Report on the distribution of BME populations in

William Shankley Sociology, Centre of Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) University of Manchester Aim

The aim of this report is to consider ethnic residential settlement across Greater Manchester. This is in order to support the investigation of the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Education Trust: does the archival material on ethnic minorities across Greater Manchester libraries, archives and museums reflect the residential settlement patterns and diversity of ethnic groups living in the area?

The project’s aim was to provide an up-to-date analysis of the residential settlement patterns of the major ethnic minority groups across Greater Manchester at district and ward levels of geography. The project additionally aimed to examine the percentage change of the major ethnic groups between 2001 and 2011 at district level across Greater Manchester.

1. Background

Studies such as Brown and Cunningham (2016) have highlighted that Greater Manchester; particularly wards such as Moss Side and Hulme have been significant sites of immigration, both locally and nationally. Britain has experienced large-scale migration throughout the past decades, which Vertovec (2007) has claimed has led to the country becoming super-diverse. This is where the sending countries of migrants has diversified and expanded beyond the traditional patterns of migrants that linked to Britain’s colonial legacy, position in Western Europe and ties with the Commonwealth.

One significant change that has affected British migration patterns has been the result of the expansion of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and again in 2007. Eight countries (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, and Slovenia) predominantly from Central and Eastern Europe were admitted into the European project in 2004 (Burrell, 2009). This was followed by the additional accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. At the same time as Britain’s migration patterns were diversifying, the country also experienced an increase of immigration along its asylum and refugee pathway. Greater Manchester was part of the Home Office’s refugee dispersal mechanism and the Gateway project and more recent Syrian Resettlement Scheme. These have arguably changed the dimensions of ethnic diversity in the region. New migration has challenged our understanding of ethnic residential settlement in the local area and raises the question of whether the public archival material reflects the current diversity of the region.

2. Method and Data

There has been a recent move across academic disciplines to harness the power of geographic information systems (GIS) for multiple uses. These uses include mapping community needs, increase community engagement and participation, and mapping the geographies of disease and illness (Beyer and Ruston, 2009; Brown and Kyttä, 2014). Advances in the use of GIS have resulted in the current study taking a quantitative approach to the residential mapping of ethnic minorities in Greater Manchester. Due to ethnicity and the spatial aims of the projects it was deemed the Census 2001 & 2011 and Wales were the most appropriate data to map the ethnic minorities across Greater Manchester given the censuses total population coverage, ethnicity questions, and geographical dimensions.

I. Ethnic Minority Group Residential Settlement Mapping

To permit the mapping of the residential settlement of ethnic minority groups across Greater Manchester, the self-reported ethnicity write-in data was used from the Census 2011 to analyse the

1 residential patterns of established and newer immigrant and ethnic minority groups. 1 Sixteen ethnic groups were chosen to visually map their residential settlement across districts and wards in Greater Manchester. These groups were; Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese, African, Caribbean, Iranian, Irish, Baltic States, Polish, Sri Lanka, Somali, Arab, Turkish and Gypsy Traveller.

II. Ethnic Minority Percentage Change

To analyse the percentage change in ethnic groups’ population over the decennial censuses, the prescribed ethnicity question was used to measure the percentage change in population between 2001 and 2011. This was conducted for all eight of the established ethnic minority groups (Irish, White Other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, African, & Caribbean). The Census tables that were used included the KS006 and KS201EW tables. Table KS006 was used for data on ethnic group for 2001 at local authority district level for England and Wales; whereas table KS201EW was used for data on ethnic group for 2011 at local authority district level for England and Wales. Descriptive methods were then used to calculate the percentage change for each ethnic minority group over the decade interval for each district in Greater Manchester. (See section 4 & appendix table 1)

3. Ethnic Group Residential Settlement in Greater Manchester To get an insight into the total number of ethnic minorities in Greater Manchester prior to mapping the following table provides a breakdown of the ethnic populations for Greater Manchester and their percentage of the total population in 2011.

