1. Nissa Finney (University of Manchester)
Subnational migration and life stage: ethnicity and young adult migration in Britain
Nissa Finney
(University of Manchester)
This paper presents emerging ideas and results from work about ethnic differences in internal migration for young adults.
It builds on work I’ve done with Ludi Simpson on ethnic differences in internal migration for the whole population.
It is very much work in progress so I welcome any ideas and suggestions that you have.
I’m grateful to the ESRC for funding the Fellowship under which I’m doing this research, via the UPTAP programme.
BSPS 2008

2. Questions for today
Are there ethnic differences in young adults’ propensity to migrate?
What are the determinants of migration (and how important is ethnicity)?
What are the patterns of migration for different types of places?
Data for each question: SAR for 1 and 2; MRPD estimates for 3.

3. Why young adults? Most mobile life stage for all ethnic groups
Migration linked to several life course events – study, first job/career, partnerships, family formation (Kley, Mulder)
Ethnic differences in ‘transition to adulthood’ migration (Milewski (TIES), de Valk)
Theory that migrant/minority groups stay longer in the family home
Gender differences may be greater for minority groups

4. Why ethnic differences?
Greatest differences between ethnic groups’ migration propensities in young adulthood (Finney & Simpson, Stillwell & Hussain)
Age at which there is a decrease in residential segregation (Sabater)
Young adult migration distinguishable from other age groups….

5. Migration correlations at each age18 30
85+
Negative correlations between ages and all other ages. 18 30
Source: CCSR net migration estimates, districts of GB
85+

6. Residential segregation
Age effect: (ethnic) differences in migration patterns in young adulthood can always be expected
Cohort effect: beginnings of an ‘integrated generation’?
In terms of segregation debates in Britain, understanding ethnic differences in migration can inform understandings of residential segregation.

7. Previous UK Findings: Ethnic differences
Crude internal migration rates are higher for Chinese, Caribbean, African, Pakistani and Bangladeshi than for White British
Differences in migration propensities are largely explained by socio-economic characteristics: after controlling for various characteristics Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Caribbean have significantly lower odds of migrating than White Britons
Dispersal and suburbanisation are common experiences
Chinese have most distinct geographies of migration e.g. migration away from rural areas
British Muslims desire affordable housing in ethnically mixed, safe neighbourhoods
Recently a number of studies have looked at ethnic differences in internal migration. Qualitative work has also considered the housing aspirations and opportunities of minority populations.
Finney & Simpson 08, Simpson & Finney 08, Stillwell & Hussain 08, Phillips 06

8. Migration data: age and ethnicity
Census 2001 (Migration ):
commissioned tables (CO772, CO711, CO723)
Microdata (SAR, SAM, CAM)
Migration Estimates:
CCSR (Net migration )
Raymer/Southampton
One of the challenges for looking at internal migration by ethnic group and age is data requirements.
Many potential datasets cannot be used because of insufficient sample size or inappropriate populations.
This leaves the Census or estimates.
Census published tables don’t give age and ethnicity but there are several recently commissioned tables (UofMch, UofLeeds, IoE) that have some geography, age grouping and ethnic groups. Microdata is also a very useful source, though the readily available data only has small areas for destinations and not origins. I’ll present some work using the SAR. Census data gives migration since one year prior to census day.
CCSR has produced net migration estimates by syoa, sex and ethnic group for districts and wards in Britain. The estimates include internal and international migration together for the intercensal decade I’ll present some results from these estimates.
James Raymer at Southampton has modelled migration for ethnic groups and age by combining census data and patient records.

9. Ethnic group population composition (GB)
To set the context, this shows the proportion of the 2001 population aged in each ethnic group and the same for the total population. Census SAR; GB; ages
For young adults, 16% are not White British whereas for the total population 12% are not White British. Young adults are more ethnically diverse than the whole population. Largest groups are White Other, Indian and Pakistani.
Source: SAR 2001

10. 1. Propensity to Migrate 01 SAR, GB, Pop age 16-29
For all groups except for White Other most young adults didn’t move in the year prior to the Census.
Ethnic differences exist: internal migration lowest for Bangladeshi and Pakistani and highest for Whites, African and Chinese.
Few gender differences but interestingly females in the south asian groups are more mobile than males.
01 SAR, GB, Pop age 16-29

