English cities and regions:
the importance of migration in
patterns of growth or decline
Acknowledgements
CURDS colleagues: Tony Champion
Simon Raybould
Colin Wymer
Funding: *preliminary results, not to be quoted*
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Census Programme)
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (New Horizons)
Structure of the talk
•
•
•
•
•
Why is migration important?
What are the main trends in recent years?
How far can Census data give the details?
Which direction did people move in 2000-1?
Where in London did people move to/from?
Why is migration important?
At the regional scale
Migration is classically the mechanism for labour supply to
adjust its location to the distribution of labour demand
(the longer-term & longer-distance version of commuting)
BUT the net flow tends to take more highly skilled people
and so its effects differ for importing/exporting places:
exporting region has joblessness alleviated
BUT its skill base for regeneration is eroded
importing region has skills shortages reduced
BUT its cumulative growth can lead to ‘over-heating’
Within a city region
Migration is primarily seen as people adjusting housing etc
to job locations and domestic constraints and preferences:
some areas become favoured … others abandonment
…and as a result…
Net migration is key indicator of the relative attractivity of
any city (region) as a place to live (and/or work)
example: Ireland’s migration turn-around as a Celtic Tiger
Migration emphasised – indirectly – by Richard Florida’s
thesis that certain types of people drive city growth
Policy responding by targeting (selective) net in-migration
example: Scotland’s aim to attract ‘new blood’ in future
Migration patterns can identify city region boundaries, in the
form of housing markets, using regionalisation analyses
Housing Market Areas (an initial
experiment consult before copying)
Factors linked to in- and/or
out-migration (Champion et al)
•
•
•
•
•
•
demographic (eg. age structure)
cultural/social (eg. ethnicity aspects)
labour market (eg. employment rate)
housing (eg. house price : income ratio)
environmental (eg. air pollution)
policies (eg. on green belts).
[static or change measures, as appropriate]
Migration and relative economic vitality
in
out
net
negative --- migration rate --- high
7.5
-10
10
-2.5
weak ----- economic vitality relative to UK ----- strong
Trends in recent years
Micro level
Possible decline in mobility due to 2-earner households
Student mobility levels continuing to be dramatically high
Impact of partnership fluidity and more ‘transitory’ behaviour
Macro level
Cyclical impacts of ‘regional’ house price differentials
Increased international flows (including asylum seekers etc)
but possibility that lower proportion aim to settle on arrival
Recent net international flows
140000
net in-migrants (,000)
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1994
1997
2000
2003
DWP analysis of “A8” inflows
30,000
Since accession
Pre accession
No details
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05
Spatial analysis of A8 migrants
(consult before copying)
E.Europe-born residents in 2001
What the 2001 Census can tell us
• Nothing about migration flows to other countries:
this means it is not possible to consider net migration
flows across the UK boundary, when some models
of housing markets emphasise ‘displacement’ effects
• Something about the recent moves of people in different
occupation (etc) groups BUT not whether their status
changed with the move (eg. from being a student) …
nor can the movers have a migration rate calculated
because there are no equivalent ‘population’ counts!
• Nothing consistent about change in migration patterns
since 1990-1 because Census definitions changed
ESPECIALLY the Census night location of students
Analysis of cities & city regions
Cities are taken to be continuously built-up areas which are
also economically separable
* the starting points are the 2001 Urban Area definitions
* each city is the bulk of at least one Travel-to-Work Area
* all are also analysed in the State of the Cities research
* the largest 24 such cities in England are examined here
City regions are as defined by CURDS in the 1990s
* each city had most of the 16 features of a regional city
* each region is a group of Localities round 1 regional city
* commuting/migration flows link the Localities in a region
City regions and retail centres
Age factor in migration is critical
Migration to and from City Regions, 2000-2001, for 16-19 and 20-24 year olds
(incomers per 100 leavers)
200
16-19
175
20-24
in per 100 out
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
London CR
Birmingham
CR
Manchester
CR
Glasgow CR
Liverpool CR Newcastle CR Middlesbrough
CR
“in/out” ratio: city or city region?
