1. Ethnic Population Distribution, Immigration and Internal Migration in Britain: What Evidence of Linkage at the District Scale? John Stillwell and Oliver Duke-Williams School of Geography, University of Leeds Presentation at the British Society for Population Studies Annual Conference at the University of Kent at Canterbury, 12-14 September 2005

2. Several big questions What differences are there in levels of spatial concentration of different ethnic groups? Are minority ethnic groups becoming more or less geographically concentrated/segregated? What are the spatial patterns of immigration? Is immigration fuelling processes of ethnic concentration? What are the patterns of internal migration of minority ethnic groups? Is there any relationship between non-white immigration and white internal migration? What evidence is there about linkage from the results of the 2001 Census?

3. Presentation Previous work – synopsis of context 2001 Census population and migration data – aggregate statistics Spatial patterns – ethnic distribution, immigration and internal migration Linkage – three questions Conclusions

4. Previous academic work: Literature Lots of it, both theoretical and empirical! Ethnic distribution: Peach (1996), Haskey (1996), Ratcliffe (1996), Phillips (1996), Peloe and Rees (1999), Johnston et al. (2003), Simpson (2004), Lupton and Power (2004)……. all on UK alone Immigration: Robinson (1992), Salt (1996), Musterd et al. (1998), nice overview of theory in Gorte et al. (1998) and plenty on policy no doubt Internal migration: Champion (various), Fielding (various), Stillwell (various), Rees (various), ….. and lots of others

5. What about studies of linkage? Not so many! A new paradigm for migration research might “best be achieved through intensive examination of how internal and international migrations are linked” (Skeldon, 1995) A few studies in Europe e.g. Korcelli (1994) on Poland; Stillwell et al. (1999) for EUROSTAT; Peach (1999) comparing New York and London Most evidence comes from USA: Butcher and Card (1991), Walker et al. (1992) White and Hunter (1993), Filer (1992), White and Liang (1994), Frey (1995, 1996), Wright et al. (1997), Ellis and Wright (1998), Frey and Liaw (1998), Peach (1999), Sassen (1991, 1994) …and others in last 5 years no doubt

6. Linkage in the USA ‘ Demographic balkanisation’ across broad regions is a “spatial segmentation of population by race-ethnicity, class, and age across broad regions, states, and metropolitan areas… driven by both immigration and long distance internal migration patterns” (Frey, 1996: 760) Ellis and Wright (1998) condemn Frey on racial grounds indicating that he is helping to “sustain an anti-immigrant, pro-Anglo-conformist agenda that many immigrants perceive as hostile to their language and culture” (Ellis and Wright, 1998: 694)

7. ‘Push’ and ‘Pull’ These studies and more recent empirical work has led to the theoretical debate between: -those who believe that immigration is fuelling ‘white flight’ (Frey’s ‘push’ hypothesis) and - those who believe that counterurbanisation is happening anyway and this is creating ‘vacancies/opportunities’ in cities that are filled by immigrants (Ellis and Wright’s ‘pull’ hypothesis)

8. 2001 Census population and migration data: aggregate statistics

9. 2001 Census data availability CASWEB WICID 2001 SMS Level 1 (District) Level 2 (Ward) 2001 Key Statistics Table KS6

10. Ethnic group Persons 2001 Number % Immigrants* Number % Internal migrants* Number % White52,481,200 91.9279,82470.15,510,66291.0 Indian 1,051,8441.821,0155.3103,4571.7 Pakistani & OSA 1,276,8922.221,2905.3131,6182.2 Chinese 243,2580.414,5443.635,7930.6 Black 1,147,5972.022,9215.7139,8112.3 Mixed 673,7961.212,6373.297,4491.6 Other 229,3240.427,1176.835,8780.6 Total 57,103,911100.0399,348100.06,054,668100.0 * during the 12 months prior to the census Sources: 2001 Census KS and SMS Population, immigration and internal migration by ethnic group, GB, 2001

11. Spatial system of 408 districts in GB: 33 London Boroughs 36 Metro Districts 100 Unitary Authorities and Council Areas 239 Local authorities

12. Ethnic group London Boroughs % Metro Districts % Unitary Authorities* % Other Local Authorities % Total % White9.718.529.342.4100 Indian41.523.819.315.3100 Pak & OSA33.736.917.212.2100 Chinese33.017.822.127.1100 Black68.214.49.08.3100 Mixed33.621.418.726.3100 Other49.313.016.621.1100 Total12.619.028.340.2100 Percentages of ethnic minority groups by type of local authority, 2001 * Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in ScotlandSource: 2001 Census KS

13. Ethnic group London Boroughs % Met Districts % Unitary Authorities* % Other Local Authorities % Total % White71.289.895.496.991.9 Indian6.12.31.30.71.8 Pak and OSA6.04.41.40.72.2 Chinese1.10.40.3 0.4 Black10.91.50.60.42.0 Mixed3.21.30.8 1.2 Other1.60.30.2 0.4 Total100 Percentages of populations of local authority types by ethnic group, 2001 * Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in ScotlandSource: 2001 Census KS

14. Ethnic group London Boroughs % Metropolitan Districts % Unitary Authorities* % Other Local Authorities % Total % White28.210.024.237.6100 Indian41.315.423.519.7100 Pak & OSA31.928.519.919.7100 Chinese22.620.824.931.7100 Black46.118.118.717.1100 Mixed32.415.021.531.1100 Other31.816.222.929.2100 Total30.312.723.533.5100 Percentages of immigrants by ethnic group and type of local authority, GB, 2000-01 * Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in ScotlandSource: 2001 Census SMS

