Title: The ‘Localization’ of Migrants Inclusion in Multi-ethnic Cities: The London Case Author: Jill Simone Gross, Hunter College of the City University of New York1 Email address:
[email protected] Phone: (212) 772-5600 Department of Urban Affairs Hunter College of the City University of New York A Paper prepared for the APSA Conference September 2010 – Washington DC PRELIMINARY FINDINGS – PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT THE AUTHORS PERMISSION – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME! Abstract: There is no real controversy today, when one suggests that migration and urbanization are amongst the two most significant pressures felt in urban areas. Which specific localities migrants go to is shaped by a complex set of forces: national immigration policy, municipal service provision and policy, by transnational networks amongst migrant populations, and by the nature of urban political culture (supportive or hostile).. Not only are cities as a whole being transformed, but geographers also point out that new spatial configurations are occurring within – hyper diverse communities (those in which no single populations dominates), majority communities (those in which one population dominates), dual majority communities (those with two populations dominate). The challenge, in light of such trends is how policy makers can accurately craft policies to respond to the needs of urban dwellers, when the composition of the population and by extension the needs of those populations are not uniform, but in flux. Does policy need to be targeted to specific populations, should each neighborhood craft policies specific to its changing needs, or should policy be crafted for the migrant population as a whole, with access to those in need irrespective of identity? London is among the world’s most diverse cities, and has been struggling with the politics of inclusion for much of its contemporary history. Within London, each borough has adopted its own set of interventions over time, reflective of accommodation to national pressure and policy, local demographics, socio-economics and politics. This paper will compare multi-cultural political inclusion strategies in eight London boroughs, and will analyze the impacts of divergent policy interventions and spatial dynamics on levels of political, economic and social disparity. This is the first part of a much larger project exploring the entire London region. 1
Special thanks to my Graduate Research Assistant Kristina Smyth for her exemplary work researching the 8 London boroughs discussed in this paper, and in her thoughtful development of our Local Migration Policy Index (LMPEX).
1
1. Introduction Across Europe, capital cities are growing in density, scale, and ethnic diversity. According to the International Organization for Migration, there are almost 70 million migrants in Europe today, making up almost 10% of the overall population. In 2008, there were 6.5 million migrants living in the United Kingdom, placing it in the top 10 of all migrant recipient nations globally.2 Cities are the destination of choice for these populations – offering access to jobs, migrant networks and services. Over the last decade, the Greater London Authority reports that 40% of all migrants to the United Kingdom settled in London.3 Not only are cities as a whole being transformed by migration, but geographers also point out that new spatial configurations are occurring within cities – hyper diverse communities (those in which no single populations dominates), majority communities (those in which one population dominates), dual majority communities (those in which two populations dominate).4 According to Good and Hero: When a single group settles in a municipality there is less of an immediate need to integrate since it is more likely that the group will develop an extensive array of ethno specific institutions…. Context is as, if not more, important that the values or ideas that people bring with them.5 In communities that concentrate populations, residents can often tap into horizontal networks. However, it is the vertical networks between a community and the host society that facilitate inclusion, while horizontal networks can result in isolation from the host society. When concentration is overlaid with economic deprivation, a potent mix of forces can conspire to create social breakdown. Over the past decade, urban areas across the United Kingdom have experienced increasing tensions between groups. Overt manifestations were seen in the contagion of riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001, and in the 7/7 bombing in London in 2005. Each reflects an unstable urban condition. Responses to each of these critical 2
United Nations, Trends in Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision. Summary data is available from the International Organization for Migration, “Regional and Country Figures” http://www.iom.int. 3 Lorna Spence (2008), “A profile of Londoners by country of birth: Estimates from the 2006 Annual Population Survey,” DMAG Briefing 2008-05, London, UK: GLA. 4 Marie Price, Lisa Benton-Short (2007), “Immigrants and world cities: from the hyper-diverse to the bypassed,” GeoJournal, Vol 68, pp 103-117. 5 Kristin Good (2007) “Explaining Multiculturalism Policy Development in Urban Canada, An Exploration of the Social Diversity Hypothesis,” A Paper presented at Immigration, Minorities and Multiculturalism in Democracies Conference, Montreal October 2007, p. 43; Hero 1988, quoted in Good.
2
moments varied. In 2001, unrest was viewed by policy makers as the outcome of unrecognized and unsatisfied needs of minority groups for recognition as British citizens in a multiethnic and multicultural society. As Ash Amin points out, the 2001 riots represented “highly localized negotiations of ethnicity and the power of placed histories, to the enduring role of economic factors and the cultural practices of minority ethnic groups in Britain.”6 The focus in this view is on deprivation, and common policy responses are geared towards minimizing disparities, and opening up inter-cultural conversations between groups. The July 2005 bombings, by way of contrast resulted in many policy makers asserting that multiculturalism was failing and assimilation was required. In this view, group difference has been “rationalized as a security problem”7, to be eradicated. Commonly group diversity in London (and cities in the North of England) has been explored through the lens of ethnicity, however what both of these moments of conflict reveal is that ethnicity alone is inadequate. Religion, age, economics, history (personal and place), and institutions all conspired to produce unexpected outcomes. As Steven Vertovec points out, ethnicity “provides a one-dimensional appreciation of contemporary diversity. [However], over the past ten years, the nature of immigration to Britain has brought with it a transformative ‘diversification of diversity…. Not just in terms of bringing more ethnicities and countries of origin, but also with respect to a multiplication of significant variables that affect where, how and with whom people live.”8 The challenge, in light of such trends is how policy makers can accurately craft policies to respond to the needs of urban dwellers, when the composition of the population and by extension the needs of those populations are complex, lacking uniformity, and in flux. In conditions of extreme diversity new migrants may find themselves in even more vulnerable positions, lacking both the support of like groups and linkages to the host. Does policy need to be targeted to specific populations-- pillarization? Should each neighborhood craft policies specific to its changing needs--localization? Should policy be crafted for the migrant population as a whole, with access to those in need irrespective of their ethno-racial identity—multiculturalism? Or should migrant populations be asked to adapt to the local context--assimilation? If migrants are effectively integrated, the nation as a whole benefits. Failed integration, by contrast, results in social and political unrest, economic strain, pressure on service delivery and an overall decline in the quality of life. While policies in this arena are shaped by European Union principles, national immigration regulations and municipal directives, it is at the neighborhood level that each of these strands comes together. Although it is at the micro-scale that inclusion can best be understood, little research is 6
Ash Amin, (June 2003), “Unruly Strangers? The 2001 Urban Riots in Britain,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 27.2, pp. 462. 7 Liette Gilbert (2009), “Immigration as Local Politics: Re-Bordering Immigration and Multiculturalism through Deterrence and Incapacitation,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 33.1, p. 28 8 Steven Vertovec (2007), “Super-diversity and its implications,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol 30, No. 6, p. 1025.
