Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ethnic Population Distribution, Ethnic Population Distribution, Immigration and Internal Migration in Immigration and Internal Migration in
Britain: What Evidence of Linkage at the Britain: What Evidence of Linkage at the District Scale?District Scale?
John Stillwell and Oliver Duke-WilliamsSchool 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
Several big questionsSeveral 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?
PresentationPresentation
• 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
Previous academic work: LiteraturePrevious 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
What about studies of linkage?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
Linkage in the USALinkage 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)
‘‘Push’ and ‘Pull’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)
2001 Census population and 2001 Census population and migration data: aggregate statisticsmigration data: aggregate statistics
2001 Census data availability2001 Census data availabilityCASWEB
WICID
2001 SMS
Level 1(District)
Level 2 (Ward)
2001 KeyStatistics
Table KS6
Ethnic group Persons 2001Number %
Immigrants*Number %
Internal migrants*Number %
White 52,481,200 91.9 279,824 70.1 5,510,662 91.0
Indian 1,051,844 1.8 21,015 5.3 103,457 1.7
Pakistani & OSA 1,276,892 2.2 21,290 5.3 131,618 2.2
Chinese 243,258 0.4 14,544 3.6 35,793 0.6
Black 1,147,597 2.0 22,921 5.7 139,811 2.3
Mixed 673,796 1.2 12,637 3.2 97,449 1.6
Other 229,324 0.4 27,117 6.8 35,878 0.6
Total 57,103,911 100.0 399,348 100.0 6,054,668 100.0
* during the 12 months prior to the census Sources: 2001 Census KS and SMS
Population, immigration and internal migration by ethnic Population, immigration and internal migration by ethnic group, GB, 2001group, GB, 2001
Spatial systemSpatial systemof 408 districts in of 408 districts in GB:GB:
33 London Boroughs36 Metro Districts100 Unitary Authorities and Council Areas239 Local authorities
Ethnic group
London Boroughs
%
Metro Districts
%
Unitary Authorities*
%
Other Local Authorities
%Total
%
White 9.7 18.5 29.3 42.4 100
Indian 41.5 23.8 19.3 15.3 100
Pak & OSA 33.7 36.9 17.2 12.2 100
Chinese 33.0 17.8 22.1 27.1 100
Black 68.2 14.4 9.0 8.3 100
Mixed 33.6 21.4 18.7 26.3 100
Other 49.3 13.0 16.6 21.1 100
Total 12.6 19.0 28.3 40.2 100
Percentages of ethnic minority groups by type of Percentages of ethnic minority groups by type of local authority, 2001local authority, 2001
* Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in Scotland Source: 2001 Census KS
Ethnic group
London Boroughs
%
Met Districts
%
Unitary Authorities*
%
Other Local
Authorities%
Total%
White 71.2 89.8 95.4 96.9 91.9
Indian 6.1 2.3 1.3 0.7 1.8
Pak and OSA 6.0 4.4 1.4 0.7 2.2
Chinese 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
Black 10.9 1.5 0.6 0.4 2.0
Mixed 3.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.2
Other 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Percentages of populations of local authority Percentages of populations of local authority types by ethnic group, 2001types by ethnic group, 2001
* Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in Scotland Source: 2001 Census KS
Ethnic group
London Boroughs
%
Metropolitan Districts
%
Unitary Authorities*
%
Other Local
Authorities%
Total%
White 28.2 10.0 24.2 37.6 100
Indian 41.3 15.4 23.5 19.7 100
Pak & OSA 31.9 28.5 19.9 19.7 100
Chinese 22.6 20.8 24.9 31.7 100
Black 46.1 18.1 18.7 17.1 100
Mixed 32.4 15.0 21.5 31.1 100
Other 31.8 16.2 22.9 29.2 100
Total 30.3 12.7 23.5 33.5 100
Percentages of immigrants by ethnic group Percentages of immigrants by ethnic group and type of local authority, GB, 2000-01and type of local authority, GB, 2000-01
* Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in Scotland Source: 2001 Census SMS
Ethnic group
London Boroughs
%
Metropolitan Districts
%
Unitary Authorities*
%
Other Local
Authorities%
Total%
White 65.2 55.1 72.3 78.5 70.1
Indian 7.2 6.4 5.3 3.1 5.3
Pak & OSA 5.6 12.0 4.5 3.1 5.3
Chinese 2.7 6.0 3.9 3.4 3.6
Black 8.7 8.2 4.6 2.9 5.7
Mixed 3.4 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.2
Other 7.1 8.6 6.6 5.9 6.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Percentages of immigrants by local authority Percentages of immigrants by local authority type and by ethnic group, GB, 2000-01type and by ethnic group, GB, 2000-01
* Unitary Authorities include Council Areas in Scotland Source: 2001 Census SMS
Internal migration between and within districts by Internal migration between and within districts by ethnic group, 2000-01ethnic group, 2000-01
Ethnic groupInter-district
migration Share
%Rate%
Intra-district migration
Share %
Rate %
White 2,215,010 90.4 4.2 3,295,652 91.4 6.3
Indian 50,997 2.1 4.8 52,460 1.5 5.0
Pak & OSA 44,567 1.8 3.5 87,051 2.4 6.8
Chinese 19,476 0.8 8.0 16,317 0.5 6.7
Black 61,748 2.5 5.4 78,063 2.2 6.8
Mixed 40,930 1.7 6.1 56,519 1.6 8.4
Other 17,498 0.7 7.6 18,380 0.5 8.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: 2001 Census SMS
Spatial patterns:Spatial patterns:ethnic distribution, immigration ethnic distribution, immigration
