REFERENCES - STICERDsticerd.lse.ac.uk › dps › case › CBCB › census2_part3.pdf · Mumford, K & Power, A. (2003) East Enders: family and community in East London. Bristol: Policy

MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS IN BRITAIN 21

counter discrimination, we must also recognize the widercauses of changing ethnic geographies in the developmentof policy responses, rather than singling out specificgroups. Urban policy is already moving in this direction(ODPM, 2003). A greater focus on the need to makeurban neighbourhoods more “liveable” would reinforcethe wider environmental need to reduce opportunities foroutward “sprawl” building in response to demand forbetter quality homes and neighbourhoods outside existingbuilt up areas.This pattern has fuelled urban decline overdecades (Power and Mumford, 1999; Rogers and Power,2000). While minority communities attempt to disperseoutside the core city areas where they are currentlyconcentrated, those who are still there would then be lesscut off from wider opportunities, whatever their ethnicorigin (Oldham, Burnley, Bradford reports to HomeOffice, 2001; Burgess and Wilson, 2004).

The changing composition and settlement patterns ofminority ethnic groups that this Census Brief highlightsshould inform the way we seek to understand our society,our cities and neighbourhoods. It should encourage morelocalised work on the detailed patterns of migration of allcommunities, white and minority, and it should reinforcethe arguments for a strong urban policy in favour ofavoiding the risks of segregation and inner city collapsethat have characterised patterns of high minorityconcentration in America. In Britain and other parts ofEurope, our cities are older and more valued; our muchstronger welfare systems limit inequalities; a different iftroubled history of inter-ethnic contact shapes migration;and much greater pressure on land outside the citiesmakes solutions inevitably different. These differencescould pave the way towards the much more mixedsocieties that we are inevitably becoming. The issues weraise are significant, not just for urban and social policybut also for the wider debate about the nature of ourmulti- ethnic society and the inclusion of many diversegroups within it.

REFERENCESAtkins, D et al (1996) Urban trends in England: latest evidence from the1991 census. London: DoE

Berube, A (2003) 'Racial and ethnic change in the nation's largest cities'in Katz, B and Lang R. (2003) Redefining Urban and SuburbanAmerica: Evidence from Census 2000. Volume 1. Washington DC. TheBrookings Institute pp137 - 154

Burgess, S & Wilson, D (2004) Ethnic Segregation in England's Schools.London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Burnley Task Force (2001) Report of the Burnley Task Force] / chairedby Lord Anthony Clarke of Hampstead. Burnley: Burnley BoroughCouncil

Cantle, T (2001) Community cohesion: a report of the independentreview team.

London: Home Office

Dorling, D & Thomas, B (2004) People and places: a 2001 census atlasof the UK. Bristol: Policy Press

Glaeser, E & Shapiro, J. (2003) 'City Growth: Which Places Grew andWhy' in Katz, B. and Lang, R. (2003) Redefining Urban and SuburbanAmerica: Evidence from Census 2000. Volume 1. Washington DC. TheBrookings Institute pp 13 - 32

Jargowsky, P A (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios and theAmerican City.New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Katz, B (2002) Smart Growth: The Future of Metropolis?. London:Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Lupton, R & Power, A. (2004) The Growth and Decline of Cities andRegions. CASE - Brookings Census Brief 1. London: Centre for Analysisof Social Exclusion

Marcuse, P & Van Kempen, R. ed (2000) Globalizing Cities: a newspatial order, Oxford; Malden, Mass: Blackwell

Marcuse, P & Van Kempen, R. ed (2001) Of States and Cities: thepartitioning of urban space. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Massey, D & Denton, N (1993) American apartheid: segregation and themaking of the underclass. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Mumford, K & Power, A. (2003) East Enders: family and community inEast London. Bristol: Policy

Oldham Independent Review (2001) Panel report, 11 December 2001:one Oldham, one future / chaired by David Ritchie. Manchester:Government Office for the North West

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) Sustainable communities:building for the future. London: Stationary Office

Peach, C (1996) Introduction in C Peach (ed) Ethnicity in the 1991Censis Vol.2:The ethnic minority populations of Great Britain. London:HMSO

Power, A (1987) Property before People: the management of twentieth-century council housing. London: Allen & Unwin

Power, A (2004) Sustainable communities and Sustainable development:a review of the sustainable communities plan. London: SustainableDevelopment Commission

Priemus, H (2004) Selling social rented housing in Europe and Asia:backgrounds and impacts. Paper presented at Enabling Role of thePublic Sector in Urban Housing and Regeneration: converging anddiverging experiences in Asia and Europe. 12 -14 July 2004, Beijing,China.

Ratcliffe, P. et al (2001) Breaking down the barriers: improving Asianaccess to social rented housing. Coventry: Chartered Institute ofHousing

Rogers, R & Power, A. (2000) Cities for a Small Country. London: Faberand Faber

SEU (2000) National strategy for neighbourhood renewal,. London:Stationary Office

Simpson, J (2003) “I've been waiting”: race and US higher education.Toronto, Buffalo: University of Toronto Press

Simpson, L (2004) 'Statistics of Racial Segregation: Measures, Evidenceand Policy'. Urban Studies 41 (3) pp 661-681

Swenarton, M (1981) Homes fit for heroes: the politics and architectureof early state housing in Britain. London: Heinemann Educational

change. In numerical terms, increases have been greatest inareas where minorities were already concentrated, aswould be expected because of natural growth as well ascontinued immigration into established communities.Thishas led to the greatest percentage point increases inminority ethnic groups as a share of population in the areaswhere they were already well established. In inner urbanareas, this trend has been accompanied by a continuingdecline in white population, leading to significant changesin overall ethnic composition. In Newham for example, theminority population rose from 44% in 1991 to 61% in2001 . While this change was the most extreme and onlytwo local authorities, both in London, became “majorityminority” areas, most areas of high minority settlementsaw significant increases. Birmingham became 30%minority by 2001. At the neighbourhood level, increasingconcentrations of minority ethnic groups were alsopronounced. For example, one ward in Bradford increasedits minority ethnic population from 54% to 73%.