3
conducted at this level. The paper represents a very preliminary attempt to address this breach,9 through a discussion of the localization of inclusion policy in London, and a consideration of what implications the spatial concentration of international migrants has for policy effectiveness. In what follows, I first discuss the dynamics of diversity in London. This is followed by a discussion of ‘inclusion’ policy trends over time in the UK and in London specifically. Using data derived from case studies of 8 London boroughs I then explore the relationship between spatial concentration and ethnicity, nationality, deprivation, political participation, and perceptions of cohesion. I conclude by consideration of what a more localized and spatialized view of London might mean for migrant inclusion policy. I begin with an overview of the data gathered and research methods employed for this project. 2. Research Methods: Data and Analysis There are roughly 7.7 million people residing in Greater London’s 32 boroughs. Each borough has an average population of 241, 94010 As the goal here was to step inside the micro-level of inclusion, we explored demographic data at the ward level – this is the local spatial unit used to elect local councilors. Within each borough there are on average some 23 electoral wards, resulting in a total of 624 wards in London today. Ward’s have on average, some 11,482 residents. We tried to gather as much data as possible at the ward level, and when such data was not available, we moved up to the borough level. This paper reports on data derived from an analysis of 8 London boroughs (Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing and Enfield11). These eight boroughs have a total of 171 wards, averaging 12,836 people, but ranging from a low of 4,707 in the Darwin ward of Bromley to a high of 17, 263 in the Child Hill ward of Barnet. By looking at this more localized level it was hoped that a more nuanced understanding of policy effectiveness could be derived, one that would allow greater flexibility in identifying relationships and interactions between variables shaping the inclusion process. Studies of migrant inclusion in London have tended to focus almost exclusively on aspects of ethnic identity. In our view, these approaches are often flawed. Data on ethnicity, while useful, makes invisible important aspects of migrant experience. This is especially true in the United Kingdom where for example all those who are ethnically “South Asian” are grouped together. The problem with such a grouping is that within the South Asian population there is great variation – those of Indian ethnicity tend to live in 99
This paper is the first step in a London wide analysis of local inclusions policy. We begin here with an analysis of the efforts of only 8 of London’s 32 boroughs, but anticipate our full analysis will be complete later in the year. 10 Office of National Statistics, Population Estimates Data (2010) 11 The choice was not done scientifically, rather alphabetically -- this is as far as my research assistant has gotten in the classification of localized inclusion policies!
4
less concentrated areas in London’s outer boroughs, while Bangladeshi populations live in densely concentrated communities in the inner city. In addition, using this same example, the conditions under which population came from India as compared with those coming more recently from places like Afghanistan result in significantly different life experiences. The same critiques can be made in relationship to the ethnic category “Black” which includes those that are ethnically Caribbean, African and Black British. Within this group of course one can find migrants of commonwealth origin, those who came to the UK in search of asylum, and those who are British born. And of course, the white category includes many recent arrivals from East Europe, whose experience is likely to be significantly different from others within this category. To overcome these inadequacies, we also explore nationality, using information on London’s “foreign” born population, alongside data on religion, age, income and employment. Together this information offered a more comprehensive picture of London’s population. In order to understand disparities we gathered deprivation data for London’s wards for 2004 and 2007 (focusing on multiple deprivation, income deprivation, employment deprivation, and deprivation among children and older populations). The data came from the Department of Communities and Local Government.12 Political disparities are explored through local elections data for 2002 and 2006 by ward -- which includes voter turnout, numbers of electors, and numbers of candidates and votes received (we also have data for 1998 and 2010, but this data has not been utilized in this paper). Elections data came from the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth. Data on popular perceptions of local areas was derived from the 2008 Place Survey (Communities and Local Government) only available at the borough scale, and information on languages was derived from Department for Children, Schools and Family’s London schools census for 2007, also borough level. Borough level data on integration policies and programs was drawn from an analysis of local area agreements, equalities and diversity schemes, community cohesion strategies, and corporate assessment of each borough. This data has been used to construct a Local Migration Policy Index (LMPEX). In order to assess impacts we sought to identify a means of benchmarking. LMPEX follows the parameters set by the Migration Policy Index (MIPEX).13 MIPEX identifies best practices across a variety of political and economic terrains. They have some 100 separate policy indicators organized around 6 groupings - labor market access, anti-discrimination, family reunion, access to nationality, political participation and long term residence. Comparisons are constructed at the national scale, and are made across 28 countries (25 EU plus Canada, Norway and Switzerland). As the chart below reveals, the MIPEX summary of the UK shows it to be the strongest in relationship to efforts to combat discrimination, and does moderately well in terms of labor market access, supports for family reunion and long terms residency, while it is weak on efforts to promote political participation for migrant populations.
12 13
The last census was conducted in 2001, thus this information is somewhat dated. Information on the Migration Policy Index can be found at http://www.integrationindex.eu
5
MIPEX however, serves as mechanism for the comparison of policies cross-nationally. While useful, it fails to capture the localized diversity that characterizes the London terrain. Thus we took this tool and adapted it. Using the same set of measures, we began crafting a comparative set of indicators for the London boroughs. The comparisons are against one another, thus with a sample of 8, we are only barely touching the surface. That said clear differences do emerge (se appendix c). In order to understand the impacts of spatial concentration, location quotients (LQ) were calculated for each ward based on country of origin and ethnicity. The LQ is a ratio, commonly used in economic development analysis to understand clustering of economic uses. We used this measure to help us understand nationality and ethnicity clusters within the London region. Location quotients compare the relative concentration of a group within the ward to the relative concentration of that same group in the Greater London region. The LQ therefore, is a ratio, whose value allows us to examine the relative concentration of one population within a ward to concentrations across the metropolitan area. Generally speaking if an LQ exceeds 1 it suggests that clustering is occurring – i.e. a larger concentration of that group than is found elsewhere in London. By contrast, an LQ below 1 suggests that a group is under-represented or has a low level of concentration relative to other areas in London. For analytic purposes wards were then grouped according to the balance of their populations across 5 categories14 -- Class 1 (LQs from 014
Class categories were modeled after work reported on by John Stillwell (2010),”Ethnic Population Concentration and Net Migration in London,” Environment and Planning A, Volume 42.