11. 2. Determinants of Migration
Odds ratios of Migrating within UK (non-significant values not shown)
Ethnic group (Ref: White British)
Children (Ref: Dependent Children)
Marital Status (Ref: Single)
Health (Ref: No LLTI)
Tenure (Ref: Mortgage)
The results are largely the same as a very similar regression for the whole population reported in Finney and Simpson (08) – copies available.
However there are some interesting differences:
1. ETHNICITY:
Indian young adults are less mobile in relation to whites than the whole Indian population (whole pop coeff 0.81)
Pakistani and Bangladeshi young adults are more mobile in relation to whites than the whole Pakistani and Bangladeshi population (whole pop coeff 0.50, 0.59)
Other S Asian, African and Other are significantly different from White British for whole population (less mobile) but not for young adults
Chinese young adults are significantly less mobile than White British young adults but for the whole population there is no significant difference
2. TENURE
For young adults if you’re a social renter or part mortgage/part renter you’re more mobile than mortgage holders but for the whole population you’re less mobile than mortgage holders.
Young adult private renters are more mobile in relation to mortgage holders than when the whole population is considered (coeff 1.35)
3. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
For young adults, students are less mobile than those employed full time but for the whole population, students are more mobile than employed. [????]
4. SEX
For young adults, females are more mobile than males but for the whole population, males are more mobile than females.
Not Significantly different from the reference (0.05 or higher): Own outright, Other qualifications, Widowed; White Irish, Mixed, Other S Asian, African. Other Black and Other ethnic groups.
This graph can be thought of as an interaction between age and the other variables.
Qualifications (Ref: GCSEs)
R square: 0.21
01 SAR, GB,
Pop age 16-29
Economic Activity (Ref: Employed Full Time)
Sex (Ref: Male)

12. Total net migration by age for minority concentrations
3. Migration & area type
Total net migration by age for minority concentrations
Minorities
Whites
Source: CCSR estimates, districts of GB
So we’ve looked at how much young adults migrate and the characteristics of those who migrate. Now let’s look at where young adults move.
What I’ll present uses CCSR net migration estimates for the decade The figures are international and internal migration together.
I’ll look at places in two ways: in terms of minority concentration and in terms of urban-ness.
This graph shows net migration for each age for minority concentrations. There is a very clear pattern that both minorities and whites young adults are moving into these districts whilst other ages are moving out.

13. Minority population or urban-ness?
Bristol
East Riding of Yorkshire
But it’s difficult to unpick whether this pattern is to do with minority population of an area, or urban-ness, given that minorities live disproportionately in urban areas.
The migration profile for Bristol – an urban area and a student area – is very similar to the one for minority concentrations.
In contrast, the rural district of the East Riding of Yorkshire shows the opposite shape.

14. Minority concentration
Urban-ness
Net Migration as a % of mid-decade (91-01) population
Let’s look at net migration for a gradient of minority concentration, for young adults.
White are moving out of the most white areas and into the areas of highest minority concentration.
Minorities show a similar gradient: in-migration is least in the highest concentration and most in the whitest areas.
This points to patterns of dispersal that have been observed for all ethnic groups when all ages are taken together.
But this dispersal could be suburbanisation.
If we look at whites, urbanisation is clear for young adults.
However, the gradient is not found for minorities. Instead, in-migration rates are highest in the most rural areas and lowest in the urban areas.
Is this White urbanisation and minority counterurbanisation for young adults? Or a quirk of the categories or population sizes?
Problem that figures include international and internal migration.
Urban-ness uses DEFRA/ONS 2004 classification (morphology)
When student wards defined as those with over 16.7% of their population aged who were students in 2001 (2 standard deviations above the mean) the effects of students seem minimal – patterns are the same.
CCSR estimates, wards, E&W, pop age 19-30

15. Issues arising Need to examine patterns for more refined:
age groups
ethnic groups
geographies
How can student movement be accounted for?

16. Concluding points For young adults:
There are ethnic differences in propensities to migrate but they are largely accounted for by personal characteristics
Accounting for characteristics, South Asian, Caribbean and Chinese move less than White British. For the whole population Chinese are no different from White British and Pakistani and Bangladeshi are even less mobile than White Britons
Female young adults are more mobile than males
Urbanisation of whites but counterurbanisation of minorities, contrary to common experiences for the whole population?
Further investigation requires new data (e.g. SAM/CAM or commissioned tables) and models that take account of geographical distribution of ethnic groups