Academic analysis of the growth and distribution ofminority groups has been the subject of intense debate,both in this country and the USA, over theinterpretations of segregation and whether measurementsof this phenomenon are accurate, valid or useful(Simpson, 2003, Dorling, 2004; Peach, Jargowsky, 1996;Massey and Denton, 1993). More widely, discussion ofthese trends can spark off heated debates about thenature of the problem of ethnic group segregation andhow it comes about. Here we discuss the implications ofour findings as neutrally as possible, without attemptingto engage in these ongoing debates, and being careful notto draw strong conclusions from limited data.The Censusdata itself does not provide direct evidence about theimplications of ethnic change for the opportunities andoutcomes of people from different groups, or for socialcohesion and community relations. We might expect thatthe emergent dual pattern of settlement that we havedescribed would have mixed effects, and our wider workon tracking change in deprived urban areas supports thatinterpretation. Growing concentrations of minoritygroups in specific disadvantaged inner urban areas cancause strains both on service provision and oncommunity relations, and particularly the risk of greaterseparation along ethnic lines, thereby reducing socialcontact and the potential for social cohesion (Cantle,2001). On the other hand, there is also evidence ofgreater tolerance and acceptance between different ethnicgroups where contact does develop, with many positivesigns and benefits (Mumford and Power, 2003).However, this is only possible where ethnic separation isreduced and inter-ethnic contact increased.

The need for a more detailed understanding of theprocesses of change is evident from our work. Thefindings are consistent both with patterns of naturalgrowth and continued immigration into existing minoritycommunities, increasing the proportion of minorities inareas where they were already concentrated, and apattern of gradual dispersal away from areas of firstsettlement, leading to small increases in minoritypopulation in areas that were formerly predominantlywhite.We do not, however, provide evidence of how muchof the growth of minority populations in formerly white

areas is caused by migration from other neighbouringareas, by new immigration, or by natural growth of smallexisting populations. We are not in a position to ascribesettlement patterns to choice or constraint of differentgroups. For example, there is now a body of evidenceshowing that many minority groups, including groupsthat have previously been assumed to chose “self-segregation” such as Pakistani and Bangladeshis, activelyseek dispersal to better areas and to mix more with themajority white population (Radcliffe et al, 2000;Simpson, 2003), but this is not a point we can prove ordisprove with the data presented here. Nor can we sayhow much of the loss of white populations from innerurban areas is 'white flight' from areas that are becomingdominated by minority groups, or a product of thenatural ageing of white communities, or a product of out-movement for other reasons. Such issues demand thecareful exploration of migration and birth and deathsdata as well as data from local surveys of preferences andchoices.

Moreover, we also need to understand how changes in thegeographical distribution of ethnic groups are linked towider socio-economic changes. Ethnic change is in partdriven by the powerful globalisation of nationaleconomies, with its impact on migration into developedcountries from poorer regions of the world.This pattern iscommon across the EU, North America and Australia(Marcuse and van Kempen 2000,2001, Katz, 2002). It isnot a local phenomenon but it has local implications.Wider urban trends are also important. The sameprocesses of economic and technological change,combined with anti-urban planning, transportation andhousing polices, have played a part in the long-runoutward movement of urban populations from older highdensity inner urban areas, a movement begun after thefirst world war and continued throughout the twentiethcentury (Swenarton, 1981; Power, 1987; Rogers andPower, 2000). Outward movement of existing populationsleaves residual social and economic problems for thosewho are left, as well as vacuums of space and housing thatcan be readily filled by newcomers who have difficultyaccessing more favoured locations and higher costhousing. We described this continuing trend towards de-urbanisation in the first of our Census briefs (Lupton andPower 2004). It may well be one of the most importantexplanations of the findings we present here: an economicand residential trend having powerful implications for thelocation and interaction of minority ethnic groups, and forthe disadvantages that they face. Understanding what ishappening to city populations and economies, and theimplications of these changes for the concentration of thedisadvantaged in particular neighbourhoods is a vitalelement in understanding changing ethnic geographies.Our next paper will look more closely at povertyconcentrations and how they have changed over the1990s. It will include measures of worklessness and othermeasures of deprivation, including ethnic identity, whichhas historically been connected with many forms of bothdiscrimination and disadvantage, often linked to areaconcentrations (SEU, 2000).

This wider context suggests that while there is a need totarget specific ethnic groups for specific needs or to

November 2004 • CASE-Brookings Census Briefs • No.220


Percentage increases in the numbers of people fromethnic minorities tended to be greatest in local authoritydistricts with very small proportions of minority residentsin 1991, as would be expected given the very low basesupon which percentage increases would be calculated(Figure 4). Often, large percentage increases made almostno impact on the proportion of minority ethnic residentsin the district.The most extreme example was the Isles ofScilly, which had a 500% increase, from one minorityindividual in 1991 to six in 2001, increasing theproportion of minority residents in the district only from0% to 0.3%.

However, as Annex 1 and Figure 4 show, substantialpercentage increases in the numbers of people fromminority groups were recorded also in local authorityareas with large minority populations in 1991. Newhamand Tower Hamlets, for example both saw increases oftwo-thirds, Southwark 70%, Redbridge 80%, Croydon79% and Camden 75%. Outside London, Slough'sminority ethnic population increased by 53%,Birmingham's by 40%, Bradford's by 42% andBlackburn-with-Darwen's by 44%.These were significantincreases in areas where minority groups already made upa significant proportion of the population.6

The biggest increases in actual numbers of people fromminority groups were in districts where minoritypopulations were already established. In these districts,increases in the numbers of people from minority groupswere big enough to make a significant impact on thepercentage of minorities in the district population.Percentage point increases in the proportion of minorities inlocal authority district populations were bigger in districtswhich had bigger minority populations in 1991 (Figure 5).For example, the proportion of Newham's population thatcame from an ethnic minority increased by 19 percentagepoints from 1991 to 2001, from 42% to 61%.

