Age and ethnic spatial exposure

Giles A. Barrett & David McEvoy Liverpool John Moores University

Learning from the 2011 Census of Population: Data, Access Methods and New Findings on Population Change and Migration Population Geography Research Group RGS-IBG Annual Conference 2014 27 August, 2014 Contact: [email protected] This paper is based on the assumption that social cohesion depends, at least partly, on minority ability to mix with the White British – and that spatial exposure is contributory to this

An earlier version of In his keynote paper at Lisbon looking at this paper was given diversity and social networks, Richard Gale of in June at the the Cardiff School of Planning and Geography Diversity in the City argued that, “We need to go beyond the crude conference at the facts of who lives side by side with whom” University of Lisbon

As much of this paper Moreover another paper in Lisbon from the deals precisely with Max-Planck Institute for the Study of these crude facts we Religious and Ethnic Diversity argued, on might need to defend the basis of large-scale surveys, that there is ourselves by saying a definite relationship between ethnic that we need to start concentration and the propensity for co- with them ethnic friendship

The German paper suggested that spatial proximity allows inter-ethnic acquaintance to develop from stranger to familiar stranger to some sort of friendship White British London2001: ethnicgroups London 2011:ethnicgroups White Irish Gypsy &Irish Traveller Other White White &Black Caribbean White &Black African W&Asian Other Mixed Indan Pakistani Bangladeshi 45% 60% Chinese Other Asian %changein sizeofBlack ethnic African groups2001-2012 Black Caribbean 200 Other Black Arab Other Ethnic Group

150

100

50

r n le a n p 0 s l e a i n u p h e e c d n n a k o u s h v it b ri n i h e a a e c r o ti is a b f ia e n n s s i c b r i r r h ri ix a a e e s i b la a G r I a A s d t d fr b r g B T W A M is in A ri B ic c te r C k r In la h r A r A n i e i h e c & e k g e a e n it h is k la a C k C th h r th c th P n th c th t h W I la B W a la k E e W O O B O c O r l & B & B la e l y e h A s & it B t p e O y it h G h W -50 W White British Newham2001:ethnicgroups Newham2011:ethnicgroups White Irish Gypsy &Irish Traveller Other White White &Black Caribbean White &Black African W&Asian 17% Other Mixed 12% 34% Indan Pakistani 11% Bangladeshi Chinese Other Asian Black African 11% 14% Black Caribbean Other Black Arab Other Ethnic Group Havering2001:ethnicgroups Havering2011:ethnicgroups

More local figures for London Boroughs show 92% greater 83% contrasts At ward level extreme figures appear

White British But in the Biggin Hill ward Southall Broadway2011:ethnicgroups White Irish Gypsy or Irish Traveller of Bromley 93% of the White British 3.5% Other White White andBlack Caribbean 2011 population is White White andBlack African British - 97% of those aged White andAsian Other Mixed over 75 17% Indian Pakistani If we were to look at age 51% Bangladeshi Chinese group data for areas 14% Other Asian smaller than wards - for Black African Black Caribbean example census output Other Black areas - we would find Arab Other ethnic group localities 100% White Collectively these pie charts may suggest British and others with that whether London’s residents experience 100% ethnic minority the city’s famed multiculturalism may depend on which ethnic group they come from and Moreover the figures where they live are about individual ethnic groups – not But most of the numbers you have seen about interaction are extreme values for particular places – between groups not necessarily representative of London as a whole So lets look at how the average member of each group finds its surrounding population

ExposureofaverageethnicgroupmembertotheWhiteBritishExposureofaverageethnicgroupmembertoWhiteBritish