6
.49) Are areas whose geography is characterized by an under representation of groups, Class 2 ( LQs .5-1.49) are those areas that have normal concentrations relative to London, Class 3 (LQs 1.5-2.99) over concentrations, Class 4 are extreme over concentrations (3.07.99), and Class 5 ( LQs 8.0 and higher). In the case of cities like London, policy effectiveness can be measured in a variety of ways, “socio-economic, cultural, political and public attitudes towards migrants.”15 Here I focused specifically on socio-economic and political measures of disparity over time.: Socio-economic disparity was explored using five indicators of deprivation – income deprivation, employment deprivation, multiple derivation16, and deprivation amongst children and older people. Political disparity is explored through voter turnout, and through the neighborhood indicator data on volunteering, and perceptions that one can influence local decisions reported on in the 2008 Place Survey provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). As a first cut, this paper presents findings from our correlation analyses. Multivariate analysis was inappropriate at this point given the fact that the boroughs selected are not fully representative of London as a whole, nor was the selection scientifically done. Once all London boroughs have been analyzed we will then conduct multivariate analysis across all 32 boroughs and be in a better position to offer information regarding the relationships between diversity, deprivation, space and inclusion.
3. Migrant Diversity in London17 London has historically been a reception area for migrants to the United Kingdom. Some 40% of all migrants residing in the UK are London based. In 2006, there were 2.3 million migrants in London. Of this group 25% arrived before 1975, 56% arrived after 1990, and 28% arrived after 2000. 18 As table 1 below shows the proportion of foreign born continues to rise in London. In 2008 over 30% of London’s population were born outside of the United Kingdom. The period of arrival also shapes how a migrant is received. The vast majority of migrant arriving before 1975, came from Commonwealth countries, those arriving after 1990 often came in search of asylum, while more recent inflows of international migrant have come from Eastern Europe. While over 70% of those who 15
Han Entzinger and Renske Biezeveld (2003), “Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration,” Rotterdam, NL: European Research Centre of Migration and Ethnic Relations, p. 5. 16 “The Index of Multiple Deprivation combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social and housing issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. This allows each area to be ranked relative to one another according to their level of deprivation” (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2004, and 2007). 17 There is a much wider range of information available for the entirely of the greater London region on migration. In this section we incorporate data from the Office of National Statistics' Area Population Survey. 18 Lorna Spence (2008), “A profile of Londoners by country of birth: Estimates from the 2006 Annual Population Survey,” DMAG Briefing 2008-05, London, UK: GLA, p.1.
7
arrived prior to 1975 were considered to be UK nationals with citizenship rights, only 6% of recent arrivals fall into this special category. As will be discussed in section 4 of this paper those arriving prior to the 7/7 bombings encountered a very different type of reception than those arriving since.19 Table 1.
Between 1991 and 2001, London experienced a 63% increase in the proportion of new immigrants20 Not only did the overall numbers grow, but so too did the countries of origin. As table 2 shows, if we focus on the foreign born population exclusively, the largest proportion came from Europe Union Countries (almost 25%), followed by African (23%), South Asian (17%) and the Caribbean basin (13%). Migrants from the accession countries of the European Union accounted for a 62% increase in the numbers registering for a National Insurance Number (NiNo).21 The expansion of the EU borders, therefore led to important demographic changes in London, and by extension placed pressures on local service delivery. Between 2006 and 2007, there was an 11% increase in inflows of migrants from the EU 15 countries, and a 22% increase in from the EU accession countries.22 What is of significance for localities in London is the fact that EU migrants have political rights in the municipality – voting and standing for office. Commonwealth populations who arrived prior to 1981 were treated as full Citizens with political rights at all governmental levels. Third country national by contrast require national citizenship before such rights kick in. Thus, this influx may have implications for new types of political divisions in the municipality, and for political inclusion strategies more broadly. There are also quite different patterns of movement by nationality, both to London and
19
Unfortunately, micro level data on migrant flows does not exist. Thus we do not explore generational impacts on the migrant experience in this analysis. 20 S. Kyambi (2005) “Beyond Black and white: mapping new immigrant communities,” London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research. 21 NiNo registration is required for those seeking employment in the United Kingdom, and can offer an indicator of when migrants from EU countries arrived. 22 Data Management and Analysis Group (2008), “International Migration 2007: First Release,” (London, UK: GLA), p. 4.
8
within. In 2006 and 2007, for example, there were also outflows – reverse emigration among New Commonwealth and EU Accession populations from Poland.
Migrant Population By Country of Birth, 2006 Greater London
EU 25 Africa Indian Sub-Continent Americas and Caribbean Rest of Asia Europe-Non EU Middle East Australasia 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Source: Annual Population Survey 2006 Table 2. Where immigrants settle within London also varies. In this paper we report on data from analysis of the wards in 8 London Boroughs (see table 4), but for comparative purposes table 3 below shows the percentage born outside the UK for all 32 London boroughs. In some boroughs, the figures are staggering, in Westminster for example the majority are foreign born. While in other boroughs, such as Bexley, only 7% are foreign born.
9
Table 3. The London migrant population is largely working age. In 2006 for example 46% of those born outside the UK were between the ages of 25 and 34. 23
23
Data Management and Analysis Group (2008), “A Profile of Londoners by Country of Birth” DMAG Briefing 2008-05, London, UK: GLA, p. 20.