The effect of this overall growth in minority populationswas that fewer local authority areas had very smallproportions of minorities in 2001 than in 1991, and morehad large minority populations. 87% of authorities in1991 had 7% or fewer from minority ethnic groups,falling to 81% in 2001. In 1991, 7% of all districts hadmore than 15% of their population from ethnic minoritypopulations, rising to 9% in 2001. 3% had more than aquarter from minority groups, rising to 5% in 2001. Forthe first time in 2001, there were two 'majority minority'districts, Newham and Brent.

White people were therefore more likely to live inethnically mixed areas in 2001 than in 1991. However, asthe proportion of people from minority ethnic groupsincreased in areas of established settlement, so did theproportion of individuals from minority ethnic groupswho lived in areas where minority groups were relativelyhighly concentrated. In 1991, 55% of ethnic minorityindividuals lived in districts with 15% or more minorities.61% did so in 2001. The proportion living in districtswith a quarter or more minorities rose from 25% to 44%.By 2001, all of the minority individuals in Newham andBrent were living in a local authority where whites werein the minority, whereas no person from an ethnicminority was in this position in 1991.

These increases in minority populations were significantchanges in a short period. However, the increases inminority populations in local authority areas which hadhad very small minority populations in 1991 were notlarge enough to significantly alter the overall pattern ofdistribution. And the increases in areas of existingsettlement only reinforced the existing distribution.Therewere important localized changes, such as the increases inminority populations in Outer London boroughs likeHarrow, Croydon and Redbridge, but broadly speaking,minority groups remained concentrated in the areas theywere in 1991.

5 The 'other' category probably includes many people of mixed race.

6 All these data are based on Census comparisons. Increases may be inflated due toundercounting of students and affected by the counting of students at their vacationaddresses in 1991 and term addresses in 2001.

FIGURE 4: Percentage Change in the Numbers of People fromEthnic Minorities in Local Authority Districts 1991-2001

Source: 1991 Census SAS Table 6. 2001 Census: Key Statistics Table 6.

FIGURE 5: Percentage Point Changes in Ethnic MinorityPopulations as a Proportion of total Local Authority districtpopulations 1991-2001


Tables 5 and 6 compare the local authority leveldistribution of minorities overall and of the five largestminority ethnic groups in 1991 and 2001.They show thatoverall, minority groups became slightly moreconcentrated in a small number of local authorities withlarge minority populations, possibly due to the impact ofmixed race re-classification. Most groups retained their1991 distribution, with the same proportions of theiroverall number in the five, ten, twenty and fiftyauthorities where they were most numerous. The Indiangroup became slightly less concentrated, while theBangladeshi group became slightly more concentrated incertain local authorities (Table 5). With a small numberof exceptions, especially in relation to the Black Africanpopulation in London, specific authorities retainedalmost exactly the same share of minority populationsthat they had had in 1991 (Table 6), even though thenumbers grew. The London Borough of Newham gaineda greater share of both Bangladeshi and Pakistanipopulations. Croydon gained share of Black Caribbeanpopulation. Lewisham, Southwark and Newham bothgained a greater share of Black African population whileLambeth and Hackney lost share.

The data presented here are consistent with a pattern ofnatural growth of existing minority communities,increasing the proportion of minorities in areas wherethey were already concentrated. They are also consistentwith a pattern of gradual dispersal away from areas of firstsettlement, leading to increases in minority population inareas that previously had only small proportions ofminorities. It must be emphasised, however, that neithernatural growth nor dispersal are directly measured in

these data, which compare two Census periods and donot indicate the scale of in- or out-migration, births ordeaths. What is evident is a continuing and significantincrease in Britain's ethnic diversity.

Changes within Conurbations and CitiesIn the remainder of this paper, we take a closer look atpatterns of change by examining changes within cities.Welook at Greater London and the three largestconurbations outside London: the West Midlands, WestYorkshire and Greater Manchester. The West Midlandsincludes Birmingham and the districts of Coventry,Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.West Yorkshire includes the cities of Leeds and Bradfordas well as Kirklees, Wakefield and Calderdale districts.Greater Manchester includes the city of Manchester andthe surrounding districts of Salford, Oldham, Rochdale,Tameside, Trafford, Stockport, Bolton, Bury and Wigan.These were not only Britain's largest urban areas in 2001,they were also the areas of largest minority ethnicsettlement. Between them, these four areas include 32 ofthe 37 districts with more than 15% ethnic minoritypopulation.7

Within these conurbations, we look first at changes at thedistrict level, and then at the electoral ward level. We useelectoral ward as the best available proxy for'neighbourhood'. As explained in the introduction, we use2001 Census data in this section but for 1991 use theSOCPOP ward population estimates which take intoaccount estimates of undercounting of ethnic minoritiesand offer the most accurate picture of small area change.


TABLE 5: Percentage of Each Ethnic Group in Local Authorities with Largest Population from that Ethnic Group, 1991 to 2001

Groups of authoritiesin rank order of ethnicgroup population,highest firstTop 5 LAs(where group ismost numerous)Top 10 LAsTop 20 LAsTop 50 LAS

Indian

1991 2001

27 2643 4160 5880 77

Pakistani

1991 2001

33 3244 4361 6083 82

Bangladeshi

1991 2001

42 4654 5666 6784 84

Black Caribbean

1991 2001

29 2945 4665 6487 87

Black African

1991 2001

32 3149 4870 6887 88

All minority groups

1991 2001

19 1930 3147 5074 78


TABLE 6: Concentration of Minority Ethnic Groups in Certain Authorities

Top 5 LAs (where group ismost numerous)In 1991

In 2001

Indian

Leicester 7Birmingham 6Ealing 5Brent 5Harrow 4Leicester 7Birmingham 5Ealing 5Brent 5Harrow 4

Pakistani

Birmingham 14Bradford 10Kirklees 4

Manchester 3Walt'm F'st 3Birmingham 14Bradford 9Kirklees 4Manchester 3Newham 3

Bangladeshi

Tower Hamlets 23Birmingham 8Newham 5Camden 4Oldham 3Tower Hamlets 23Newham 8Birmingham 7Camden 4Oldham 3