Table 1: Raw Count of Ethnic Minorities in Greater Manchester

Order Ethnic group Frequency Percentage of by Greater Populat Manchester ion Size Population (%) 1 Pakistani 130265 4.86 2 Indian 53655 2.00 3 African 46353 1.73 4 Irish 34710 1.29

5 Bangladeshi 34231 1.28

6 Chinese 26422 0.98 7 Polish 20433 0.76 8 Caribbean 18107 0.67

9 Arab 15616 0.58

10 Iranian 5701 0.21 11 Baltic States 2678 0.10 12 Somali 1811 0.07

13 Sri Lankan 1781 0.07

14 Turkish 1610 0.06 15 Gypsy or Irish 1541 0.06 Traveller

1 Where an individual ticks a broad category (eg Black-Other) the self-reported ethnicity allows further definition.

2 Understanding the Census Residential Settlement Map

The following explanation assists understanding of the mapping of the Census 2011 data for ethnic minority groups across wards in Greater Manchester.

It is important to understand that the ethnic minority groups size for each of the fifteen groups varies in size – with the ethnic Pakistani group being the most numerous and the ethnic Gypsy/Traveller group being the most scarce across Greater Manchester. In order to create a map that illustrated the wards with the largest concentration of an ethnic group and to overcome issues associated with different population sizes, it was decided that the ‘exposure’ of the group would be a useful indicator. This calculated the difference in size of a groups’ population for a ward compared to their population if it was spread evenly between all the wards (of equal) size in Greater Manchester. This follows the technique used in demographic work on ethnic minority population settlement by Liberson (1981) and Simpson (2007). This statistics was calculated for each ethnic minority group and for each ward in Greater Manchester. The data was then, using ArcGIS mapping software, linked to a visual representation (or shapefile) of Greater Manchester.

To gain an insight into the residential concentration of a particular group ‘black’ was used to show wards with high residential concentration. This was where a specific ethnic minority group was ≥ 4 times the expected concentration of the group if they were evenly spread throughout all the wards in Greater Manchester. This technique allowed the maps to be comparable between different ethnic minority groups and to overcome problems visualising population groups of different sizes.

Caveats to understanding the mapping data

It is important to note that a number of caveats are needed in the reporting and interpretation of ethnic minority groups from the Census 2011 data for Greater Manchester. First, many new migrants are often missing from the Census 2011 data. This is because of the recent nature of their migration but also due to their short-term accommodation and residence in accommodation classed as a ‘non fixed address’. This creates a problem for data collection because even though its methodology seeks to gain complete population coverage (to sample everyone in the UK population) it focuses on collecting data on individuals in households who are living at registered addresses across the (Coleman, 2013). As a result of this data collection strategy, the Census often misses the collection of data on multiple vulnerable groups, for example, the street homeless population, human trafficking victims, and migrant populations.

Second, certain ethnic groups, for example, the Irish Traveller/Gypsy/Roma groups are hard to access. Due to their transient settlement patterns, and a history of marginalisation that discourages self-reporting, this has often contributed to their numbers being under-reported in Census data (Powell, 2013).

Third, ethnic groups such as the Somali population have been found to have a large proportion of their diaspora that have further migrated from other EU countries and posses other EU citizenship (Van Liempt, 2011). This has been argued to be the result of many ethnic Somali seeking citizenship in countries such as the Netherlands and seeking to further migrate after their citizenship to join the larger Somali population residing in the UK (Van Liempt, 2011). The fluid nature of their EU migration arguably could have contributed to their under-reporting in the current mapping report.

Fourth, the sample of the data that the maps are based on uses the ethnic minority write-in response box. This is used to provide respondents with a self-report box to the question ‘What is your ethnicity?’ This question enables respondents to write-in their self-defined ethnicity. The result is that many people in Greater Manchester with an ethnic minority background have the choice to self-define their ethnicity under numerous labels. These include; British, English, Scottish etc. The open response or write-in box as a result can contribute to the number of ethnic minority groups being under-reported for Greater Manchester (Aspinall, 2012).