10
2006 Percent Born Outisde the UK in Select London Boroughs
Brent Ealing Camden Barnet Enfield Croydon Bromley Bexley Greater London 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Annual Population Survey 2006 Table 4. The proportion of Londoners born outside the UK is growing. In 2004, 70% of the London population were UK born, in 2007 the numbers declined to 67%. Thus, as of 2007, almost one quarter of the London population was foreign born. Within our case study area, one half of the boroughs had above averages of foreign born while half were below the London average. Ethnicity and nationality intersect. The 2001 census reported that 2.9 million Londoners, or 41% were from an ethnic group other than “White British”.24 Brent (one of our study area group) had the largest ethnic minority population with 71%, while in other parts of out London such as Bromely and Bexley minorities represent are less than 20% of the population. In London, migrants are “more likely to be from BAME (Black, Asian minority Ethnic) groups than those living in the rest of the UK – 63% of London’s migrant population to be precise25 Globalization, means amongst other things, an increasingly mobile population. Given these conditions, migrant integration policy is of growing importance. This is especially true in liberal democratic societies, in which the possibility of the closing of borders, or wholly gating the city is simply not viable.26 24
Baljit Bains (2005), “Ethnic Diversity Indices,” (London, UK: Data Management and Analysis Group, GLA). 25 Lorna Spence (2008). 26 While clearly one can find efforts to manage each of these scenarios – many have looked upon indeed neo liberalism as the emergence of private and market based, efforts to exert precisely
11
4. Policy Responses At the broadest level, migrant integration policy at the local level revolves around efforts to generate stabile settings. To do so, demands that common ground be found between resident populations. One feature of the urban milieu (as distinct from rural and even suburban communities) is density and diversity. Life in the city therefore, is shaped by encounters between people with differing life experiences, living in close proximity – shaped by a wide range of social, economic, physical, institutional and historical factors. At the center of urban heterogeneity as Lefebvre reminds us we find, “the struggles that take place in urban social space, [as] differential groups affirm their difference against homogenization. They assert their right to participate in the decision-making centers, against fragmentation and marginalization, they claim their right to equality in difference against the process of creating hierarchy.27 For international migrants therefore, there is a continuing conflict between pressures to hold on to ones multicultural uniqueness, along side the pressure to adapt to the host society. The movement between these two poles has changed over time in the UK. Inclusion policies reflect the tensions between civil society and the state, the former seeking recognition of identity, the later seeking to generate a peaceful and stable urban environment. Policies to achieve these outcomes can take a variety of forms: • Efforts to mold civil society into one uniform whole (assimilation); • Efforts to weave together multiple groups together for a common purpose while acknowledging group difference (aka multiculturalism); • Targeting programs to particularistic groupings such that diversity is made manageable by shifting the many into a smaller set of manageable group – coexisting vertical associations (aka pillarization); and, • Neighborhood based approaches, structured around the unique mix of populations in a physical space (aka localization). In the aftermath of 7/7 in London, many asserted that British multiculturalism was a failure and growing pressures came from the national level of government to introduce more assimilationist approaches. At the same time, in London, there were pressures from the bottom, indicative of a long tradition of localization there, and reinforced by events occurring in 2001. In the aftermath of the 2001 riots, a consensus emerged among politicians, [and] policy advisors… that areas of marked racial and ethnic conflict require local initiatives that will restore civic values, trust and a shared sense of place in order to reconcile inter-cultural differences…a politics of presence that is capable of
these types of controls. However, we would assert that in liberal democracies, these efforts to control are constantly confronted by the democratic values to maintain openness. 27 Michael T. Ryan (2010), “Lefebvre, Henri,” The Encyclopedia of Urban Studies,, 2009, Sage Publications.”
12
supporting plural and conflicting rights claims and that is ready to negotiate diversity through a vigorous but democratic clash among equals.28 In the UK, local authorities have historically functioned as arms of the state. National government generates a framework and municipalities work within it. This is no different when it comes to inclusion policy. Cities are in essence nested with larger institutional arenas. London currently has a two tier municipal government. The Greater London Authority is the upper tier, grappling with London wide strategic issues, while the lower tier borough governments, focus on issues more directly related to the locality. The municipality is a creature of the State, and has had a history of conflict with national government often leading to a retraction of resources and powers, and greater central government control. Multicultural policies in the UK can be traced initially to the first two decades of the post WW2 period, when the UK experienced its first large-scale immigration from commonwealth countries in the Caribbean basin (Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and Guyana) and South Asia (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). As commonwealth citizens, these populations were initially granted British citizenship, and thus arrived with full rights to economic, social and political participation. The vast majority of migrants shared linguistic and economic connections to the United Kingdom. As Vertovec points out, this had very important implications for the trajectory of British migrant policy development – targeted at British citizens as opposed to international migrants.29 The British approach to integration, began as a multicultural one, focused primarily on creating conditions of ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’ for collective identities.’ It was like Canada, a universal rights based project. National government controlled the flow of migration, and local government took on the role of monitor of discrimination in the work place and in public services provision, and liaison with minority groups and organizations in the municipality. The vehicles through which this policy was implemented were community-based organizations. The arrival of large numbers of commonwealth populations of color in the post war period, resulted in a racist backlash, in the form of a more restrictive immigration policy. While the 1948 British Nationality Act granted commonwealth citizens full rights as citizens, the 1962 Immigration and Commonwealth Act made commonwealth migrants subject to immigration control and restricted access to the labor market through the development of a work voucher system. The 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act closed the borders to Commonwealth migrants, by extending controls to those who’s who were either born in a colony or commonwealth country prior to independence. Enoch Powells’ “River of Blood” speech was indicative of the growing ferment at the time:
28
Ash Amin, (June 2003), “Unruly Strangers? The 2001 Urban Riots in Britain,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 27.2, pp. 462-463. 29 Steve Vertovec (November 2007), “Super-diversity and Its Implications,” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 30, No. 6.
13
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants…We must be mad…as a nation to be permitting the annual flow of some 500,000 dependents…It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre…[Quoting a Labor politician he went on to comment that] ‘to claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practiced by one color or another it is to be strongly condemned.’30 As Duvell asserts, it was presumed that ‘good race relations required firm immigration controls.”31 National multicultural policy has largely been focused on the elimination of racism, through policies designed to address discrimination and the protection of civil rights. The race equalities prong of the British strategy began to show chinks in the late 1990s. The release of the Macpherson Report in 1999 on the murder of London teen Steven Lawrence, brought to light the existence of institutional racism in public institutions, and the seeming failure of the historic efforts to reduce discrimination. The Parekh Report published in 2000, argued that multicultural Britain, was something of a sham – leaving instead a Britain divided between minority and majority populations. Parekh argued that the individual rights approach to ethno-cultural management was dividing populations, rather than unifying them, and moreover, he argued that the diversity of the UK warranted an approach that acknowledged different populations with divergent needs. The riots in the north of England in 2001 cemented the emerging view that a new approach was warranted that directly addressed the divisions evident in British society. This also led to the growth of more differentiated local strategies. The “common underlying theme: The physical segregation in [Britain’s ] towns and cities and the depths of polarization to which this led between communities. Whether in respect of separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, many communities were operating on the basis of a series of parallel lives. Often, these lives did not seem to touch at any point, let alone overlap or promote meaningful interchanges.32 Community cohesion was born out of this. Community cohesion has two aims. 30
Enoch Powell, River of Blood Speech” given before a Conservative Association Meeting in Birmingham, April 20, 1968. Published online November 2007, Downloaded August 25, 2009, from The Telegraph Media Group Limited 2009 http//www.telgraph.co.uk. 31 Franck Duvell (2005), “Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in the U.K.” Country Report prepared for the European Research Project POLITIS, Oldenburg. Available at www.unioldenburg.de/politis-europe. 32 Ted Cantle, Chair (2002 ), “Community Cohesion: Report of the Independent Review Team” (The Home Office), Section 2.1
14
First, the creation of ‘a common set of British values’ derived from the British tradition of civic rights and responsibilities. The Cantle Report pointed out that little effort had been made to develop values reflective of a “modern multi-racial’ Britain – rather some look backwards to the ‘halcyon days of a mono-cultural society’, ‘while others look to their country of origin. Second, local authorities were asked to reform local equalities programs, moving away from minority approaches towards systems promoting interethnic relations though ‘knowledge, contact and respect.’ Community Cohesion was in part a shift in emphasis, asking localities to consider methods to better respond to rapid change, migration and ‘super-diversity’ while linking this to the ongoing equalities agenda 33 Up until 2001, it was the national government that took responsibility for this policy area. National government in this regard would create, what were in essence frameworks, largely under the aegis of the Home Office. Local authorities then sought to meet the demands set at the national level, to manage the problem as defined from above. The shift to Community Cohesion incorporated efforts to partner more directly with local authorities, not simply in the management but in defining the nature of the problem itself. Thus, the conclusion reached following the 2001 riots in the North of England focused on the notion that groups were living “parallel lives” – spatially concentrated and isolated.34 In London community cohesion programs were begun in 2002 in partnership with community based organizations, focusing on relationship building between communities, training for disadvantaged communities, leadership development, and youth services. Many of the inclusion programs therefore are relatively new. As will be discussed in the next section, there is today great variety in local approaches, offering researchers a unique opportunity to explore policy and impacts in a locally comparative framework. In 2005, the bombings in London reopened the cohesion and multiculturalism debates yet again. In response, a national Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CiC) was formed. Their final report “Our Shared Future” published in 2007, pointed out that ‘some parts of the country were more cohesive than others, and that “variation seems to be the result of local characteristics, initiatives or political leadership.” (p. 16) The new view was that integration and cohesion while related, are distinct.