Black Caribbean

Birmingham 8Lambeth 6Lewisham 5 Brent 5Hackney 4Birmingham 8Lambeth 6Lewisham 5Brent 5 Croydon 5

Black African

Lambeth 8Southwark 7Hackney 6Newham 6Haringey 5Southwark 8Newham 7Lambeth 6Hackney 5Lewisham 5

All minority groups

Birmingham 7Brent 4Newham 3Ealing 3Leicester 3Birmingham 7Newham 4Brent 3Ealing 3Bradford 2

% of each ethnic group found in each grouping of authorities



A further important point to make in this section is that,while we have looked at ward-level changes across theeach conurbation as a whole, the experiences within thedifferent districts making up these conurbations werevery different. In Leeds in West Yorkshire, for example,some of the lowest increases in minority population werein inner wards with already moderately high levels ofminorities.There was a general pattern of ethnic minoritypopulation growth with no particularly concentratedgrowth in areas of established minority population. Inadjacent Bradford, there were increases in minoritypopulation throughout the city, but also high rates ofminority increase, and very high rates of white populationdecrease (over one third) in a small number of inner citywards which had high ethnic minority populations in1991. One ward increased from 55% to 69% minoritiesin a decade; another from 54% to 73%.These were rapidand localized changes not evident in nearby Leeds.Similarly, in Greater Manchester, Oldham saw a morerapid increase in minority population than other GreaterManchester districts with similar ethnic populations in1991. There was high growth and high white populationdecline in wards with already high levels of ethnicminority population, leading to significant increases inthe extent to which minority ethnic groups wereresidentially isolated from the white majority.The reasonsfor these different patterns in different towns and citiescan only really be understood with detailed localknowledge, going beyond statistical analysis. On the basisof statistics alone, we need to be cautious aboutgeneralising from one urban area to another.

CONCLUSIONSThis paper has highlighted significant changes in theoverall size of the ethnic minority population - a 1.6million increase in a decade, in contrast with an increaseof 600,000 in the white population. Ethnic minoritygroups still only comprise a small minority of thepopulation, 8.1% overall but this has risen from 5.5% in1991, a big increase. The fastest growing group comesfrom Africa, but black Africans still only comprise 1% ofthe total population. Indian and Pakistani populationshave also grown rapidly with Indians forming much thelargest minority group- over a million.Yet this is still only2% of the population. Compared with the USA, thesepercentages are small, and several other Europeancountries have similar proportions (Marcuse and vanKempen 2000).

The overall figures disguise the concentrations ofparticular minority groups in particular areas and theoverall concentration of minorities more generally in alimited number of mainly older urban areas.The 37 localauthorities (9% of local authorities) with the highestconcentrations of all minorities (above 15%) house 61%of the total minority ethnic population. 5% of localauthorities house 38% of minorities.

Over the 1990s, minority ethnic populations haveincreased in most areas. In percentage terms, the increaseshave been greatest in areas with small minority populationsin 1991, i.e with a low base from which to calculate

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

livin

g in

war

dsw

ith g

iven

eth

nic

com

posi

tion

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%1991White Population Minority Ethnic Population

86%

9%5%0%

2001

84%

8%6%1%

1991

32%

23%

45%

0%

2001

33%

16%

33%

18%

50-74% minority

25-49% minority

10-24% minority

less than 10% minority

Minority Ethnic Composition of Ward

FIGURE 8: Greater Manchester Conurbation: Proportionof White and Minority Ethnic Residents Living in Wardsof Different Ethnic Composition

Source: 1991 SOCPOP estimates. 2001 Census: Key Statistics Table 6.

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

livin

g in

war

dsw

ith g

iven

eth

nic

com

posi

tion

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%


76%

16%

7%0%

2001

73%

18%

9%

0%

1991

18%

29%

11%

34%

8%

2001

18%

26%

38%

18%

0%

75%+ minority

50-74% minority

25-49% minority

10-24% minority



1% 1%

FIGURE 9: West Yorkshire Conurbation: Proportion ofWhite and Minority Ethnic Residents Living in Wards ofDifferent Ethnic Composition


% o

f pop

ulat

ion

livin

g in

war

dsw

ith g

iven

eth

nic

com

posi

tion

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%


67%

21%

7%

0%

2001

49%

36%

10%

1%

1991

18%

19%

43%

20%

0%

2001

11%

26%

21%

25%

17%

75%+ minority

50-74% minority

25-49% minority

10-24% minority



5% 4%

FIGURE 10: West Midlands Conurbation: Proportion ofWhite and Minority Ethnic Residents Living in Wards ofDifferent Ethnic Composition


Increases in the proportions of minorities did not tend tobe sufficient to lift wards into a new grouping (Table 11).In fact, there was actually a reduction in the proportionof people living in wards with 75% or more minorities,because University ward in Bradford, with an increase inwhite students, saw a slight decrease in its proportion ofminorities from 75% in 1991 to 74% in 2001 (Figure 9)

In the West Midlands, where there were more wards withrelatively high minority populations in 1991, there weremore significant changes for both white and minoritygroups. As all wards gained minority ethnic population,there was a reduction in the number of wards with less

than 10% ethnic minorities, from 100 wards to 73 wards.The proportion of white people living in such wardsreduced substantially, from 67% to 49%, and there was acorresponding increase in the proportion living in wardswith 10-24% of their population from ethnic minorities(Figure 10). At the same time, the loss of whitepopulation from wards with large minority ethnicpopulations meant that, for the first time in 2001 in theWest Midlands, there were wards with 75% or moreethnic minorities. In 2001, 18% of people from ethnicminorities (1 in 6) lived in such a ward, compared withnone in 1991.


MAP 15: West Midlands Conurbation

MAP 17: Greater Manchester Conurbation

MAP 16: West Yorkshire Conurbation

Change in Minority Ethnic Populationas % of Ward Population 1991-2001...