3

Fifth, it must be noted that the ethnic Irish population was relatively evenly spread throughout all wards in Greater Manchester but unlike other groups was not relatively concentrated in any wards and this is why on the visualisation of their residential settlement patterns there were no wards shaded in black. An explanation for the groups’ lack of residential concentration could be associated with the groups’ racial whiteness and the privileges that are associated with this ethnic category. Sociological theories of whiteness can be used to explain how racially white migrants over successive generations often highly integrate into the majority white British group and incorporated into the dominant white British category. The groups’ dispersal and lack of ethnic self-identification with ethnic Irish-ness can be linked to the extensive migration history of Irish migrants to Britain and Greater Manchester.

4 3.1

Pakistani Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Pakistani people across wards in Greater Manchester. As the largest ethnic minority group in Greater Manchester, the map suggests a number of clusters across Rochdale, Oldham, and Manchester districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Pakistani people was 130,265.

Table 2: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Pakistani residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Population Pakistani Pakistani Percentage 1 Milkstone and Deeplish Rochdale 11515 6799 59.04 2 St Mary's Oldham 11775 6829 58.00 3 Werneth Oldham 12348 5955 48.23 4 Longsight Manchester 15429 5509 35.71 5 Central Rochdale Rochdale 11304 3419 30.25

5 3.2

Indian Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Indian people across wards in Greater Manchester. As the second largest ethnic minority group in Greater Manchester, the map suggests a number of clusters across the Bolton and Trafford districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Indian people was 53,655 people.

Table 3: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Indian residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Indian Indian Percentage 1 Rumworth Bolton 16250 6375 39.23 2 Crompton Bolton 15401 4081 26.50 3 Great Lever Bolton 14467 2524 17.45 4 Clifford Trafford 11892 1719 14.46 5 Halliwell Bolton 13929 1693 12.15

6 3.3

African Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic African people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests a number of clusters across Manchester districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic African people was 46,353 people.

Table 4: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic African residential settlement

Top 5 Ward African Ward District African Wards Population Percentage 1 Moss Side Manchester 18902 3295 17.43 2 Bradford Manchester 15784 1829 11.59 3 Harpurhey Manchester 17652 2017 11.43 4 Ardwick Manchester 19250 2066 10.73 5 Gorton North Manchester 16440 1741 10.59

7 3.4

Irish Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Irish people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Irish population are residentially dispersed throughout wards in Greater Manchester. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Irish people was 34710 people.

Table 5: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Irish residential settlement

Irish Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Irish Percentage 1 Longford Trafford 11952 507 4.24 2 Levenshulme Manchester 15430 640 4.15 3 Heatons North Stockport 13488 548 4.06 4 Stretford Trafford 11172 447 4.00 5 Burnage Manchester 15227 588 3.86

8 3.5

Bangladeshi Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Bangladeshi people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Bangladeshi population are residentially concentrated in Oldham, Rochdale, and districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Bangladeshi people was 34231.

Table 6: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Bangladeshi residential settlement

Top 5 District Bangladeshi Ward District Bangladeshi Wards Population Percentage 1 Coldhurst Oldham 13201 7971 60.38 2 Werneth Oldham 12348 2175 17.61 Central 3 Rochdale 11304 1922 17.00 Rochdale 4 Hyde Werneth Tameside 11424 1796 15.72 Chadderton 5 Oldham 11031 1732 15.70 North

9 3.6

Chinese Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Chinese people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Chinese population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Manchester district. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Chinese people was 26422.

Table 7: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Chinese residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Chinese Chinese Proportion 1 City Centre Manchester 17861 2373 13.29 2 Ardwick Manchester 19250 1628 8.46 3 Hulme Manchester 16907 1308 7.74 4 Bradford Manchester 15784 836 5.30 5 Harpurhey Manchester 17652 655 3.71

10 3.7

Polish Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Polish people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Polish population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Salford, Tameside, Manchester, and Rochdale districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Polish people was 20433.