15. Ethnic group London Boroughs % Metropolitan Districts % Unitary Authorities* % Other Local Authorities % Total % White65.255.172.378.570.1 Indian7.26.45.33.15.3 Pak & OSA5.612.04.53.15.3 Chinese2.76.03.93.43.6 Black8.78.24.62.95.7 Mixed3.43.72.9 3.2 Other7.18.66.65.96.8 Total100 Percentages of immigrants by local authority type and by ethnic group, GB, 2000-01 * Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in ScotlandSource: 2001 Census SMS

16. Internal migration between and within districts by ethnic group, 2000-01 Ethnic group Inter-district migration Share % Rate % Intra-district migration Share % Rate % White2,215,01090.44.23,295,65291.46.3 Indian50,9972.14.852,4601.55.0 Pak & OSA44,5671.83.587,0512.46.8 Chinese19,4760.88.016,3170.56.7 Black61,7482.55.478,0632.26.8 Mixed40,9301.76.156,5191.68.4 Other17,4980.77.618,3800.58.0 Total100.0 Source: 2001 Census SMS

17. Spatial patterns: ethnic distribution, immigration and internal migration

18. White and non-white populations by LA, 2001 Source: 2001 Census KS

19. Districts with either over 30% or under 0.6% non-white residents District% non-white Newham60.6 Brent54.7 Tower Hamlets48.6 Ealing41.3 Harrow41.2 Hackney40.6 Lambeth37.6 Southwark37.0 Redbridge36.5 Slough36.3 Leicester36.1 Waltham Forest35.5 Hounslow35.1 Haringey34.4 Lewisham34.1 District% non-white Eilean Siar0.6 Derwentside0.6 Ryedale0.6 Allerdale0.6 Scottish Borders0.6 Orkney Islands0.4 Eden0.4 Berwick-upon- Tweed0.4 Alnwick0.4 Isles of Scilly0.3 Source: 2001 Census KS

20. Indian Pakistani & OSA Black Chinese Mixed Other Source: 2001 Census KS

21. Indices of segregation by district type, 2001 Minority group London boroughs Metro districts Unitary authorities Other Local authorities All districts Indian0.41800.48860.60030.49000.5742 Pakistani and OSA0.35300.44800.50930.50160.5577 Chinese0.17460.26750.26890.24640.3198 Black0.32220.44990.54340.39120.6526 Mixed0.12560.24110.35010.19930.3353 Other0.24150.30570.29660.29250.4345 Index of 0 = no segregation; index of 1 = complete segregation

22. White and non-white immigration by LA, 2000-01 Source: 2001 Census SMS

23. IndianPakistani & OSA Black Chinese MixedOther Source: 2001 Census SMS

24. Net migration flows summed for type of local authority by ethnic group Ethnic group London boroughs Metropolitan districts Unitary authorities Other local authorities White-43,918-19,88015,12448,674 Indian-885-696760821 Pak & OSA-1,525125889511 Chinese35357-31-379 Black-4,45645223821,622 Mixed-2,071715831,417 Other11819114-251 Total-52,384-19,85219,82152,415 Source: 2001 Census SMS

25. Net migration balances for whites and non-whites WhiteNon-white Source: 2001 Census SMS

26. Indices of connectivity and inequality Ethnic group Connectivity index Inequality index White 0.6480.512 Indian 0.0450.839 Pakistani & OSA 0.0370.847 Chinese 0.0250.858 Black 0.0390.845 Mixed 0.0470.836 Other 0.0210.863 Total 0.6590.518 Connectivity index of 1 means migration flow between every pair of districts Inequality index of 0 means that migration flow between each pair of districts is the same

27. Linkage? Is immigration of different minority ethnic groups contributing to the process of their residential concentration? Are internal migration flows of minority ethnic groups associated with the accentuation of ethnic concentration or do they suggest processes of deconcentration? Is there any evidence to suggest a relationship between non-white immigration and white internal migration?

28. Indian Pakistani & OSA ChineseBlack Is immigration of different minority ethnic groups contributing to the process of their residential concentration? Plotting the top 100 local authorities ranked by the size of their respective ethnic populations against immigration Source: 2001 Census KS and SMS

29. Coefficients of correlation between ethnic population and immigration Ethnic group Ethnic count v Immigration count Ethnic share v Immigration count Ethnic count v Immigration rate Ethnic share v Immigration rate White0.404**-0.520** 0.034 -0.478** Indian0.838**0.804** 0.706**0.789** Pak and OSA0.891**0.712** 0.456**0.584** Chinese0.800**0.685** 0.515**0.734** Black 0.919**0.847** 0.818**0.868** Mixed 0.795**0.772** 0.422**0.643** Other 0.871**0.767** 0.692**0.798** ** significant at 0.01 level

30. Indian BlackWhite Pakistani Plots of ranked ethnic group share against internal net migration rate for selected minority ethnic groups Source: 2001 Census KS and SMS

31. Is there any evidence of linkage between non-white immigration and white net internal migration? Source: 2001 Census SMS

32. Conclusions Clear evidence of geographical patterns of ethnic concentration, immigration and internal migration at this spatial scale but clear evidence of linkage less compelling Some evidence to suggest that non-white immigration streams are reinforcing ethnic concentrations in metropolitan areas ….. but ethnic communities growing through natural increase Inclusion of students in the data sets is problematic because of different motivations that govern migration Some evidence of relationship between non-white immigration and white net migration for London boroughs and metropolitan areas but cant say that ‘non-white immigration is driving white out-migration’ More work needed to look in detail at patterns and relationships for particular cities