Change in Minority Ethnic Population as a proportion of ward population 1991-2001

any decrease

increase 0 – 5%

increase 5 – 10%

increase 10 – 14%

increase more than 15%


7 The remaining five districts were Leicester, Oadby and Wigston, Slough, Luton andBlackburn-with-Darwen. All of these have had significant ward boundary changessince 1991 which make it difficult to analyse change within them over this period.

8 Population totals using Mid-Year Estimates (MYES). These are the most widely usedestimates of population and are used here for consistency with other publications. TheCensus counts presented in the tables that follow vary slightly from the MYEs.

INTRODUCTION TO LONDON AND THECONURBATIONS AND THEIR MINORITYPOPULATIONS IN 2001We start by making some initial comments on the natureof these four areas, to set data on minority ethnicpopulations in context. First, London stands out from theother areas. The area we look at here is Greater London,including Inner London and Outer London. It is muchlarger in terms of population than any of the three otherconurbations, with about 7.3 million people in 2001,compared with about 2 to 2.5 million in the other areas.8

It has 33 Boroughs (or districts) compared with 10 inGreater Manchester, 7 in the West Midlands and 5 inWest Yorkshire. Moreover, all of these boroughs are highlyurbanized and form part of the same contiguous urbanarea. By contrast, the three other areas all contain morethan one officially classified city (Manchester and Salfordin Greater Manchester; Birmingham and Coventry in theWest Midlands; and Leeds and Bradford in WestYorkshire) and also include within their boundariessmaller market and industrial towns and rural areas aswell as inner urban areas and built-up suburbs. Lookingat a comparable area for London would entail lookingwell beyond the London boundary to include areas inSurrey, Kent, Berkshire, Middlesex, Hertfordshire andEssex and Buckinghamshire or even beyond.The GreaterLondon area that we describe here is more solidly andconsistently urban than the areas that we describe in theother conurbations.

It is also important to note differences in the level andmake-up of minority ethnic population, not just inLondon compared with the others, but contrasting theother three conurbations with each other. In London, theminority ethnic population in 2001 made up just underone-third of the overall population, compared with one-fifth in Birmingham and one-tenth in West Yorkshire andGreater Manchester (Table 7). London had a diversepopulation, with Indians the largest minority group (6%),but Black Caribbeans and Black Africans also eachmaking up 5%, as well as smaller Pakistani, Bangladeshiand Chinese populations. The West Midlands was alsodiverse, but without a significant Black Africanpopulation, while the other two conurbations had onemajor minority group each (Pakistani) and much smallerrepresentation from the other groups.

Maps 8-11 show the distribution of minorities in theconurbations. They also show each local authoritydistrict's percentage share of the overall minority ethnicpopulation of the conurbation, compared with their shareof the overall population. The much larger number ofdistricts in London obviously makes the comparisonssomewhat difficult to pick out. However, we can see thatmany London boroughs had approximately the share ofminority ethnic populations that would be expected giventheir population share. Tower Hamlets, Brent andNewham had considerably more; Bexley, Bromley,Sutton and Havering considerably less. The otherconurbations all had pronounced concentrations in onedistrict. In the West Midlands, over half of the ethnicminority population of the conurbation lived inBirmingham, compared with 38% of all people.Coventry, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton hadabout the expected proportion of ethnic minorities, andDudley and Solihull considerably less. The geographicalpattern was a little more marked in West Yorkshire andGreater Manchester, where the ethnic minoritypopulation as a whole was smaller. In both conurbations,one district (Manchester in Greater Manchester andBradford in West Yorkshire) had an ethnic minoritypopulation twice as high as would be expected if theminority population were evenly distributed, and otherdistricts (Wigan and Wakefield) had very much lowerlevels of minorities. Thus even within conurbations withrelatively high levels of ethnic minority population, wefind very different levels of concentration.

TABLE 7: Details of the Four Conurbations 2001

LondonWest MidlandsWest YorkshireGreater Manchester

Populations(000s)

7172255620792482

% Minority

2920119

% Indian

6621

%Pakistani

2563

% Bangla-deshi

2101

% BlackCaribbean

5311

% BlackAfrican

5000

Chinese

1000

OtherCategories

7422

Source: 2001 Census: Key Statistics Table 6.Numbers in individual groups may not sum to total for all minorities due to rounding.

CHANGES DURING THE 1990S AT DISTRICT LEVELDuring the 1990s, the differences in levels of ethnicminority population became slightly more pronounced.Two main processes were at work.

Firstly, minority ethnic populations increased. Theseincreases occurred in all districts except one(Wandsworth in London) across the four conurbations(Table 8).9 As we observed earlier when analyzing changeacross the country as a whole, percentage increases on1991 populations were greatest in the districts which hadthe lowest ethnic minority populations to start with.Among the districts with fewer than 10% ethnic

minorities in 1991, the ethnic minority growth rate was45%, compared with 35% in the districts with 10-24% in1991 and 36% in the districts with more than 25% (Table10). All of the districts with minority populations greaterthan 25% in 1991 were in London.

However in numerical terms, the greatest increases werein districts with high ethnic minority populations to startwith (Table 10). The districts with the lowestconcentrations of minorities (less than 10%) gained onaverage, about 5500 ethnic minority people in the 10-yearperiod, compared with 18,000 in the districts with 10-24% minority ethnic population in 1991 and about26,500 in the districts with the highest originalconcentrations (more than 25%).


9 These data differ from those presented in Table 5 because they are based oncomparisons of SOCPOP and Census data, not on raw Census comparisons.