33
Local Government Improvement and Development “Community Cohesion Policy” Available at: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core. 34 The notion of ‘parallel lives’ also suggests that ethnically concentrated communities are something to be avoided. In this research we question these assumption, pointing to the fact that tight knit communities are not inherently bad for those living within and for the city as a whole. Indeed, history has shown that population concentration can serve positive functions for residents. Here we would suggest, following the social capital literature, that the issue is not concentration alone, or the so-called horizontal networks that form in communities, but rather it is the vertical networks, the ability of communities to link into the host society that matter. Isolation therefore is not a function of ethnicity, but rather it is a function of a wide range of social, economic and political barriers that one faces.
15
Cohesion is principally the process that must happen in all communities to ensure different groups of people get on well together; while integration is principally the process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another. Different communities will have different relationships between existing residents; and differing levels of new residents arriving. So our views is that the two processes go on side by side, and that they interact with one another as local communities experience change and develop a shared future together. We also want to make clear that cohesion is not just about race and faith, and that integration in particular is not about assimilation.35 Researchers pointed out, that migration and ethnicity were simply two of many aspects that must be considered when seeking to generate cohesion. It was argued, that when a locality is facing economic deprivation, cohesion might suffer. The common emergence of anti-immigrant sentiment during economic hard times is illustrative of this. Thus we begin to see here the ways in which different policy domains intersect and interact. Cohesion is understood to include – interactions to promote trust and understanding, active citizenship through participation, equal access, etc. Integration demands in adaptation of resident and visitor populations. To achieve integration, government stresses the importance of communication and interaction.36 The integration prong is tied to the more punitive points based system --requiring migrants to learn English. Integration, is by all accounts a shift from multiculturalism towards assimilation. The new focus has led to more concerted efforts look at what barriers migrants face in the United Kingdom, beyond ethnicity. Analysis of the 2005 bombing pointed to the ideas that disaffected populations often lack local civic awareness. They suggested that migrant may lack knowledge of rights and responsibilities, face linguistic challenges, suffer from a lack of opportunity to interact with nationals, and often have daily existences characterized by hostility between groups. Religious difference became a more prominent concern (of course this began earlier in the aftermath of 911), and national measures were adopted to respond to discrimination on the grounds of religion as well as sexual orientation. The Equality Act of 2006 extended these directives to cover education and housing.37 The Commission on Integration and Cohesion felt that the localization of programs since 2001 was problematic, leading to overlap and duplication. Thus the current push would appear to be towards a more uniform and universalistic approaches to super-diversity. In keeping with the traditional notion of multi level governance in the UK, localities are
35
Commission on Integration and Cohesion (2007), “Our Shared Future” p. 9 Department for Communities and Local Government (June 2008), “Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach,” (Communities and Local Government Publications, West Yorkshire) p. 42. 37 Colm O’Cinneide (2008), “Summary: Report on Measures to Combat Discrimination-Country Report 2007 United Kingdom” (European Commission), p. 3. 36
16
arms of national government, but the top defines and controls the range of possibilities that might be pursued locally. The most recent changes to immigration policy at a national level involved the creation of a points based system of access in 2008, in which immigrants from outside the EU, seeking to work or study, can apply through different tiers based on skills and education levels. The UK has moved towards a more selective and regulatory system, in which skill base becomes a primary condition of access, linking migration to national economic needs. Alongside of this a more punitive system has also emerged, Immigrants now also have to pass a citizenship test. Institutionally, National Government has intervened through immigration control and liberalization, through the courts in relationship to discrimination and civil rights protection, and it has influenced the actions on the ground through the creation of framing documents. It is the municipality however, that has been at the center of managing diversity. With its two-tier local government system in place, the upper tier – GLA serves as a strategic oversight body in relationship to migrant integration policy. The Equalities Commission was established at the start of the Great London Authority, to serve as a watchdog, to provide advice, and to monitor outcomes in the London region.38 The London boroughs each craft geographically specific programs and projects to deal with the unique needs of their own communities. All the programs in the municipality conform to the broad principles set forth by the national government. Municipalities, however, continue to partner with community-based organizations in the provision of services. And, each London borough continues to shape its own localized approach, derived from efforts to be responsive to their own unique needs – youth services, cultural festivals, language classes, legal advocacy are but a few of the wide range of projects underway. All boroughs must monitor equality within their own houses as well. Thus at a local level, the London case is varied, with 32 separate immigrant inclusion plans. But all fit with the frameworks set by both national, and the Greater London authorities. Resources at the local level are accessed via grants and allocations from higher levels of government. 5. Case Study Areas39: Diversity and Local Migrant Inclusion Programs Across the case study areas, Bexley and Bromely are dominated by UK born populations (more than 90% on average). Brent has the largest foreign-born populations with 12% 38
Though this body is currently under attack as political pressures to eliminate QUANGOs has arisen by the current coalition government in the UK. 39 The case study area included 8 boroughs – Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing and Enfield.
