Ethnic internal migration: The importance of age and migrant status

Abstract

Internal migration is one of the main drivers of local population change and therefore an important factor to consider in the provision of services across key domains such as housing, health and education. In recent years, the population of England and Wales has become increasingly ethnically diverse, with groups varying in age structure and time spent in the UK (whether at the group or individual level). However, relatively little is known about the internal migration patterns of these diverse groups, with research into internal migration propensity not accounting for the possible interplay between ethnicity, country of birth and age. Using micro‐data from the 2011 Census for England and Wales, this paper addresses this gap in knowledge, exploring whether widely reported determinants of internal migration operate differently for different ethnic groups, stratified by age and country of birth. This paper also explores whether for ethnic minority groups born overseas, time spent in the UK matters for migration propensity. When stratifying ethnic groups by age and country of birth, differences in migration propensity do not appear to be explained by socio‐economic differences, as previous research in the field suggests. However, for those born overseas, some of the differences are explained by time spent in the UK. From a policy perspective, it is evident that a more nuanced understanding of the way in which propensity to migrate may vary between ethnic groups differing in age and country of birth is needed to ensure sustained provision and equitable access across key service domains. Further research must examine the extent to which differences in migration propensity shapes the nature of migration events, whether in terms of distance or frequency of move.

Residential mobility

“…An important issue often neglected in the health mobility literature and which can serve to confuse findings further is that of selective migration. This has long been identified in the residential mobility and neighbourhood literatures ( Boyle and Norman, 2009 ; Curtis et al, 2009 ; Manley and Van Ham, 2012 ; Norman et al, 2005 ; Oreopoulos, 2003 ), in which there has been a particular focus on health-selective migration ( Connolly et al, 2007 ; Darlington et al, 2015 ; Gatrell, 2011 ; Riva et al, 2011 ). Because the factor(s) that drive mobility throughout the lifecourse such as age and socio-economic position ( Tunstall et al, 2012 ) are largely the same as the factors that determine the patterning of health outcomes ( Davey Smith et al, 1998 ; Link and Phelan, 1995 ), the relationship between mobility and health may be spurious and heavily confounded by selective migration or underlying latent differences between groups of people ( Bentham, 1988 ; Jokela, 2014 ).…”

Defining distance thresholds for migration research

“…Higher levels of educational attainment are often associated with higher rates of migration (Finney & Simpson, 2008), and we define two groups, people educated to below degree level and people educated to degree level and above. Differentiation between those born in the UK and those born outside the UK is included because of identified differences in propensity between internal migration for those born in a country and foreign born immigrants (Silvestre & Reher, 2014) although we do not have information about length of residence for non‐UK born populations which has been found to differentiate the odds of migrating (Darlington‐Pollock et al, 2019). Health is measured using a binary definition of Limiting Long Term Illness (LLTI) which combines the responses ‘limited a little’ and ‘limited a lot’ to a single affirmative response.…”

Transformation of a Village: Case of Wad Al Abbas, Sennar State, Sudan

“…On the other hand, the village has seen outmigration (internal/domestic migration within the country, rural to urban) for various reasons. These reasons fall within the general frame of searching for job opportunities, better education, better health or care-related reasons, housing and neighbourhood issues, climate change, technology, competition and unequal distribution of government power and funds (Darlington-Pollock et al, 2018;Newbold, 2009;Singh, 2019;Vago, 2003).…”