MAP 10

MAP 11

MAP 8

MAP 9

Greater LondonEthnic Minorities 2001

West Midlands ConurbationEthnic Minorities 2001

West Yorkshire ConurbationEthnic Minorities 2001

Greater Manchester ConurbationEthnic Minorities 2001

District Share of West Midlands Total and Minority PopulationsShare of Population Share of Minorities

District Share of Londons Total and Minority PopulationsShare of Population Share of Minorities

District Share of Greater Manchester’s Total and Minority PopulationsShare of Population Share of Minorities

District Share of West Yorkshire’s Total and Minority PopulationsShare of Population Share of Minorities% of District’s Population

from Minority Ethnic Groups

1 – 9%

10 – 24%

25 – 49%

50 – 74%


2001 as in 1991, and as a result, there was little change inthe proportions of white or minority individuals living insuch wards. Changes in ethnic composition of wards,using these cut-off points, mainly affected wards whichhad relatively high ethnic minority populations (25-49%)in 1991. Six of the sixteen wards in this category in 1991gained sufficient minority population and had sufficientlosses of white population to move into the 'majorityminority' category by 2001, with more than 50% of theirpopulation from a minority group. For example,Wernethand Coldhurst wards in Oldham saw increases in

minority population from 39% to 58% and 37% to 57%respectively. This meant that there was an increase in thenumber of minority individuals living in areas of highminority population between 1991 and 2001. Andbecause these wards also had white populations, morewhites were also living in areas with high ethnic minoritypopulations in 2001 than in 1991 (Fig 8).

In West Yorkshire, there was little change in the overalldistribution of either white or ethnic minority peopleacross wards with different percentages of minorities.

MAP 12: West Midlands Conurbation

MAP 14: Greater Manchester Conurbation

MAP 13: West Yorkshire Conurbation

Minority Ethnic Population as % of Ward Population 1991...

Minority Ethnic Population as aproportion of ward population 1991

0 – 9%

10 – 24%

25 – 49%

50 – 74%

75% or more

minority.West Yorkshire and the West Midlands both hada small number of 'majority minority' wards (i.e wardswith 50% or more from an ethnic minority) while GreaterManchester had none. Maps 12-14 show the distributionof these high minority wards in 1991. They show theconcentration of ethnic minorities in inner areas of largecities and in some of the smaller textile towns ofLancashire and West Yorkshire; the inner areas ofBirmingham, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Coventry inthe West Midlands; Bradford, Leeds, Halifax,Huddersfield, Batley and Dewsbury in West Yorkshire;and Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale and Bolton inGreater Manchester.

During the 1990s, ethnic minority populations increasednumerically in 95% of the 502 wards. This was the casein all of the three conurbations individually. As we foundwith our district level analysis, minority ethnicpopulations increased most as a percentage of theirstarting point in the wards where there were fewminorities in 1991.

At the same time, white populations decreasednumerically in 78% of the wards, tending only to increasein inner city wards close to universities or in more affluentsuburbs or areas of new building on the edge of the

conurbations. The decline in white population affectedthe highest proportion of wards in the West Midlands(89% of wards); fewer in Greater Manchester (76%) andWest Yorkshire (67%), as might be expected given that theoverall loss of white population was greater in the WestMidlands (-7.5%) than in Greater Manchester (-5.7%)and West Yorkshire (-2.5%).

White populations decreased most in wards withrelatively high proportions of ethnic minorities. Thecombination of white population loss in these wards andminority population growth changed the balance ofpopulation.White populations declined as a percentage oftotal population and minority ethnic populations grew.Thus while the wards with small numbers of ethnicminorities in 1991 saw the biggest increases in relation totheir starting point, the wards with the highestproportions of ethnic minorities in 1991 saw the biggestincreases in minority ethnic population, expressed as apercentage of the total ward population. Table 12demonstrates that this pattern held in all threeconurbations. In West Yorkshire and the West Midlands,which had a small number of 'majority minority' wards in1991, these wards had the most significant losses in whitepopulation during the decade. Evidence of these changesis provided in Maps 15-17 as well as in Table 12.

Using our simplified grouping of wards into categorieswith defined percentages of ethnic minority population,we can see that the impact of these changes on theisolation of white and ethnic groups varied across thethree conurbations.

In Greater Manchester, where most wards had low levelsof minority population in 1991, few gained sufficientextra minority population to push them into a highercategory. The numbers of wards with relatively lowconcentrations of minorities remained much the same in


TABLE 11: Ethnic minority populations at ward level in 1991

West Midlands 162 62 21 9 7 0West Yorkshire 126 71 17 9 2 1Grtr. Manchester 214 82 10 7 0 0Total 502 73 15 8 3 0


% of wards with population from ethnicminorities in these groups:Number

of wards

Less than10% 10-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75%+

TABLE 12: Changes in Ethnic Minority and White Populations at Ward Level

Categories of Wards,grouped by % of wardpopulation from minorityethnic group in 1991

West Midlands<10% minority10-24%25-49%50-74%75% or moreWest Yorkshire<10% minority10-24%25-49%50-74%75% or moreGreater Manchester<10% minority10-24%25-49%50-74%75% or more

Number ofwards incategory

1991

1003515120

90221121

177211600

% change in minorityethnic pop.

59321313

61349

3211

543718

% change inwhite pop.

-6-7

-14-25

-1-3

-12-3718

-5-8

-15

% pop.inminority ethnic

groups 1991

5153561

215325575

31538

% Pop. inminority ethnic

groups 2001

8204270

420377174

42146

% point changein population

in ethnicminority groups

1991-2001

3579

155

17-1

168

Number ofwards incategory

2001

73552010

4

852315

30

1711918

6

Figures may not add up exactly due to roundingSource: 1991 SOCPOP estimates. 2001 Census: Key Statistics Table 6.

