethnic minority than white populations, particularly for Blacks

• White migrants are leaving districts with low white population concentrations in overall net terms whereas the non-White groups (except Chinese) are leaving districts with high concentrations of their own ethnicity

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

• Indians and Chinese move the furthest on average in London and have the lowest distance decay parameters

ConclusionsConclusions

• 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

• Non-White migrants moving out of areas of high concentration when moves are within region, moving into areas of high concentration when moves between regions. Opposite is true of Whites.

• Ethnic group net migration (within and between regions) by location quotient also varies by region – patterns are complex

ConclusionsConclusions

• Relatively high correlation between deprivation and high ethnic concentration for Black, POSA and Mixed groups – net migration patterns similar to those associated with LQs

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

Contact detailsContact details

John [email protected]

Adam [email protected]

CIDERwww.census.ac.uk/cider

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.census.ac.uk/cider

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

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

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

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

ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward scales John Stillwell and...

Documents

Transcript of ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward scales John Stillwell and...