17
born in Africa and South Asia respectively. Ealing is 60% white, and 11% of South Asian. And Camden is 60% UK born, with the remainder of its population relatively evenly distributed across ethnic groups. As Appendices A and B show however, there is variation both between boroughs and within. In the borough of Bexley for example, in the Thamesmead East ward over 60% of the foreign born population are of African decent, while all other wards in the areas have significantly smaller concentrations. From a policy perspective, this points to the critical importance of drilling down to smaller scales when crafting inclusion policies. If the balance of needs varies by wards within boroughs, policy should be adapted to reflect such variation. a. Barnet Barnet is an outer borough located in the north of London. Ethnically it is predominately white. Average population across Barnet’s wards is 14, 979. Only 16% on average are income deprived and 5% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 407 and for older people is 413 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 42% vote in local elections. Spatially, the majority Barnet’s wards are class 2 having normal concentrations of population by nationality. As appendix B shows, Barnet’s wards tend to have large proportions from Africa. But again a micro level reveals variation within. Colindale has the lowest proportion of UK born residents, and in Edgeware 50% of the foreign born are from Africa. And of our case study areas, it has the largest percentage of Middle Eastern born residents, with elevated concentrations in Oakleigh and Brunswick park. In terms of ethnic concentration, it has slightly elevated concentrations of Black and Asian Ethnic groups. The median weekly income is 760, but again I found significant variation by ward. In Garden suburb the median weekly income is 1050, while in Burnt Oak weekly income is 560. The three largest religious groups represented in the borough are Christian (48%), Jewish (15%), and Muslim (6%). But again wards vary in their religious mixes. Edgeware, for example is 37% Jewish. As appendix c shows, Barnet’s scored a 7 for its local migrant integration program, suggesting that is has few programs in place for foreign born populations or ethno cultural groups. By comparison to other boroughs on our case study area it has fewer programs in place for either labor market access or long-term residency. There is vagueness in the documentation of the borough regarding detailed efforts to promote cohesion or integration. Participation is managed through a Civic Network partnership. Barnet’s larger focus is on building interfaith awareness, this is likely due to Barnet’s growing Muslim population. The borough has a multi faith forum in place to promote a cohesive locality. Thus for Barnet, it is the cohesion prong of the current migrant policy agenda that gets stressed. But integration appears to be low on the boroughs list of priorities. b. Bexley Bexley is an outer borough located just south of the Thames to the East . Bexley is the one area in our case study that showed the least variation across its wards in terms of
18
foreign born and ethnicity. With the exception of Thamesmead East, its wards were all similar. Average population across Bexley’s wards is 10,396. Only 12% on average are income deprived and 4.5% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 407 and for older people is 413 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 41% vote in local elections. North End ward had turnout of only 31% by comparison. North end appears to be a poor white working class community. Spatially, the majority Bexley’s wards are class 1 having very low concentrations of population by nationality, with the vast majority of nationalities being under represented by comparison to London. With the exception of the Thamesmead East Ward, located closest to the Thames and inner London.. Bexley’s foreign-born population comes largely from Africa and southern Asia. The median weekly income is 674. North End had the lowest income in the borough averaging weekly salaries of 510, followed by Thamesmead at 560. The largest religious group represented in the borough is Christian (72% on average). On average wards report that 28% of their land is green space. Bexley is far more advanced in their integration effort that was true of Barnet, though the bulk of its programs are geared towards labor market access, and integration of its workforce rather than integration of its residential community (see appendix c). Bexley places more attention on antidiscrimination and working with the BME community in relationship to job training, placement and training. The borough also has a youth outreach program for BME youth – promoting cultural dialogue and exchange across ethnic groups. Regular community forums are conducting in the boroughs “Have a Say Events.” There is a hate crime support initiative here as well as an initiative to promote multi faith training for local police. Thus here we find efforts to link interfaith and ethno cultural awareness programs. That said there is clearly an undertone in the borough programming towards policing difference, rather than multicultural exchange. c. Brent Brent is an outer borough located in the north west of London. Average population across Brent’s wards is 12, 546. Some 23% of wards populations are income deprived and 8% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is and for older people is 240 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 37% vote in local elections. Spatially, the largest grouping of wards of are class 2 having normal concentrations of population by nationality, though almost 25% report above average concentrations of some groups. In Barn Hill, Dudden Hill and Mapesbury there were 3 times more African’s than was true for London as a while. Wembley central had the largest concentration of residents from Albania (LQ 11.2) across our case study groups. Brent has significant ethnic concentrations of black (five times the concentration found in London) and Asian ethnic groups (almost 4 times the London average), followed by slightly elevated concentrations of White Irish and White Caribbean populations . Sudbury, Kenton and Kensal Rise has 5 time more concentration of its black population than was true for London as a whole. In the Sudbury ward we found an LQ of 12.37 for Black ethnic populations, meaning it had 12 times more than we true for London on average. Willesden Green Ward had 7 times as many from the
19
Asian ethnic group, than was true for London as a whole. The median weekly income is 650. With the highest incomes founding the Kenton ward (840) and the lowest in the Stonebridge ward (460). Thus one ward has an affluent Black population and the other poor one. The three largest religious groups represented in the borough are Christian (48%), Hindu (17%), and Muslim (6%). Dollis Hill has the largest proportion of Muslims at 17%, and Wembley Central ward was 39% Hindu (also having the largest concentration of people from South Asia). On average wards have 34% of their land as green space. Brent was among the most varied across its wards by all counts, but overall suffered from higher levels of deprivation than most of the other areas in our case study group. In addition, the borough has significant nationality and ethnicity clusters. Brent has a far more extensive set of programs in place than many others within our case study area, likely a reflection of the fact that the borough has a long tradition of diversity. The borough places emphasis in its programming for refugees and BME communities, thus acknowledging immigration pressures alongside ethnicity. The borough also has a variety programs targeted to specific groups, something of a ‘pillarized’ approach is found here – with programs for the Somali community, the Caribbean community and the Muslim community. It is one of the few boroughs in our group to provide supports to resident populations around accessing nationality Program here support labor market access, long-term inclusion, job training and placement, and supportive networks for housing access. Brent also has partnership program to address inequalities in achievement amongst BME children. Here a more nuanced appreciation seems to be in place of the kind of diversity faced by the borough, it is indicative of super diversity. It programs therefore are varied, but as indicated they are pillarized programs as multicultural ones as well. Of the two prongs pushed by national government, they have stuck more closely to the cohesion agenda than the integration agenda. d. Bromley Bromley is an outer borough also located in the south east of London. Average population across Bromley’s wards is 13,433. Like Bexley, Bromley does not have nearly the variation between its wards that was true for Brent. Only 11% on average are income deprived and 4% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 482 and for older people is 516 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 42% vote in local elections. Spatially, the majority Bromley’s wards are class 1 having very low concentrations of population by nationality. Bromley has only slightly elevated concentrations of White British. However one ward, Bickely has an LQ of 5.23 for its black population, that same ward also reports the highest median weekly income, at 910. The Darwin ward, the smallest ward in our data set with a population of 4,707, had the largest concentration of Caribbean born residents with an LQ of 6.10. The median weekly income across the borough is 760. The largest religious group represented in the borough is Christian (72%). No other religious group showed a significant presence. On average wards have 42 % of their land as green space.
