INTERNAL MIGRATION BY ETHNICITY A LONDON WARDLEVEL STUDY

INTERNAL MIGRATION BY ETHNICITY: A LONDON WARD-LEVEL STUDY John Stillwell School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS 2 9 JT Paper prepared for the UPTAP/BURISA Workshop on ‘Migration and Ethnicity’, City Hall, London, 26 September 2008

Presentation: three research questions • • • How do migration propensities vary between ethnic groups in London and how does London compare with Britain as a whole? What spatial patterns of ethnic net migration are evident in London at the ward level and does the geographical variation tell us anything about processes of ethnic concentration or dispersal? Is there any evidence in London of ethnic groups moving away or towards areas of ethnic concentration and from areas of higher deprivation?

Data at ward scale • Special Migration Statistics provide two tables on migrants: - Age by sex (Table MG 201) - Ethnic group by sex (Table MG 203) • No breakdown of ethnic group by age • Thus tables commissioned from ONS including: CO 711: District-district matrix CO 723: in two parts - Part 1: ward to region flows - Part 2: region to ward flows both for 7 age groups (0 -15, 16 -19, 20 -24, 25 -29, 30 -44, 45 -59, 60+) for 7 ethnic groups

Ethnic groups used in study Label used in paper Ethnic group defined in Special Migration Statistics (Level 1) Ethnic group defined in Key Statistics White British; White Irish; Other White Indian POSA Pakistani and Other South Asian Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian Chinese Black Caribbean, 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

Example of the commissioned data: Table CO 723 Part 1

How consistent are the commissioned data for flows between wards within London? Ethnic group Inflow to London wards Outflow from London wards Difference White 444, 001 444, 000 1 Indian 30, 551 30, 595 -44 POSA 40, 569 40, 600 -31 8, 523 8, 443 80 Black 79, 858 79, 759 99 Mixed 24, 572 24, 526 46 Other 13, 767 13, 672 95 Total 641, 841 641, 595 246 0 -15 110, 250 110, 306 -56 16 -19 26, 884 26, 895 -11 20 -24 104, 043 103, 959 84 25 -29 143, 046 143, 005 41 30 -44 186, 224 186, 195 29 45 -59 41, 664 41, 587 77 60+ 29, 730 29, 648 82 641, 841 641, 595 246 Chinese Age group Total

London’s ethnic population, 2001 % in Population London share of % in GB GB population Io. S* GB Io. S* London White 5, 103, 203 71. 2 91. 9 9. 7 0. 53 0. 36 Indian 436, 993 6. 1 1. 8 41. 5 0. 57 0. 40 POSA 429, 700 6. 0 2. 2 33. 6 0. 56 0. 45 80, 201 1. 1 0. 4 33. 0 0. 32 0. 31 Black 782, 849 10. 9 2. 0 68. 2 0. 65 0. 32 Mixed 226, 111 3. 2 1. 2 33. 6 0. 34 0. 21 Other 113, 034 1. 6 0. 4 49. 3 0. 44 0. 32 Total 7, 172, 091 100 12. 6 Chinese * Index of segregation = 0. 5 ∑|Pie/P*e- Pir/P*r| computed at district level

Non-white populations, 2001 GB London

London’s ethnic population by borough, 2001

White location quotients, London wards, 2001 Location quotient = (Pie/Pi)/(Pe/P**) >1 is over-representation

Non-white location quotients, London wards, 2001 Indian Black POSA Mixed Chinese Other

Mean location quotients of ethnic groups by quintile

London’s ethnic migration, 2000 -01 Ethnic group White Flows* within London 444, 000 Inflows to London from R of GB 124, 337 Outflows from London to R of GB 169, 116 Net flows for London with R of GB -44, 779 Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other Total 30, 573 40, 585 8, 483 79, 809 24, 549 13, 720 641, 718 6, 074 4, 093 2, 227 5, 091 3, 517 1, 884 147, 223 7, 033 5, 642 2, 071 9, 413 5, 357 1, 885 200, 487 -959 -1, 549 156 -4, 322 -1, 840 297 -53, 264 * Average of the inflows and outflows from Table C 0723

How consistent are CO 723 with SMS net flows between London and the rest of England Wales? Ethnic group From Table C 0723 From SMS Table MG 103 Absolute difference White -44, 779 -43, 918 861 Indian -959 -885 74 POSA -1, 549 -1, 525 24 156 353 197 Black -4, 322 -4, 456 134 Mixed -1, 840 -2, 071 231 Other 29 118 89 Total -53, 264 -52, 384 880 Chinese From SMS Table MG 203 White Non-white Total -44, 779 -44, 804 25 -8, 485 -8, 529 44 -53, 264 -53, 333 69

London’s gross and net migration by ethnic group, 2000 -01

Intra- and inter-district flows in GB and London, 2000 -01 GB London

London’s white inflows and outflows by age, 2000 -01

London’s non-white inflows and outflows by age, 2000 -01 INFLOWS OUTFLOWS

Migration rates, 2000 -01 Inflow, outflow and net flow rates are between London boroughs and rest of GB

Age-specific migration rates, 2000 -01 Within London Within GB

Flows within London by age and ethnic group, 2000 -01

Migration rates into and out of London, 2000 -01 Rates into London Rates out of London

Flows between London and the rest of GB Inflows to London Outflows from London

London’s migration at ward level 628 wards

Net migration by ward, whites, based on flows within Greater London

White net migration by ward, based on flows with the rest of England Wales

White immigrants by London ward

Patterns on non-white net migration within London Indian Black POSA Mixed Chinese Other

Within London 20 -24 >60 Outside London 20 -24 >60

Immigrants by London ward in 2000 -01 Indian POSA Chinese Black Mixed Other

Net migration rate by ethnic group and location quotient quintile Quintile 1 High location quotient/ Over-representation Quintile 5 Low location quotient/ Under-representation

Townsend index for London wards Quintile 1: least deprived Quintile 5: most deprived

Net migration by ethnic group and deprivation quintile

Net migration rate by ethnic group and deprivation quintile

Age-specific ethnic group net migration rates by deprivation quintile

Conclusions • There are significant variations in migration propensities by ethnic group and age but also for within, into and out of London migrants • Decomposing net migration balances into flows ‘within’ and ‘outside’ London exposes key processes of suburban decentralisation, outward dispersal and inward concentration • Non-white migration dispersing rather than concentrating non-white populations and all ethnic groups are moving from more deprived to less deprived areas

Contact j. c. h. stillwell@leeds. ac. uk Acknowledgements ESRC for Small Grant within the UPTAP programme (RES-163 -25 -0028) ONS Customer Services (Terry Familio) for commissioned data