Displacement and Densification:
Tracing Spatial Impacts of
Migration Inflows to London
Ian Gordon
Geography Department,
LSE London and Spatial Economics Research Centres
London School of Economics
LSE London/RUPS MSc seminar series
February 17th 2014
Introduction
• Suzi Hall (last week) presented a street level study of
migrant diversity in one London ocality
• This talk by contrast uses quantitative evidence for a
few broad groups of migrants/natives in areas across
the GSE to find spatial impact of flows into London
• Reflects view that central problem for understanding /
planning metro regions lies in the interlocking chains
(often of displacements) linking local behaviour to
impacts on the range of localities / populations
• It is also about densification (as complement to
displacement) and how far London’s recent growth
has depended on dense packing-in of poor migrants
Growing Research Interest in
Displacement Effects of Migration
• Talk of displacement often suggests a use of force:
– but here just implies some causal link between growth/ entry of one
group and shrinkage/ exit of another (inc. earlier entrants)
• A very old story, in terms of ‘invasion/succession’, but
rediscovered in late 1990s for big new waves of migration:
– Larger gains from overseas correlated with larger domestic losses
• Cross-sectional spatial evidence for US metro areas (W.Frey)
• Time series evidence for London (and southern regions in Hatton/Tani)
• Maybe reflecting competition for limited opportunities
– In terms of housing and/or jobs
or maybe some qualitative impact, disliked by earlier settlers
- Generating ‘flight’ by whites – or some other old guard
-
Literature tends to focus either on labour market or white flight –
but my hypothesis is that competition for limited housing is key.
London’s ‘Mirror Image’ Migration Trends
150
Net International
Migration
100
Net Migration with Rest
of UK
50
0
-50
-100
-150
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Outline
3 substantive sections:
A. What we might reasonably expect
B. What time series evidence suggests – in
the London/Greater South East case
C. What spatial patterns of change across
the GSE suggest – for the decade
between the last two Censuses.
A. What We (Should) Expect
• Approach is shaped by ideas from 3 sources
– Classic urban land-use theory / social ecology
– Lessons from empirical research on population
movement in London’s extended region
– LSE London research on economic aspects of
post 1980s international migration to London
From Classic (Old) Urban Theory
• With free property markets, patterns/density of land-use
(and rents) shaped by competition between users:
– Who give different priorities to accessibility, living/operating space
+ (maybe) proximity to desired/similar kinds of neighbour
– In cities with a dominant centre this produces a basic ring pattern of
resident differences (and densities) + some specialised clusters
• Cities expand spatially by: attracting new people; &/or
effects of residents’ income growth
– Increased attraction also increases densities
• But higher average incomes lower them
– Unless many richer people value access because of ‘urbane’ leisure tastes
• In either case, expanding the width of rings ⇨ some displacement
– painlessly in the case of owner-occupiers at least
• Green Belts interrupt this and raise densities – until leapfrogging starts
– Except for new arrivals & those with big changes in income/family status,
re-locations are likely to be short distance
• But contribute to large scale growth/re-shaping of metropolitan regions
From Household Movement Studies
• People tend to move for multiple reasons (inc. e.g. ‘white flight’)
– But a few basic ones shape overall pattern of change: new job/retirement;
larger dwelling; better dwelling/area
• London’s population ‘loss’ (1939-87) driven by de-densification
– Inner area residents seeking separate/larger houses
– Others seeking more spacious environment
– Within the metro region (GL + OMA) at least hardly anyone moving
for/in expectation of a job change (though happened eventually)
• Some groups are consistently more likely to choose core area
– Notably single people, graduates and 1st/2nd generation migrants
• with more urban leisure tastes
– This bias has scarcely changed since 1970s
– But size of each group has grown enormously
– With predictable implications for trends in density/concentration – espacially
near the core.
Major Planning Constraints in/around the GSE :
Green Belts and AONB/National Parks
From LSEL Migrant Impact Work
• A key distinction between migrants :
– Expecting generally better prospects for someone like them
• Typically from significantly poorer countries (e.g. LDC/EU_A10)
• Likely to stay indefinitely
– Pursuing specific (current) opportunity – work/training, private
• Mostly from other ‘rich’ countries (W. Europe, N. America, ANZA, Japan)
• Very likely to move on/back subsequently
• Only former face serious barriers to access good jobs
• Despite comparable levels of education
• Notably in first 3 years or so – but long term convergence
– Housing implications include more crowding
• But evidence that gap in headship rates closed after 20 years
• So recency of arrival is a second key variable
B. What Trends at Regional
Level Suggest
• Looking at evolution /fluctuations in net intraUK migration for GL and RGSE
– as the scale with long data series
• In relation to factors conditioning:
– demand for additional space (UK-wide)
• Changes in rate of private housing completions
– Relative attractiveness of GL /RGSE/RUK
• Differences in unemployment and house prices
+ Net international migration – as poss. ‘displacer’ ?