Table 8: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Polish residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Population Polish Count Polish Percentage 1 Broughton Salford 13869 538 3.88 2 St Peter's Tameside 12254 425 3.47 3 Crumpsall Manchester 15959 474 2.97 4 Balderstone and Kirkholt Rochdale 10422 292 2.80 5 Kersal Salford 12694 342 2.69

11 3.8

Caribbean Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Caribbean people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Caribbean population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in Trafford and Manchester districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Caribbean people was 18107.

Table 9: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Caribbean residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Caribbean Caribbean Percentage 1 Clifford Trafford 11892 1326 11.15 2 Moss Side Manchester 18902 1918 10.15 3 Longford Trafford 11952 686 5.74 4 Gorse Hill Trafford 11894 538 4.52 5 Hulme Manchester 16907 756 4.47

12 3.9

Arab Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Arab people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Arab population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Manchester district. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Arab people was 15616.

Table 10: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Arab residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Arab Arab Percentage 1 Moss Side Manchester 18902 788 4.17 2 Cheetham Manchester 22562 928 4.11 3 Whalley Range Manchester 15430 578 3.75 4 Fallowfield Manchester 15211 565 3.71 5 City Centre Manchester 17861 660 3.70

13 3.10

Iranian Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Iranian people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Iranian population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Stockport, Manchester, and Trafford districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Iranian people was 5701.

Table 11: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Iranian residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Iranian Iranian Percentage 1 Bramhall North Stockport 13033 146 1.12 2 Hulme Manchester 16907 163 0.96 3 Ardwick Manchester 19250 177 0.92 4 Brooklands Manchester 10434 92 0.88 5 Hale Barns Trafford 9736 84 0.86

14 3.11

Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Baltic people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Baltic population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Manchester, Wigan, and Salford districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Baltic people was 2678.

Table 12: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Baltic States residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Baltic States Baltic States Proportion 1 Harpurhey Manchester 17652 108 0.61 2 Wigan Central Wigan 11712 62 0.53 3 Cheetham Manchester 22562 108 0.48 4 Ordsall Salford 14194 66 0.46 5 Ince Wigan 13486 59 0.44

15 3.12

Somali Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Somali people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Somali population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Manchester and Trafford districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Somali people was 1811.

Table 13: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Somali residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Somali Somali Percentage 1 Moss Side Manchester 18902 520 2.75 2 Clifford Trafford 11892 111 0.93 3 Ardwick Manchester 19250 146 0.76 4 Rusholme Manchester 13643 97 0.71 5 Hulme Manchester 16907 116 0.69

16 3.13

Sri Lankan Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Sri Lankan people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Sri Lankan population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in the Salford, Bolton and Manchester districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggests that the total population of ethnic Sri Lankan people was 1781.

Table 14: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Sri Lankan residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Population Sri Lankan Sri Lankan Percentage 1 Irwell Riverside Salford 12901 61 0.47 2 Rumworth Bolton 16250 60 0.37 3 Great Lever Bolton 14467 48 0.33 4 Langworthy Salford 12935 41 0.32 5 City Centre Manchester 17861 49 0.27

17 3.14

Turkish Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Turkish people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Turkish population are residentially dispersed with concentrations particularly in Manchester, Bolton, and Salford districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Turkish people was 1610.

Table 15: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Turkish residential settlement

Top 5 Wards Ward District Ward Population Turkish Turkish Percentage 1 Ardwick Manchester 19250 92 0.48 2 Great Lever Bolton 14467 42 0.29 3 City Centre Manchester 17861 50 0.28 4 Hulton Bolton 13748 32 0.23 5 Ordsall Salford 14194 28 0.20

18 3.15

Gypsy/Traveller Residential Settlement

The map shows the residential settlement patterns of ethnic Gypsy/Traveller people across wards in Greater Manchester. The map suggests that the ethnic Gypsy/Traveller population are residentially dispersed with small concentrations in the Rochdale, Manchester, Salford, and Bolton districts. The data from the Census 2011 suggested that the total population of ethnic Gypsy/Traveller people was 1541.