Data on Change in Ethnic Composition of Wards in Each Category 1991-2001


TABLE 8: Changes in Minority Ethnic Populations in the Four Conurbations 1991-2001

LondonBarkingBarnetBexleyBrentBromleyCamdenCity of LondonCroydonEalingEnfieldGreenwichHackneyHammersmith/FulhamHaringeyHarrowHaveringHillingdonHounslowIslingtonKensington/ChelseaKingstonLambethLewishamMertonNewhamRedbridgeRichmondSouthwarkSuttonTower HamletsWaltham ForestWandsworthWestminsterWest MidlandsBirminghamCovertryDudleySandwellSolihullWalsallWolverhamptonWest YorkshireBradfordCalderdaleKirkleesLeedsWakefieldGreater ManchesterBoltonBuryManchesterOldhamRochdaleSalfordStockportTamesideTraffordWigan

Minority ethnicpopulation 1991

1465021107685797813621

1142141520034664

35159402937143933329059661122997165233553418038

307215266735322248291257481798571922959996443514789761

590291094661371577325775842804

4096442308333748315042453966470

2655447866

184958792969450

42645485295038

165951231377088

600362003116908613774859660

128022667

Minority ethnicpopulation 2001

2068888242778169618797

14418624866531241110

98642124207626104906882356366407442585271108275088674587433333399522881

1001118482447025

1477618704815550905501941795307775385740248571

512356289681482031929257429107873443052534

2363861016171342755905583237114

22183428664110567480630112234738357

1229611575175733922

Change inminority ethnic

population

60386713509237185176

299729666

18460759

392403049323277200091624466699192

299302789

201652192080119166

1030718313276321742651318355705789

315218471

3393619806

-3565767

10271258848107204250

12033431778764668

51428223213977

1326097942076

5588355273968

1477010081656522204811191547711255

Change inminority ethnic

population as %of 1991 figure

41%125%41%38%26%64%53%

216%66%33%59%69%25%22%14%54%35%66%42%23%37%82%22%48%59%53%69%59%53%77%55%34%-1%13%25%25%29%28%27%67%30%10%28%28%42%31%20%41%34%24%56%25%50%39%36%64%20%37%47%

% minority1991

21%7%

19%6%

46%5%

19%8%

19%33%15%14%35%19%31%27%3%

13%25%21%17%9%

32%24%17%44%22%6%

26%6%

37%27%22%23%16%23%12%5%

15%3%

10%19%19%17%5%

11%7%2%6%9%4%

14%9%8%3%3%4%6%1%

% minority2001

29%15%26%9%

55%8%

27%15%30%41%23%23%41%22%34%41%5%

21%35%25%21%16%38%34%25%61%36%9%

37%11%49%36%22%27%20%30%16%6%

20%5%

14%22%22%22%7%

14%8%2%9%

11%6%

19%14%11%4%4%5%8%1%

Percentagepoint change in

share of totalpopulation fromethnic minorities

8%7%7%2%9%3%7%7%

11%8%8%9%5%3%3%

14%1%8%

10%4%4%6%6%

10%8%

17%14%

3%11%

4%12%

9%0%4%4%7%4%1%5%2%4%3%3%5%2%3%1%1%2%2%2%5%5%3%1%2%1%2%0%


Note: Because of the use of the SOCPOP estimates, these figures vary slightly from those inTable 3 and Annex 1, which are based on Census data.

Secondly, white populations declined. Across the four conurbations, white population only grew in six districts, all of themLondon Boroughs: Kingston, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond and the City ofLondon.The loss of white population in the other London Boroughs is striking, given that the conurbation's populationas a whole grew by 4% over the decade.10 West Yorkshire also had a slightly growing population (+0.2%) during the decadebut a declining white population (-2.5%). Greater Manchester and the West Midlands had declining populations overalland declining white populations.Their white populations declined more than their overall populations.


TABLE 9: Changes in White Populations in the Four Conurbations 1991-2001

LondonBarkingBarnetBexleyBrentBromleyCamdenCity of LondonCroydonEalingEnfieldGreenwichHackneyHammersmith/FulhamHaringeyHarrowHaveringHillingdonHounslowIslingtonKensington/ChelseaKingstonLambethLewishamMertonNewhamRedbridgeRichmondSouthwarkSuttonTower HamletsWaltham ForestWandsworthWestminsterWest MidlandsBirminghamCovertryDudleySandwellSolihullWalsallWolverhamptonWest YorkshireBradfordCalderdaleKirkleesLeedsWakefieldGreater ManchesterBoltonBuryManchesterOldhamRochdaleSalfordStockportTamesideTraffordWigan

TotalPopulation

1991

6878051146463300550219822249502296558177857

4230320763282345262979212604187896155529210854204635233562236978209029171604144675136313254895239881172409220141231376164472226219172409166616216984264075183828

2619673999646300016310343295350202973264253247092

2074998474634195187380659707735316783

2562289263612180049424243220465205586228749289952220217217113312302

TotalPopulation

2001

7172091163944314564218307263464295532198020

7185330587300948273559214403202824165242216507206814224248243006212341175797158919147273266169248922187908243891238635172335244866179768196106218341260380181286

2555587977087300846305162282907199512253495236578

2079199467658192408388564715405315164

2482341261030180606392819217274205364216103284526213043210148301428

Change inTotal

Population

2940401748114014-151513962-10262016329559824

18603105801799

14928971356532179

-9314602833124193

1424410960112749041

154992375072597863

186477359

294901357

-3695-2542

-64086-22559

830-5181

-12443-3461

-10758-10514

4201-6976-277979057670

-1619-79948

-2582557

-31424-3191-222

-12646-5426-7174-6965

-10874

% change inTotal

Population

4%11.9%4.7%

-0.7%5.6%

-0.3%11.3%69.9%3.1%6.6%4.0%0.8%7.9%6.2%2.7%1.1%

-4.0%2.5%1.6%2.4%9.8%8.0%4.4%3.8%9.0%

10.8%3.1%4.8%8.2%4.3%

17.7%0.6%

-1.4%-1.4%-2.4%-2.3%0.3%

-1.7%-4.2%-1.7%-4.1%-4.3%0.2%

-1.5%-1.4%2.1%1.1%

-0.5%-3.1%-1.0%0.3%

-7.4%-1.4%-0.1%-5.5%-1.9%-3.3%-3.2%-3.5%

White1991

5413030135695242572206201135289281358143193

3879261361188631223646183545121784125558145621149294225524206257156362136282119846123739173097182689142810123698179898154711167190161463105244159252206317141024

2210029768812262533295302249955196503237699199226

1890040395338185737338014659206311745

2396338240475172961364207200434188678222613282467210557204311309634

White 2001

5103203139667232868199510119278270666144896

607523194517674121094916533512046812860214208212154321342119212013775413246412492412439216605816409814088396130