and internal migrationand internal migration
White and non-white populations by LA, 2001White and non-white populations by LA, 2001
Source: 2001 Census KS
Districts with either Districts with either over 30% or under 0.6% over 30% or under 0.6% non-white residentsnon-white residents
District % non-white
Newham 60.6
Brent 54.7
Tower Hamlets 48.6
Ealing 41.3
Harrow 41.2
Hackney 40.6
Lambeth 37.6
Southwark 37.0
Redbridge 36.5
Slough 36.3
Leicester 36.1
Waltham Forest 35.5
Hounslow 35.1
Haringey 34.4
Lewisham 34.1
District % non-white
Eilean Siar 0.6
Derwentside 0.6
Ryedale 0.6
Allerdale 0.6
Scottish Borders 0.6
Orkney Islands 0.4
Eden 0.4
Berwick-upon-Tweed 0.4
Alnwick 0.4
Isles of Scilly 0.3
Source: 2001 Census KS
Indian
Indian Pakistani & OSA
Black
Chinese Mixed Other
Source: 2001 Census KS
Indices of segregation by district type, 2001Indices of segregation by district type, 2001
Minority group
London boroughs
Metro districts
Unitary authorities
Other Local authorities
All districts
Indian 0.4180 0.4886 0.6003 0.4900 0.5742
Pakistani and OSA 0.3530 0.4480 0.5093 0.5016 0.5577
Chinese 0.1746 0.2675 0.2689 0.2464 0.3198
Black 0.3222 0.4499 0.5434 0.3912 0.6526
Mixed 0.1256 0.2411 0.3501 0.1993 0.3353
Other 0.2415 0.3057 0.2966 0.2925 0.4345
Index of 0 = no segregation; index of 1 = complete segregation
White and non-white immigration by LA, 2000-01White and non-white immigration by LA, 2000-01
Source: 2001 Census SMS
Indian Pakistani& OSA
Black
Chinese Mixed Other
Source: 2001 Census SMS
Net migration flows summed for type of Net migration flows summed for type of local authority by ethnic grouplocal authority by ethnic group
Ethnic groupLondon
boroughsMetropolitan
districtsUnitary
authoritiesOther local authorities
White -43,918 -19,880 15,124 48,674
Indian -885 -696 760 821
Pak & OSA -1,525 125 889 511
Chinese 353 57 -31 -379
Black -4,456 452 2382 1,622
Mixed -2,071 71 583 1,417
Other 118 19 114 -251
Total -52,384 -19,852 19,821 52,415
Source: 2001 Census SMS
Net migration balances for whites and non-whitesNet migration balances for whites and non-whites
White Non-white
Source: 2001 Census SMS
Indices of connectivity and inequalityIndices of connectivity and inequality
Ethnic groupConnectivity
index Inequality
index
White 0.648 0.512
Indian 0.045 0.839
Pakistani & OSA 0.037 0.847
Chinese 0.025 0.858
Black 0.039 0.845
Mixed 0.047 0.836
Other 0.021 0.863
Total 0.659 0.518
Connectivity index of 1 means migration flow between every pair of districtsInequality index of 0 means that migration flow between each pair of districts is the same
Linkage?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?
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 02 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 03 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 04 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 05 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 06 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 09 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 01 0 1
Top 100 local authorities ranked
Nu
mb
er
Population
Immigration
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 01 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 03 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 04 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 05 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 06 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 07 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 08 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 01 0 11 0 2
Top 100 local authorities ranked
Nu
mb
er
Population
Immigration
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 01 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 02 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 03 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 04 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 05 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 06 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 07 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 08 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 09 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 01 0 11 0 2
Top 100 local authorities ranked
Nu
mb
er
Population
Immigration
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 01 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 02 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 03 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 04 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 05 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 06 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 07 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 08 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 09 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 01 0 11 0 2
Top 100 local authorities ranked
Nu
mb
er
Population
Im m igration
Indian Pakistani & OSA
Chinese Black
Is immigration Is immigration of different of different minority ethnic minority ethnic groups groups contributing to contributing to the process of the process of their residential their residential concentration?concentration?