Table 16: Top 5 wards in Greater Manchester for ethnic Gypsy/Traveller residential settlement

Top 5 Ward Gypsy or Irish Gypsy Ward District Wards Population Traveller Percentage Central 1 Rochdale 11304 56 0.50 Rochdale 2 Longsight Manchester 15429 71 0.46 3 Irwell Riverside Salford 12901 44 0.34 4 Farnworth Bolton 15793 47 0.30 5 Rusholme Manchester 13643 35 0.26

19 4. Ethnic Population Percentage Change

Figure 1: Percentage change of ethnic minority groups across local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011. (Source Census 2001 & Census 2011)

RESULTS

For ethnic minority groups in Greater Manchester, Table 1 suggested that the largest percentage change was to the ethnic African population between 2001 and 2011. The largest percentage increase was to the ethnic African population the Salford district but there was also a percentage increase in the Salford, Rochdale, and Wigan districts. However, the Trafford district experienced a percentage decrease of ethnic Africans between 2001 and 2011.

Considering the other major ethnic minority groups across Greater Manchester, Table 1 suggested a percentage decrease of the ethnic Irish population across all districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011.

For the White Other ethnic minority group, Table 1 suggested a percentage increase across all districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011. Specific increases were evident in the Manchester, Salford, and Wigan districts.

For the ethnic Indian group, Table 1 suggested small increases across multiple local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011, with the largest percentage increases of Indian’s in the Manchester and Salford districts.

For the ethnic Pakistani group, Table 1 suggested small increases across all local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011, with the largest percentage increases to the Pakistani group in the Stockport district.

For the ethnic Bangladeshi group, Table 1 suggested small increases across all local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011, with the largest percentage increases in the Bolton and Stockport districts.

20 For the ethnic Chinese group, Table 1 suggested an uneven percentage increase across local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011, with the largest increases to the ethnic Chinese population in the Bolton, Salford and Manchester districts.

Lastly, for the ethnic Caribbean group, Table 1 suggested an uneven picture across all local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011, with substantial percentage increases to the Caribbean population in the Oldham and Trafford. However there also appeared to be a percentage decrease in the ethnic Caribbean population in the Bolton, Rochdale, Salford and Wigan districts.

Conclusion

The results from the Census 2011 England and Wales suggested that the different ethnic groups are unevenly distributed across the different districts and wards in Greater Manchester. The mapping of new ethnic groups suggested new geographies of residential settlement that can be linked to archival material across libraries and other resources across Greater Manchester.

Focusing on the main ethnic groups, the analysis of the Census 2001 and Census 2011 revealed that all ethnic groups apart from the Irish had experienced a positive percentage change across all districts in Greater Manchester. Explanations for the negative percentage change for the ethnic Irish population between the two censuses could be the linked to out-migration and the ethnic Irish migration moving to other areas of the UK or abroad. Moreover, it could be linked to people’s shift in self-identification of ‘Irish-ness’ to other racially white categories.

Looking at specific percentage changes to ethnic groups across Greater Manchester, the most noticeable change has been the increase in ethnic African individuals between 2001 and 2011. This was particularly evident in Salford but also Rochdale and Wigan. Moreover, there has also been a clear percentage increase in the Caribbean population in Trafford and Oldham districts. All other ethnic group populations remained relatively constant with slight percentage increases in all districts (apart from the Irish). Whilst EU accession after 2004 arguably contributed to the percentage increase in the White Other population in many places in the UK (particularly in the East of England) for Greater Manchester there is only a slight increase to the White Other population at district level between 2001 and 2011 which can be attributed to migration from EU accession migrants from Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, we do not have the data to unpick the White Other group for specific white ethnicities for 2001 to achieve a more specific analysis of the White Other percentage change.

The visualisations of each ethnic group provides a solid foundation for the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Education Trust and other public bodies to audit their archival material to reflect the population dynamics of ethnic minority groups in the Greater Manchester area. They also provide a rich source of information to uncover where additional material might be located or where resources need to be positioned to obtain new material for recent ethnic migrant groups.