20
Of our case studies, Bromley has the least developed inclusion programming, as shown in appendix c. Unlike the other boroughs, it offers advice on improving inequalities, but not programming specifically. Its only tangible efforts in inclusion concern the development of policies to support more inclusion housing for BME communities. Its Bromley “Home seekers” program incorporates information in 9 languages on housing availability. e. Camden Camden is an inner London borough (the only one in our case study group) located in the north of London. The average population across Camden’s wards is 11,001. Some 24% on average are income deprived and 9% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 230 and for older people is 213 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 37% vote in local elections. Spatially, Camden’s wards range from normal class 2 to large ethnic Class 3 and 4 concentrations of population by nationality. Camden's largest ethnic concentration is among Black groups, twice that found London wide, and slightly elevated concentrations of White Caribbean. Camden has an incredible amount of difference between its wards when it comes to nationality, for example, Frognal had an LQ of 8 for its Iranian population, Regents Park and Kings Cross each had LQs of 7 for their Bangladeshi population (these wards also reported the largest proportion of Muslims – 23%), and Haverstock had an LQ of 7.8 for residents coming from the Congo. Swiss Cottage and Frognal each had LQs of over 7 for Somalian residents. This borough is a hyper-diverse one, but one with a range of spatially concentrated communities. The median weekly income is 690. St. Pancras ward reported the lowest median weekly income of 480, and Hampstead – the ‘tony’ ward to the north -- had incomes of 1,050. The three largest religious groups represented in the borough are Christian (47%) and Muslim (11%). On average wards have 18% of their land as green space. Camden has the second most extensive programming of all the case study boroughs, and it was an early adopter with programs initiative in 2002. Comparatively Camden has a more balanced set of programs across all areas of integration (see appendix c). Focusing on refugees and BME job placement, and youth education. It targets programs to Somali and Bangladeshi populations – reflective of local demographics. Beyond the basics, Camden also had programs in place to address health disparities in communities, and was one of the few boroughs working to improve political participation with its BME community through translation and outreach. The borough works with voluntary sector groups, and can also be found investing heavily in families through local schools, and in the provision of ESL classes. The council has weekly ceremonies and information to support active migrant citizenship, a key element of integration. Thus here we find a twopronged approach, cohesion alongside of integration. They have programs that are multicultural in orientation as well as those that are multicultural. f. Croydon Croydon is an outer borough located in the south of London .Average population across Croydon’s wards is13,774. Only 17% on average are income deprived and 6%
21
employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 365 and for older people is 414 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 41% vote in local elections. Spatially, Croydon’s wards are concentrated almost equally in class 1 & 2 with low to normal concentrations of population by nationality. Croydon has black and White Caribbean concentrations at 3 times that found for London. The Upper Norwood Ward had an LQ of 8.68 for Black ethnic populations, by contrast the Shirley ward had an LQ of .59 far less than the London average. Suggesting variation across the borough. Nationality concentrations are found for Pakistani migrants in West Thornton and Brensham Manor, and Jamaicans are concentrated in West Thornton, Thornton Heath and Brensham Manor. In Croydon it would appear that these two nationality groups are sharing several wards – dual minority dominance. The median weekly income is 685. The three largest religious groups represented across the borough are Christian (65%) and Muslim (5%). However the Wadden ward was 16% Hindu, and Muslim concentrations were found here as well (13%). On average wards have 29% of their land as green space. From our case study group, Croydon had the most program overall in place, with a balanced set of programs geared towards cohesion (see appendix c). Many programs for labor market access and support for entrepreneurialism. Croydon has programs for the BME community around housing access, community culture and leisure. For example, they are developing a 4 year festival program to represent Croydon’s many cultures in the lead up to the London Olympics. They had a pillarized approach, targeting Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black African and Black Caribbean communities – and outreach to refugees in particular. Croydon also had programs for all groups, thus representing a multicultural cohesion strategy. g. Ealing Ealing is an outer London borough located in the east. Average population across Ealing's wards is 13,084. Some 20% on average are income deprived and 7% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 311 and for older people is 309 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 38% vote in local elections. Spatially, the majority Ealing’s wards are class 2 having normal concentrations of population by nationality, though almost 15% show above average concentration. Three wards have extremely dense concentrations of people from Afghanistan – Southall Broadway (LQ 17.0), Southall Green (LQ 15.13) and Norwood Green (12.6). Southall Green also had dense concentration of Indian’s (LQ 10.68). Ethnic concentrations are not surprisingly highest for Asian ethnic groups (LQ 3.2) with Southall Green ward having an LQ of 10.02 (tens times as high as the London average). Ealing also had the largest concentrations of people from Poland, South Acton, Ealing Broadway and Ealing Common and Hanger Hill all had LQs above 7 for Poles. The borough wide LG for Black ethnic groups was LQ 2.5, with Acton Central being the highest at LQ 6.01. The median weekly income is 710. Northold west had the lowest income at 540, and Southfield the highest at 1010. Ealing has more extreme differences within is area than most others in our study area, and populations appear to be living in enclaves. The three largest religious groups represented in the borough are Christian
22
(51%), and Muslim (10%). The area mentioned above as being high concentrations for people from Afghanistan also had the largest proportions of Sikhs, Southall Green was 40% Sikh, while Southall Broadway was divided 20% Muslin and 20% Hindu. On average wards have 28% of their land as green space. Unlike the other boroughs, as appendix c shows, Ealing’s has more programs to support long term residence than it does for labor market access. With a large south Asian youth population, it is not surprising to see more emphasis on education, and efforts to promote increased volunteerism within the BME communities. Targeted programs for the Muslim, Somali and Black Caribbean populations are in place. It, like Camden has supported access to nationality, through citizenship education programs for BME youth. Ealing has had some troubles in the past with hate crimes and conflict, thus it also stresses programs in faith awareness, and hate crime supports. Ealing appears to have embraced both cohesion and integration in its policies, h. Enfield Enfield is an outer London borough located in the North. Average population across Enfield's wards is 13,027. Some 24% on average are income deprived and 7% employment deprived. Its average ward ranking for deprivation of children is 284 and for older people is 3 (1 is highest deprivation and 624 is lowest). Across the borough an average of 37% vote in local elections. Spatially, the majority of Enfield’s wards are class 1& 2 having normal to low concentrations of population by nationality. Enfield has ethnic concentrations of black populations (LQ 