Migration 2000-1 to/from cities and city regions
City Region 2000-1 migration (in/out ratio)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
MC
BD
0.9
LO
TS
RG
LV
0.8
BI
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Principal City 2000-1 migration (in/out ratio)
1.2
1.3
Key group: “HM&P MGRPs”
[sic: Higher Professional/Managerial]
Migration 2000-1 to/from cities and city regions by HM&P MGRPs
City Region 2000-1 migration by HM&P
MGRPs (in/out ratio)
1.4
LO
1.3
PL
DE
1.2
NN
1.1
SO
1.0
CV
PO
ST
0.9
CF
HU
0.8
NG
0.7
SH
LV
TS
LE
LS
EH
BS RG
BN
NR
MC
PR
BD
BI
GG
NE
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Principal City 2000-1 migration by HM&P MGRPs (in/out ratio)
1.3
1
In/out migration ratio for Moving Group Representative Persons, by NS-SeC, for
the 27 Cities grouped
deviation from unity
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
27 cities
London
Higher M&P
Lower M&P
Intermediate
Lower
5 other large
21 others
OUTFLOW GREATER THAN INFLOW
INFLOW GREATER THAN OUTFLOW
Flows to/from cities beyond
their own City Regions
• Flows to/from London for the other 26 cities:
rates decline with distance from London,
but faster for inflows than outflows
• In/Out ratios for HMPs higher than 1 only for London
(plus Brighton and Derby)
• London and Reading have ‘perfect’ positive
relationship between in/out ratio & skill level
• There are ‘perfect’ negatives for Sheffield,
Portsmouth, Nottingham, Glasgow, Coventry,
Bradford
Exploring contrasts by city type
• Too few cities for regression, so group them
• Analysis of international migration reveals high inflow
from abroad for a ‘Gateway’ type of city:
London / Reading / Brighton
• Examining other cities’ in:out ratios (for all migrants and
for HM&Ps) to/from beyond their CRs produces
three types which (very crudely) summarised as
• Net Gain
• Balanced
• Net Loss
Flows beyond CR boundaries
Fig 1: City types' in:out ratios with UK beyond their CRs
individual migrants
HM&Ps
all classified MGRPs
in:out ratio
0
Gateway
Net gain
Balanced
Net loss
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
Labour market factors loom large
Fig. 5: Labour market
employment rate
employment rate change
school-leavers with 5(+)GCSEs
graduate workforce
local job growth
commuting 10km(+)
Gateway
Net gain
Balanced
Net loss
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
relative to England
1.25
1.50
Flows within cities’ own CRs
Fig. 9: City types' in:out ratios with the rest of their CRs
individual migrants
all classified MGRPs
HM&Ps
in:out ratio
0
Gateway
Net gain
Balanced
Net loss
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
Labour market factors less strong
Fig. 13: Labour market
employment rate
employment rate change
school-leavers with 5(+)GCSEs
graduate workforce
local job growth
commuting 10km(+)
Gateway
Net gain
Balanced
Net loss
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
relative to rest of CR
1.00
1.25
Flows within the London CR
The London CR analysis zones
Largest flows are within the zones
Linkage measure: “Tij squared”
Adds together measures on flows Tij + Tji …
For flow Tij [ie. the no. migrating zone i to j ]
Tij as a proportion of all who migrated from i
multiplied by
Tij as a proportion of all who migrated to j
For flow Tji [ie. the no. migrating zone j to i ]
Tji as a proportion of all who migrated from j
multiplied by
Tji as a proportion of all who migrated to i
2
Tij
on HM&Ps flows in London
Summary from
2
Tij analyses
• Most strong linkages are between adjacent zones, due to
distance deterrence
• There is evidence that transport axes shape radial linkage
patterns
• Few radial linkages between conurbation and more rural
zones are strong
• Linkages are weak across the Thames in the centre/east
• London seems to be distinct* in having less difference
between the migration patterns of HM&P residents
and others in its population
* comparative analyses on Birmingham and Bristol CRs
In/out ratios: zones and rest of CR
…and for HM&Ps only
In/out ratios: flows beyond CR
…and for HM&Ps only
Do intra-CR flows raise diversity?
Correlations (r) of zones’ in/out ratios by
social group vs. % residents in group
NS-SeC classified MGRPs
Within CR
Beyond CR
Higher Managerial/ Professional
-0.015
+0.602
Lower Managerial/ Professional
-0.452
+0.633
Intermediate
+0.524
-0.644
Low skill
+0.516
-0.315
Models of net flows: big residuals
Main findings from new analyses
• Patterns across the zones in the London CR:
Broadly centrifugal intra-CR flows, but inflows to centre;
young and HM&P have net inward flow within CR too
• Relationship between in/out ratio and social profile:
Low skill group’s intra-CR flows reinforce social divisions,
but HM&P flows neutral; flows from beyond CR strongly
reinforce concentrations of HM&Ps in inner areas
• Effects of flows for other cities:
Inflow of young a key potential asset for city like Newcastle
but student retention follows sustained economic growth;
any flow increase ‘negative’ for city like Hull (but diversity?)
• Speculation on London implications of flows/trends:
London growth relies on continued flow of young/gifted who
accept poorer quality housing/life to gain ‘escalator region’
career boost: now more likely short-term and from abroad?