151587156785154316160351100799140803202978132715

2043231687406252643285870225478188725219065184044

1842813366041178981332659657082308050

2260507232366169550318013187162181891207746272230201468192575297506

Change inwhite

population

-3098273972

-9704-6691

-16011-10692

17032196

-29416-11890-12697-18210-13163044

-3539-27751-12103-14137-18608-38185078653

-7039-18591-1927

-27568-28311

2074-12874-1112-4445

-18449-3339-8309

-166798-81406-9890-9432

-24477-7778

-18634-15182-47227-29297-6756-5355-2124-3695

-135831-8109-3411

-46194-13272-6787

-14867-10237-9089

-11736-12128

% change inwhite

population

-5.7%2.9%

-4.0%-3.2%

-11.8%-3.8%1.2%

56.6%-11.3%

-6.3%-5.7%-9.9%-1.1%2.4%

-2.4%-18.6%

-5.4%-6.9%

-11.9%-2.8%4.2%0.5%

-4.1%-10.2%

-1.3%-22.3%-15.7%

1.3%-7.7%-0.7%-4.2%

-11.6%-1.6%-5.9%-7.5%

-10.6%-3.8%-3.2%-9.8%-4.0%-7.8%-7.6%-2.5%-7.4%-3.6%-1.6%-0.3%-1.2%-5.7%-3.4%-2.0%

-12.7%-6.6%-3.6%-6.7%-3.6%-4.3%-5.7%-3.9%



Across the four conurbations, white population losseswere greatest in the districts with the highest ethnicminority populations in 1991 (Table 10).

The result of this combination of changes in the whiteand minority ethnic populations was that, as a proportionof total population, minority ethnic populations increasedmost in districts where they were most numerous to beginwith. This meant that the contrast in ethnic compositionbetween districts increased during the decade. Forexample, within Greater Manchester, the minority ethnicpopulation of Manchester increased from a 14% to a19% share of the city's overall population, while thepopulation of Wigan remained almost entirely white.Similarly, the minority ethnic population in Bradfordincreased from a 17% to a 22% share of the city'spopulation, while there was no increase in Wakefield,which remained mainly white.

In these conurbations, more people from ethnic minoritieswere living in districts with relatively high minority ethnicpopulations in 2001 than they were in 1991. Figure 6shows the percentage share of all minority ethnicindividuals across these four conurbations living in districtswith fewer than 10% minorities, 10-24%, 25-49% and 50-74% minorities. It demonstrates that more people fromethnic minorities were living in districts with 25% or moreminority populations in 2001 than in 1991, and fewer indistricts with lower proportions from ethnic minorities.

On the other hand, the growth of minority populations inmost districts meant that more white people were living inareas of ethnic diversity in 2001 than in 1991 (Figure 7).

Thus while white people were becoming less isolatedfrom people of a minority ethnic background, and therewas an increasing number of people from ethnicminorities in formerly all-white areas, people from ethnicminorities were also becoming more likely to live in areaswith much higher proportions of minorities than thenational average. These trends are consistent with trendsof dispersal and of continued growth in areas of existingminority settlement.

CHANGES AT THE ELECTORAL WARD LEVEL The trends observed at district level were also evident atward level. Widespread ward boundary changes do notpermit us to carry out a ward-level analysis for London,but we can look at the other three conurbations at thislevel. In summary, we found that, as for districts,percentage increases were highest in wards with lowconcentrations of minorities in 1991. However, thesewere increases from a low base and the numbers weresmall. Numerical increases were highest in areas ofexisting settlement, where there were relatively highproportions of minorities in the population in 1991.White populations also decreased more in wards ofrelatively high ethnic minority population in 1991, suchthat these wards had a greater increase in ethnicminorities as a proportion of the total population thanwards with low ethnic minority population, and byimplication a greater fall in white population as a share oftotal population. We present this analysis below.

Altogether, there were 502 wards in the threeconurbations, of which nearly three quarters hadminority ethnic populations of less than 10% in 1991. Inkeeping with the relative size of the minority populationsin the conurbations (W.Mids 16%, W.Yorks 9%,G.Manch. 6%), the West Midlands had the lowestproportion of predominantly white wards and GreaterManchester the highest (Table 11). West Yorkshire wasthe only one of the conurbations to have any wards (justone) with 75% or more of its population from an ethnic

10 London's population growth according to Census/SOCPOP comparisons was 4%but 7% according to MYEs.

TABLE 10: Changes in White and Minority Populations inthe Four Conurbations

White Minority White Minority White MinorityLondon -2% +69% -6% +44% -9% +36%West Midlands -3% +40% -9% +24%West Yorkshire -1% +25% -5% +29%Grtr. Manchester -4% +39% -13% +25%All -3% +45% -7% +35% -9% +36%


Change in ethnic group population as a % of its1991 size, in districts with:

Less than 10%ethnic minority

population (1991)

10-24% ethnicminority

population (1991)

25-49% ethnicminority

population (1991)

% o

f min

ority

pop

ulat

ion

livin

g in

dis

tric

tsw

ith d

iffer

ent p

ropo

rtio

ns o

f min

oriti

es

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%1991 2001

50-74% minority

25-49% minority

10-24% minority


12%

52%

36%

0%

8%

28%

54%

10% Composition of District

FIGURE 6: Proportion of People from Ethnic MinoritiesLiving in Districts of Different Ethnic Composition (across the 4 conurbations)

% o

f whi

te p

opul

atio

n liv

ing

in d

istr

icts

with

diff

eren

t eth

nic

com

posi

tion

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%1991 2001

42%

45%

14%

0%

34%

35%

29%

2%

50-74% minority

25-49% minority

10-24% minority


Composition of District

FIGURE 7: Proportion of White People Living in Districts ofDifferent Ethnic Composition (across the 4 conurbations)

Documents

REFERENCES - STICERDsticerd.lse.ac.uk › dps › case › CBCB › census2_part3.pdf · Mumford, K & Power, A. (2003) East Enders: family and community in East London. Bristol: Policy