2.7). Nationality concentrations noted here are for those born in Cyprus, the Palmers Green Ward reported an LQ of 16.13 for this group, followed closely by Cockfosters and Lower Edmonton. Also the area has many wards with large concentrations from Turkey, Edmonton Green (LQ 10.23), Haselbury (LQ7.3), and Upper Edmonton (LQ 8.48), The median weekly income is 630, with Edmonton Green have lowest income at 450, and Winchmore Hill the highest at 830. The three largest religious groups represented in the borough are Christian (63%) and Muslim (9%). Ponders End, Haselbury and Edmonton Green all had close to 18% Muslim populations. On average wards have 32% of their land as green space. As appendix c shows, Enfield’s inclusion programs focus on long-term residence and supportive housing. They target to the Turkish and Somali programs, with little support in areas of labor market access for the BME communities. This is interesting, there does not appear to be large groups of Somalis in the area, though it had the larges Turkish population concentrations of our study group. The borough promotes youth outreach and support youth engagement. They offer culturally specific programming around women’s aid, domestic violence, and mental health. 6. Findings: LMPEX, Spatial Concentration, nationality and Ethnicity Across the Case Study Areas Overall, the most developed programming was found in the boroughs of Ealing and Croydon, closely followed by Camden and Brent, with Bromley and Barnet falling to the
23
bottom of the distribution. Variation, clearly relates to the local demographics. Boroughs
with more extensive programming tend to have more foreign-born populations, and larger BME ethnic groups, and pockets of deprivation. A comparison of changes in levels of deprivation between 2004 and 2007, suggests that programming may having positive Table 5 impacts in a few case. As the table below shows, in Camden and Brent levels of disparity have declined, relative to scaling across London. Both of the boroughs scored high on labor market integration and long-term residence. While Croydon and Ealing scored high on our LMPIX, both experienced a slight increase in deprivation over this period, which may reflect the wider distribution in programming found in both boroughs -- breadth over depth in programming may have muted some of the impacts on levels of deprivation. The lowest scoring boroughs Bromley and Barnet experienced the greatest increase in deprivation. These finding would suggest that governing institutions matter for integration, and that the LMPEX could offer a useful means of comparison across boroughs. For it to be fully operational, of course, demands that it be applied across all 32 London boroughs (a process we hope to have completed by the end of 2010). As we were also interested in how integration processes intersected with spatial dynamics and demography, we conducted a series of correlation analyses. Across the case study areas, we found that spatial concentrations correlated with nationality and ethnicity in the following ways. When looking at the correlations between spatially diversity and nationality we found that UK born residents tend to live in hyper diverse areas, while foreign-born populations tended to concentrate. This was most pronounced among those of East European decent (R2 of .606** Sig. .000) and those that were African born (R2 24
.553**. Sig. .000).40 Significant correlations were also found for those born in the Middle East (R2 .357** Sig. 000), West Indian (R2 .355** Sig. .000) and Bangladeshi (R2 .324)** Sig. .000). These figures offer an indication that for East Europeans, almost 60% of the variation in spatial concentration is explained by nationality, for Africans some 55% is explained by this, and just over 30% of spatial variations among Middle Eastern, Bangladeshi and West Indian populations. The correlations with ethnicity and spatial concentration were also significant. Positive correlations were found for Asian (R2 .413** Sig. .000), Chinese (R2 .477** Sig. .000), and White Irish (R2 .425** Sig. 000) ethnic groups and spatial concentration. White British (R2 .538** Sig. .000) were found in wards with below average spatial concentrations. Black ethnic groups were found in wards with normal concentrations. What about deprivation? There were positive correlations between income deprivation and population concentration in relationship to income deprivation (R2 .405** Sig. .000), employment deprivation (R2 .391** Sig. .000), income deprivation affecting children (R2 .358** Sig. .000, and income deprivation affecting older people (R2 .508** Sig. .000). Poverty is spatially concentrated. Political participation also had interesting patterns. In less densely concentrated wards there is a positive correlation with voter turnout (R2 .366** Sig. .000), in wards with dense nationality clustering a negative correlation (R2 -.370 ** Sig. .000), meaning voter participation goes down. Migration policy and clustering – Areas that were more highly concentrated had more programs for migrant integration overall (R2 .357** Sig. .000), while those with larger number of low density groupings invested in fewer integration programs (R2 -.357** Sig. .000) in low density areas we found greater policy emphasis on political participation by the borough (R2 .237** Sig. .000), while in densely clustered communities we found positive correlations within the borough on programs to assist residence with the establishment of long term residence (R2 .446** Sig. .000), access to nationality (R2 .320** Sig. .000). No significant correlations were found between clustering and programs of labor market access, though a slight positive correlation was found in dense communities (R2 .133** Sig. .083) and a negative correlation in low density areas (R2 .145 Sig. .058). The 2008 Place survey asked people about aspects of belonging in the neighborhood. Though the data is only gathered at the borough level, the findings remain interesting when we look at them in relationship to clustering. In low density areas strong negative correlations were found in relationship to the following questions: People in low density areas believed that fewer people were involved in civic participation), (R2 -.946** Sig. .000), few were regularly volunteering (R2 -.487** Sig. .000), and few believed that they could influence decisions in their area (R2 -.920** Sig. .000). In densely concentrated foreign born areas by contrast, people were involved civically (R2 .741** Sig. .000), 40
Pearson Correlation figures here are between the percent foreign born and the % in each wards (n=171) and the number of wards with LQs between 1.5 and 2.9.
25
regularly volunteered (R2 .264* Sig. .000), and believed that they could influence decisions (R2 .779** Sig. .000). 7. Preliminary Conclusions Micro level analysis is critical for crafting responsive polices, particularly in light of changing demographics of cities like London. While communities that are tightly concentrated and have above average proportions of foreign born tend to be more deprived overall, they have shown elevated levels of volunteering and participation. Greater need, and density would appear to increase the likelihood of communities working amongst horizontal support networks. That said greater governmental investments in integration do appear to reap benefits. Levels of disparity did decrease in areas with more extensive programming available. We are therefore left to conclude that both localized and pillarized approaches may be beneficial to migrant inclusion. Proximity matters, not only for policy makers but also for people and support networks. As to the two prongs cohesion and integration, it is still to early to tell how these things will evolve and if the two prongs can co-exist. These finding add with to the importance of conducting additional research, and the importance of moving away from the more universal approaches being promoted by higher levels of government in the United Kingdom. The ‘diversification of diversity,’ therefore, must be met with a diversification of inclusion – and it would appear that multiculturalism in some areas is not dead.
26