21 REFERENCES

Aspinall, P.J. (2012), Answer formats in British Census and Survey Ethnicity Questions: Does open response better capture ‘Superdiversity’? Sociology, 46(2), 354-364. doi:10.1177/0038038511419195 Beyer, K.M. and Rushton, G., 2009. Mapping cancer for community engagement. Prev Chronic Dis, 6(1), p.A03. Brown, G. and Kyttä, M., 2014. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, pp.122-136. Brown, L. & Cunningham, N. 2016. The Inner geographies of a migrant gateway: Mapping the built environment and the dynamics of Caribbean mobility in Manchester, 1951-2011. Social science history, 40(1), 93-120. Burrell, K.2009. Polish migration to the UK in the ‘New’ European Union: After 2004. London: Routledge. Coleman, D. (2013). The twilight of the Census . Population and Development Review. 38(1), Doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00568.x Lieberson, S. 1981. An asymmetrical approach to segregation. In Ethnic Segregation in Cities (eds C. Peach, V.Robinson, an S.Smith). London: Croom Helm. Powell, R. (2013), Loïc Wacquant's ‘Ghetto’ and Ethnic Minority Segregation in the UK: The Neglected Case of Gypsy-Travellers. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37: 115–134. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01188.x Simpson, L., 2007. Ghettos of the mind: the empirical behaviour of indices of segregation and diversity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170(2), pp.405- 424. Van Liempt, I., 2011. ‘And then one day they all moved to Leicester’: the relocation of Somalis from the Netherlands to the UK explained. Population, Space and Place, 17(3), pp.254-266. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), 1024- 1054.

22 Appendices

Table 1. Percentage change of ethnic minority groups across local authority districts in Greater Manchester between 2001 and 2011. (Source Census 2001 & Census 2011)

Ethnic Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan Group

Irish 1,694 2,357 11,843 1,484 2,131 2,882 3,938 1,613 5,098 1,459 2011 2001 2,253 3,025 14,826 1,962 2,994 3,870 4,155 1,943 5,874 1,744 % -25 -22 -20 -24 -29 -26 -5 -17 -13 -16 change Other White 4,943 4,706 24,520 2,825 4,076 10,342 4,779 3,663 6,496 4,064 2011 2001 2,478 2,627 10,689 1,903 2,097 3,533 3,796 2,038 3,991 1,613 % 99 79 129 48 94 193 26 80 63 152 change Indian 21,665 1,387 11,417 1,555 1,105 2,553 2,786 3,668 6,306 1,019 2011 2001 15,884 1,211 5,817 1,562 743 1,196 1,867 3,087 3,883 681 % 36 15 96 0 49 113 49 19 62 50 change Pakistan 12,026 9,002 42,904 22,686 22,265 1,843 6,673 4,910 7,027 676 i 2011 2001 6,487 5,492 23,104 13,754 15,829 963 2,949 2,596 3,613 400 % 85 64 86 65 41 91 126 89 94 69 change Banglad 614 311 6,437 16,310 4,342 605 705 4,296 457 109 eshi 2011 2001 268 168 3,654 9,817 2,594 402 353 2,493 243 72 % 129 85 76 66 67 50 100 72 88 51 change Chinese 1,423 1,100 13,539 726 948 2,547 1,722 951 2,232 891 2011 2001 497 574 5,126 408 497 1,191 1,315 630 1,132 488 % 186 92 164 78 91 114 31 51 97 83 change African 3,451 1,116 25,718 1,640 2,131 5,354 976 1,188 1,807 1,310 2011 2001 823 504 9,044 931 278 417 660 348 3,034 194 % 319 121 184 76 667 1,184 48 241 -40 575 change Caribbe 608 593 9,642 839 285 666 745 371 3,802 216 an 2011 2001 689 274 6,655 182 302 709 352 160 630 302 % -11.76 116.42 44.88 360.99 -5.63 -6.06 111.65 131.88 503.49 -28.48 change

23