ETHNIC MIGRATION IN BRITAIN: Analyses of census data at district and ward scales John Stillwell and Adam Dennett School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT Presentation at the Session on ‘Migration, Mixing and Ethnic Integration’ at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference, University of Manchester August 2009

Acknowledgements ESRC Small Grant within the UPTAP programme entitled ‘Internal Migration of Britain’s Ethnic Groups’ (RES ) ESRC Census Programme grant to the Centre for Interaction Data Estimation and Research CIDER (RES ) 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

Presentation 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 , 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 data All data used come from 2001 Census and refer to the 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 used Label used in project Ethnic group defined in Special Migration Statistics (Level 1) Ethnic group defined in Key Statistics White White British; White Irish; Other White Indian POSAPakistani and Other South Asian Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian Chinese BlackCaribbean, African, Black British and Black Other Caribbean; African; Other Black Mixed White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Other mixed Other

Ethnic population concentration: location quotients in 2001 by decile across 408 districts Location Quotient: LQ ie = (P ie /P i* )/(P e* /P ** ) Concentration relative to national average Mean LQ e = Σ i LQ ie / Number of districts

How much ethnic group migration occurred in GB during ? Ethnic group Inter-districtIntra-districtTotal migrants* Number% % % White2,215, ,295, ,510, Black61, , , POSA44, , , Indian50, , , Mixed40, , , Other17, , , Chinese19, , , Total2,450, ,604, ,054, * Excludes persons with no usual address 12 months previously (456,736 in total) Source: Special Migration Statistics

Do migration rates vary by ethnic group? Source: Special Migration Statistics Table MG103 and Standard Table

Are there age variations in migration rates and shares by ethnic group? Source: Commissioned Table CO711

How concentrated is migration by ethnic group: migration churn by district? Churn = In-migration + out-migration + intra-migration White flow White rate

IndianPOSABlack Churn: Three larger non-white groups

Chinese Mixed Other Churn: Three smaller non-white groups

Net migration balances Net migration rates How does net migration vary by LQ decile?

How does migration effectiveness vary between ethnic groups? Migration effectiveness is computed as 100(∑|D i -O i |/ ∑|D i +O i |) where D i is in-migration and O i is out-migration for district i

White and non-White migration effectiveness White and non-White migration effectiveness (D i -O i )/(D i +O i )*100

Ethnic migration effectiveness ranked by district

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 Britain and London by ethnic group

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

Mean migration distance and frictional effect of distance 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 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- 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

Ward – 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

Net migration (ward to same region), White

Net migration (ward to other regions), White

Net migration (ward to same region), POSA

Net migration (ward to other regions), POSA

Ethnic group net migration by LQ decile Evidence of ethnic deconcentration from most concentrated non-White areas where moves are shorter distance – slightly offset by net gains in longer-distance moves

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 SystemLQ Decile 1LQ Decile 10 CorrelationR²CorrelationR²CorrelationR² White Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other Migration with same region Migration with other regions

Are system-wide patterns replicated 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 BlackChineseIndianMixedOtherPOSAWhite IntraInterIntraInterIntraInterIntraInterIntraInterIntraInterIntraInter E Midlands E of England North East North West South East South West W Midlands Wales Yorks & Hum Aggregate net migration balances for wards with highest ethnic LQ quintile

Conclusions 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

Conclusions 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

Conclusions 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 details John Stillwell Adam Dennett CIDER

Net migration (ward to same region), Indian

Net migration (ward to other regions), Indian

Net migration (ward to same region), Black

Net migration (ward to other regions), Black