Plotting the top100 local authoritiesranked by the size of their respective ethnic populations against immigration
Source: 2001 Census KS and SMS
Coefficients of correlation between ethnic Coefficients of correlation between ethnic population and immigrationpopulation and immigration
Ethnic groupEthnic count v
Immigration count
Ethnic share v
Immigration count
Ethnic count v
Immigration rate
Ethnic sharev
Immigration rate
White 0.404** -0.520** 0.034 -0.478**
Indian 0.838** 0.804** 0.706** 0.789**
Pak and OSA 0.891** 0.712** 0.456** 0.584**
Chinese 0.800** 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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30Le
ices
ter
Har
row
Bre
ntH
ouns
low
Eal
ing
Slo
ugh
Red
brid
geW
olve
rham
pton
New
ham
Oad
by a
nd W
igst
onB
lack
burn
with
Dar
wen
Hilli
ngdo
nS
andw
ell
Pre
ston
Bar
net
Cov
entr
yG
rave
sham
Cro
ydon
Bol
ton
Birm
ingh
amW
alsa
llC
harn
woo
dC
raw
ley
Gre
enw
ich
Bed
ford
Mer
ton
War
wic
kLu
ton
Kirk
lees
District w ith over 4% Indian
% s
har
e
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Net
mig
rati
on
rat
e
% share
Net migration rate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Tow
er H
amle
tsN
ewha
mB
radf
ord
Luto
nS
loug
hP
endl
eB
irmin
gham
Wal
tham
For
est
Old
ham
Red
brid
geB
lack
burn
with
Dar
wen
Roc
hdal
eB
rent
Cam
den
Eal
ing
Har
row
Man
ches
ter
Hou
nslo
wK
irkle
esH
yndb
urn
Mer
ton
Bur
nley
Wyc
ombe
Wat
ford
Wes
tmin
ster
Cal
derd
ale
Pet
erbo
roug
hW
alsa
llC
royd
onS
andw
ell
Hac
kney
Wok
ing
City
of L
ondo
nD
erby
Not
tingh
amLe
ices
ter
Kin
gsto
n up
on T
ham
esW
ands
wor
thH
illing
don
Districts with over 4% Pakistani and OSA
% s
har
e
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Net
mig
rati
on
rat
e
% share
Net migration rate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sou
thw
ark
Lam
beth
Hac
kney
Lew
isha
mN
ewha
mH
arin
gey
Bre
ntW
alth
am F
ores
tC
royd
onIs
lingt
onH
amm
ersm
ith a
nd F
ulha
mG
reen
wic
hE
nfie
ldW
ands
wor
thE
alin
gC
amde
nM
erto
nR
edbr
idge
Wes
tmin
ster
Bar
king
and
Dag
enha
mK
ensi
ngto
n an
d C
hels
eaT
ower
Ham
lets
Luto
nH
arro
wB
irmin
gham
Bar
net
Slo
ugh
Wol
verh
ampt
onM
anch
este
rH
ouns
low
Not
tingh
amR
eadi
ng
Districts with over 4% black
% s
har
e
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8N
et m
igra
tio
n r
ate
% share
Net migration rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pet
erbo
roug
hG
rave
sham
Cam
brid
geS
utto
nB
olto
nR
ochd
ale
Cra
wle
yW
ycom
beD
erby
Oxf
ord
Bed
ford
Rea
ding
Wal
sall
Old
ham
Wat
ford
Kirk
lees
Pre
ston
Bar
king
and
Dag
enha
mP
endl
eN
ottin
gham
City
of L
ondo
nK
ings
ton
upon
Tha
mes
Oad
by a
nd W
igst
onC
oven
try
Man
ches
ter
San
dwel
lH
illing
don
Ken
sing
ton
and
Bra
dfor
dW
ands
wor
thB
lack
burn
with
Dar
wen
Ham
mer
smith
and
Wol
verh
ampt
onG
reen
wic
hE
nfie
ldIs
lingt
onM
erto
nB
arne
tW
estm
inst
erC
amde
nLu
ton
Birm
ingh
amC
royd
onLe
wis
ham
Har
inge
yH
ouns
low
Wal
tham
For
est
Leic
este
rS
loug
hR
edbr
idge
Sou
thw
ark
Lam
beth
Hac
kney
Har
row
Eal
ing
Tow
er H
amle
tsB
rent
New
ham
Districts with less that 10% white
% s
har
e
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Net
mig
rati
on
rat
e
% share
Net migration rate
Indian
Black White
Pakistani
Plots of ranked ethnic group share against internal net Plots of ranked ethnic group share against internal net migration rate for selected minority ethnic groupsmigration rate for selected minority ethnic groups
Source: 2001 Census KS and SMS
Is there any evidence of linkage between non-white Is there any evidence of linkage between non-white immigration and white net internal migration?immigration and white net internal migration?
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111
Districts with over 5% non-white
Th
ou
sa
nd
s
Non-white immigration
White net migration
Source: 2001 Census SMS
ConclusionsConclusions• 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