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 Exposure 0.4 0.4 atBoroughExposure atBoroughscale scale 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 n 0 r r n n a n i n p eh h le a e a a n d i i n n n n k u p h h lls e l e it e nic dia ni n h h e n a a a a a ck b o u is s ti isit e b ic b iar es en an a s s e s a i ic e e ac ab r o t i ei Ir h v h r ib s f x ixa da t e e s e i s ic r b b la ra r ri Ir vr a ib W f r A i A d nt is d e n s A r f ib Bl Ar GG raB e W r r A a A mn Iis d la in i A f A ibr rB A c B te T it r T a r k C & k m& r I k kla h r r A ra er i ic e i te h e h C e c re e a ag g h C e e k k a e n t h hi th c k ela et h P n C th c C C thh h n i sh Wth is k la c it hi t P n a th c la k t t th h W ri Ir c O B a h B th O a B O la kc OO E W I W O la l OW B O B B ca r E & & B W& lal e r & B e B h e y y te & it B t h s s & i e h O t p p e h t O y y it i W 20012001 G h W h G W W 2011

The figures above are technically p* values (a.k.a. the exposure, interaction, probability or isolation index) - what is being measured is the average White British proportion of the total in each borough weighted by the borough’s proportion of the other ethnic group in the whole city Looking at the ward scale: In 2011 Pakistanis replace Bangladeshis at this scale in having lowest exposure to White British

ExposureofaverageethnicgroupmembertotheWhiteBritishExposureofaverageethnicgroupmembertoWhiteBritish

0.70.7 0.60.6 0.50.5 Exposure Exposure 0.40.4 atat ward ward 0.3 scalescale 0.3 0.20.2 0.10.1

r 0 e n n p h h ll r e a a n i i n n n k u 0 s ee it e c ia d n n h e a a a c b o ti h ish vll b ri e a a i s i s i c n e n a a r i s Ir ae h b f s ix d n t n e h e e s ri a b a l r b G rti is rv W ri A A n a isa d s in s A f c b e B A a Bi teIr Ta a m I d k t a e e r A ri ri b r r c r i r r k & r a is l d hin f a b A i teB h e hT e C c e e In k ga C e k i e n i it s h k a t h P n l h th c A C r th h hte Wh ri h t l i t a a g C a k k a t i I s O c B h O P B n O l c C O E Wh W ri la W a Ba ck r &I B & B l la e W y e B B c h s & & it la t p y B O ys te h 2001 p i W 2001 Gy h G W 2011

The declining proportion of White By 2011 every group except the British in the overall population White British have an exposure to results in falling exposure values for all ethnic groups ( inc. WB) the White British of less than 50% For 2001 we have data for a third - truly local - scale: census output areas – averaging about 300 people in each

Boroughs Wards OutputAreas 0.80 0.70 0.60

Exposure 0.50 to White 0.40 British 0.30 0.20 0.10 n a n 0.00 e a n p h e b ic a d i n n n r u s h it fr i n i h a a a e e o ti is h ib s e a n s i e c h s r i Ir r A A ix i ta e s b i t e G r W a k d s d A b fr O n B te r C c & M n i a r ri A i ic e i a e r I k l a k h n it h e k l it e a g e k c C h th c B h h P n th C c la t h W la t a k la E W OB & W O B O c B r e B & it d la e h e B th te ix O i W h d M W e d ix Boroughs Wards Output Areas e ix M M WB 0.64 WB 0.66 WB 0.68 BD 0.47 BD 0.43 BD 0.37

As scale becomes more local the exposure of the White British to their own group increases

But for all other groups exposure to the White British decreases with scale But Teenagers do not This pleases most older people what normally spend their - who mix with their own age about leisure time with older group age? age groups

Each generation In a society already segregated by ethnicity, makes most of differentiation by age may mean some ethnic its friends cohorts find their neighbours from other ethnic among people groups are the wrong age for social interaction of broadly similar age e.g.BlackAfricans2001

Conversely most 75+ The White British are minorities have Pension-74 72% (85% in 2001) of 50-pension higher numbers in 30-49 those aged 75+ but younger ages, but 16-29 only 35% (52%) of often with a spike in 5-15 those 0-4 the 20s-40s 0-4 0 2 4 6 8 10 %of age group Exposure to White Britishin 2011 Exposure to White Britishin2011