Findings
• The size of London’s outflow varies strongly with national
housing demand (as does RGSE’s net inflow) consistent with
income-elastic space demands being the driver
–
though about half the positive effects appear beyond the GSE;
• The housing/labour market relativities that matter for London
migration are those between the GSE and the UK – not within
the GSE
– consistent with singular GSE housing/labour markets;
• International migrational gains into London appear to be 40%
displaced into other areas – though primarily beyond the GSE
–
i.e. the chain of displacements stretches right through the GSE,
ending up outside (perhaps in Peter Hall’s larger version)
– NB no evidence of displacement from (less constrained) RGSE
• But how is the other 60% accommodated ? By stimulating
growth of extra housing space in London ? Or more crowding?
C. What Spatial Patterns of
Inter-Censal Change Suggest
• Aim is to answer those questions by looking at
2001-11 Census evidence on:
– spatial variations in :
• housing market areas where more rooms have
been added to occupied housing stock ; and
• neighbourhoods where most densification of
room use has taken place
– and how these connect with our four
groups of migrant:
• rich/poor country x old/new
Broad Tendencies in Location/relocation
• Though particular national concentrations (old & new)
are still clear – at broader richC/poorC level see:
– Rich C: new/recent arrivals tend partic to be in: areas of
previous (2001) concentration and/or good job accessibility
• Previous waves now simply drifting away from areas of
concentration – though not far (e.g. Outer London)
– Poor C: recent arrivals tend partic to be in: areas of previous
concentration and/or low rents
• Previous waves areas shifting toward with more UK-born pop –
over wider territory – including right beyond the GSE
• UK born Pop. (including 2nd gen ‘migrants’) static
overall : rising/falling in about equal no. of localities
– except in Outer London where falling in 2/3 of LSOA
Accommodating Growth 1
• Comparisons of growth rates for major ‘rings’ show:
– Strong population growth in each but much faster inside
London, especially IL (+15%)
– Substantial room growth too, especially in IL & OGSE (9-10%)
– But London alone had notable increase in persons per room (5%)
• Accounting for all of its higher population growth relative to the RGSE
– London’s higher population growth was entirely among
foreign born (UK born nos. fell especially in OL)
– Biggest contributory factor was new arrivals from poor
countries
• though numbers from earlier cohorts fell, reflecting dispersal as
well as ‘exits’
• How may these be linked causally ?
Accommodating Growth 2
• The possible impact of new migrant inflows (from outside
housing system) on dwelling growth rates was examined in
regressions with an array of contextual factors (mostly relating to
land supply potential)
• At LHMA level the latter clearly dominated and there was no
sign of a positive effect from poor or rich country arrivals
– but, with a limited number of units (73) estimates of these coefficients were
very imprecise
• At LSOA level, significant effects were found, suggesting a 10%
population growth via rich country migrants might induce a 2%
increase in the room stock
–
with a smaller impact (of 0.7%) for those from poor countries.
Accommodating Growth 3
• Finally, local (LSOA) level room density changes were analysed
within an ‘accounting’ type model in relation to numeric
changes in all 5 of our population sub-groups
– with job accessibility and the 2001 ppr rate as controls
• In this case, the scale of new arrivals from poor countries
emerged as the strongest influence - with 55 of each 100
apparently being accommodated through denser occupation of
existing rooms
• This compared with just 10 in the case of the UK born, and
around 30 for those who had been in the country over 10 years
• For new arrivals from rich countries the average effect seemed
insignificant – but this reflected great disparities between arrivals
to IL whose impact was as low as for the UK born, whereas in
the RGSE it was much stronger (45 per 100)
• BUT: densification also being driven by demand for accessibility
Conclusions
– Accommodating migrants involves some combination of : (a)
induced additions to local room stock; (b) denser occupation
of those rooms; and (c) displacement elsewhere:
– For migrants to London (with its constrained space):
• (c) seems to account for 40%;
• for poor country migrants (a) accounts for ,10%, (b) for 55% leaving perhaps 35% for displacement
• For rich country migrants: (a) accounts for 20% and (b) about
12% - leaving perhaps 68% for displacement [to be tested ]
• Densification effects for poor country migrants clearly reduce
over time – implying the likelihood of substantially more
displacement in the long run (as well as dispersal)
– Displacement effects of London immigration clearly spread
well beyond the GSE (further than income growth effects?)
– Within London poor country migration is major factor in
densification – but so is growing demand for accessibility.