0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 Exposure 0.4 Exposure 0.6 0.5 at ward 0.3 at ward 0.4 level 0.2 level 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 i i n n i i n n h h te h e a a h h te h e a a is is i n n s s c e b is is i n n s s c e b it r h a ta e i b ra it r h a ta e i b ra r I d s d e fr b r I d s d e fr b B e W n i in i A B e W n i in i A it r I k la h A r it r I k la h A r te h e a g k a te h e a g k a i h P n C c C i h P n C c C h W t a la k h W t a la k W O B B c W O B B c la la B All ages B Age75+

Recap: every minority <50% But old have >50% exposure to WB exposure to White British

Exposure to White Britishin 2011 Exposure to White Britishin 2011

0.6 0.5 0.45 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.35 Exposure Exposure 0.3 at ward 0.3 at ward 0.25 level level 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.05 0 0 i i n n i i n n h h te h e a a h h te h e a a is is i n n s s c e b is is i n n s s c e b it r h a ta e i b ra it r h a ta e i b ra r I d s d e fr b r I d s d e fr b B e W n i a in i A B e W n i a in i A it r I k l h A r it r I k l h A r te h e a g k a te h e a g k a i h P n C c C i h P n C c C h W t a la k h W t a la k W O B B c W O B B c la la B B Age0 to4 Age30to 49

30-49 age band is the transition to While very young have very low below 50% exposure to WB exposure to WB: even WB <50% Conclusion: younger We can reinterpret members of ethnic And this chance is this as saying young minorities are reducing over time minority people have consistently less exposed less chance to to the indigenous White interact with White Public policy British than older British concerns about lack members of the same contemporaries of social cohesion & minorities minorities leading “parallel lives” are thus exacerbated

In terms of the concerns of The London results might suggest this research group: greater that the reduced minority exposure diversity is coupled with to the White British is a result of greater chances of reduced proportions of White segregation British in the total population

But the Pakistani and Bangladeshi figures from Bradford show that the relative size of minorities is also a factor Bradford2011:ethnicgroups White British Bradford: exposure to White British2011 White Irish GypsyorIrishTraveller Other White 0.90 White andBlackCaribbean 0.80 White andBlackAfrican White &Asian 0.70 20% Other Mixed 0.60 Indian Pakistani Exposure at 0.50 Bangladeshi wardlevel 0.40 Chinese Other Asian 0.30 BlackAfrican 0.20 64% BlackCaribbean Other Black 0.10 Arab 0.00 i n n p Other ethnicgroup h h e i h e a a u is s it n n s s c e b o it ri h ia ta e e i b a r r I d s d n fr b r g B e W n i a i A ri A c it r I k l h a i te h e a g C k n i h P n c C th h W t a la k e W O B B c r la e Bradford, 522,422 pop. 2011, 64% WB; B th O All Ages cf. London 2001. Larger Pakistani share than any London minority Pakistanis have lower exposure than any London group; most others higher

Bradford: exposure to White British 2011 Bradford: exposure to White British2011

1.00 0.80 0.90 0.70 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 Exposure at 0.50 Exposure at wardlevel 0.40 0.40 wardlevel 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 h h e i i n n p p s t n n h e a a b u h h e i i n n ti is i ia a s s c e a o s t n n h e a a b u i Ir h t e e ri b r r ti is i a a s s c e a ro r W d is d n f b A g i Ir h i t e e ri b r B te In k a i A ri c r W d is d n f b A g e i r a l h a i B e In a i A ri c t h e g C k n it r k l h a i i th P n c C h te h e a g C k n h W a la k t i h P n c C h W O B c e h W t a a k t B a r O B l c e l e W B a r B th l e O B th Age75+ O Age 0 to4 But even Pakistanis 75+ are >50% But youngest Pakistanis & Bangladeshis exposed to White British less exposed than any London group All this has been based on the assumption that social Some words cohesion depends on minority ability to mix with the White of caution British – and that spatial exposure is contributory to this

It would have been This isn’t the same as the exposure of possible to produce a set minorities to the White British – nor its of figures showing White opposite British exposure to minorities And it would have shown the younger White British more exposed to minorities than are the old – implying greater mixing And since many would say integration, or its absence, is In any case how important is residential the result of the wishes of the spatial distribution compared to other dominant group … factors influencing social cohesion?

A countervailing factor is But the Bristol Segregation/integration in that many (most?) young group involving employment may be as members of minority Burgess, Johnston important as residential groups speak English et al. have revealed geography – but parallel well, and have a British high ethnic economic lives are education & segregation in common especially in qualifications British schools lower paid work 10. Age and ethnic spatial exposure Giles Barrett and David McEvoy (Liverpool John Moores University) Contact: [email protected] As minority ethnic groups grow the relative size of the ethnic ‘majority’ necessarily shrinks. So, over time, the exposure of minority groups to the majority shrinks, while the exposure of the majority to the minorities increases. This is illustrated for London by use of the exposure index (p*) and data from the 2001 and 2011 censuses. The analysis is conducted on a variety of geographical scales. Comparisons with other British cities, less diverse, but still with substantial minority populations, are made. Minority exposure to the majority is found to differ by age group, with younger members of minority groups typically having lower exposure to the majority than do their co-ethnic elders. The extent of these age differences differs however between minority groups. The implication of these differences for integration, social cohesion and related phenomena are considered in the context of countervailing influences, such as the English language competence and British education of many, or most, younger members of minority groups. This paper is about ethnic minorities rather than immigrants

Much public This contrasts with In France citizenship makes discourse in UK some other foreigners French & no about former European states distinctions by origin are recognised In German tradition - Neither view has but not recent law - But in Britain official space for ethnic descent defines statistics recognise ethnic labelling nationality minorities on basis of common cultural heritage An ethnic minority includes immigrants and UK-born – also Justification is monitoring discrimination citizens and foreigners We can ask what the chances are of Using this sort of categorisation members of different ethnic groups allows us to examine issues of encountering each other in the places ethnic spatial segregation where they live

Note that in this paper we do D has the disadvantage of being symmetrical not use the well-known – when two groups are compared it gives a dissimilarity index – D – also single segregation value – but when groups known as the segregation are different sizes they do not experience index segregation equally White British Liverpool2011:ethnic groups White Irish Liverpool: exposure to White Britishin 2011 Gypsyor IrishTraveller Other White 1.00 White andBlackCaribbean 0.90 White andBlackAfrican 0.80 White &Asian 0.70 Other Mixed 0.60 Exposure at Indian 0.50 wardlevel Pakistani 0.40 Bangladeshi 0.30 Chinese 0.20 Other Asian 0.10 85% BlackAfrican 0.00 BlackCaribbean i i n n h h te n h e a is is i a n s s a e b Other Black it r h i ta e e ic b ra r I d s d fr B e W n i in ib A Arab it r I k la h A r te h e a g C k a i th P n c C Other ethnic group h W a la k W O B B c la Liverpool, 466,415 2011 pop., claimed B All Ages to be “the world in one city” as European Capital of Culture in 2008 All eth. gps. had high exposure to WB cf. Havering

Liverpool: exposure to White British 2011 Liverpoolexposure to White British2011

1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 Exposure at Exposure at wardlevel 0.50 wardlevel 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 h i i n n h te n n h e a a b is is i a a s s c e a h e i i n n it r h i t e e i b r s h t n n h e a a b r I d s d n fr b A ti is i a a s s c e a B e W n i a i i i Ir h i t e e ri b r it r I k l h A r r d is d n f b A te h e a g C k a B e W In k a i A ri i h P n c C it r a l h a h W t a a te h e g C k O B l k i th P n c C W B c h W a la k la W O B B c B la Age75+ Age0 to 4 B Especially true of oldest age group But 0-4s more like London: 3 gps. <50%