Presentation on theme: "The ‘escalator region’ hypothesis two decades on: a review and critique Tony Champion Presented at Centre for Population Change University of Southampton,"— Presentation transcript:
The ‘escalator region’ hypothesis two decades on: a review and critique Tony Champion Presented at Centre for Population Change University of Southampton, 2 May 2013
Introduction Aim: To see how well Tony Fielding’s (1992) ‘escalator region’ hypothesis has stood the test of time - Fielding AJ (1992) Migration and social mobility: South East England as an 'escalator' region. Regional Studies 26, 1-15. Outline: (1) the original model; (2) subsequent work by Fielding & others; (3) more detail on 3 studies: - Champion T (2012) Testing the return migration element of the ‘escalator region’ model: an analysis of migration into and out of south-east England, 1966-2001. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 5, 255-69. - Champion T (2012) ‘The value of your investment can go down as well as up’: an examination of negative outcomes of stepping onto the regional escalator. PPT at RGS-IBG 2012, Edinburgh. - Champion T, Coombes M & Gordon I (2013) How far do England’s second-order cities emulate London as human-capital ‘escalators’? Spatial Economics Research Centre Discussion Paper 132.
The original model The ‘escalator region’ (ER) hypothesis comprises 3 stages according to Fielding (1992): Stage 1: ER attracts many young people with promotion potential to itself at the start of their working lives – ‘stepping on the escalator’; Stage 2: ER provides the context where these in-migrants achieve accelerated upward social mobility (USM) – ‘being taken up by the escalator’ or ‘riding the escalator’; Stage 3: ER loses through out-migration a significant proportion of these in-migrants when ‘downshifting’ at or near retirement – ‘stepping off the escalator’. Fielding tested 1 & 3 using data on net migration by age, and tested 2 using linked individual census records 1971-81 to measure (i) odds of USM for non-migrants in SE cf non-SE, (ii) ditto for SE in-migrants, (iii) ditto for SE out-migrants.
Transitions 1971-81 for non-migrants: the South East as an ‘escalator region’ (nation=1.00) Source: Fielding (1992), Figures 2-5 Standard Region In educ 71 Manager 81 In educ 71 Prof’l 81 Wk Class 71 Manager 81 Wk Class 71 Prof’l 81 North0.600.880.730.87 North West0.830.930.900.95 Yorks/Humb0.670.860.880.78 East Mids0.870.790.820.83 West Mids0.800.910.870.80 Wales0.560.990.72 1.05 East Anglia0.760.750.900.76 South West0.890.860.90 1.10 South East1.451.191.291.21
Entry rate to ‘service class’ (Managerial & Prof’l) by 1981 for those not in it in 1971 (% of starters) Source: Fielding (1992), Table 3 Status in 1971England & WalesSouth East only TotalInter- regional migrants only TotalIn- migrants only In labour market11.423.113.528.2 Low-level white collar18.831.719.735.8 In education18.345.719.050.5
Results of Fielding’s (1992) test Inter-regional migrants rise into the service class more strongly than non-migrants, and migrants entering the South East rise faster than these Fielding (1992, Table 5) also looks at people leaving the South East 1971-81 and finds highest odds (compared to all inter- regional migrants) for moving into retirement and self- employment This supports the return migration element of ER hypothesis; viz. ER loses through out-migration a significant proportion of those gaining from this upward social mobility; in Fielding’s words: - ‘These out-migrants would be in the middle to later stages of their working lives, or at or near to retirement.’ - ‘They would migrate partly to “cash in” the assets gained during their social promotion in the ER.’
Main results of subsequent studies Role of SE as escalator region was not confined to 1971-81 but continued in 1981-91 beyond ‘last fling of Fordism’ (Fielding, 2007) Both men and women benefit from stepping on the escalator, but women relatively more so (Fielding & Halford, 1993), though mainly if unpartnered (Bruegel, 1999, 2000) Much of the benefit of stepping on the escalator takes place at the time of the move (detected from interview study, Findlay et al, 2009) Stepping-off process is consistent with counterurbanisation with people moving for quality of life etc, with only limited economic benefits for non-SE (Williams & Champion, 1998) But other (qualitative) studies find out-migrants from SE to be a mixed bunch including younger people (Devine et al, 2003 on Manchester; Findlay et al, 2008, on Edinburgh)
Study 1: How soon did the people who moved to SE England 1966-1971 leave the SE again (up till 2001)? Regional location, 1966-2001, of LS members aged 6-40 in 1971 who moved to the South East (SE) from the Rest of England and Wales (REW) between 1966 and 1971 Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright
How different were the ‘returners’ from those who stayed in SE after moving there in 1966-71? Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright
Study 2: ‘Value of your investment can go down as well as up’ Transition matrix for those moving to London from Rest of England & Wales Results for three decades 1971-81, 1981-91 & 1991-2001 combined: - upward mobility (green) = 7,882 = 54.4% - no change (blue) = 4,907 = 33.9% - downward mobility (pink) = 1,695 = 11.7% At start of decade outside London City Region (CR) At end of decade inside London CR Total at start WC Core WC Noncore BC Skilled Others in work Not working White Collar Core457257202274830 White Collar Noncore4731631442085612917 Blue Collar Skilled5914515513789585 Others in work863631234072831262 Not working1361399129498722578890 Total at end243663876361761326414484 Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright
Trend in social mobility types Migrants to London City Region in specified decade classified by direction of transition Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright
Study 2: Summary of findings The odds of upward mobility for those ‘stepping on the escalator’ have been progressively increasing The main downward transitions (in order) are: WCnoncore>Not working (stable over time) Others in work>Not working (declining) WCcore>WCnoncore, WCnoncore>Others in work (rising) For movers to London CR 1991-2001 and in work at both dates, those losing out are more likely to be: Male Older Born outside UK With limiting long-term illness Starting decade as self-employed, with a few qualifications, in high-status occupation, and in a one-earner household
Study 3: Using LS to compare strength of escalator for 9 city regions with London RankCity RegionPop 1991 1 London11,573.6 2 Birmingham2,990.7 3 Manchester2,855.5 4 Leeds2,446.0 5 Liverpool1,671.9 6 Sheffield1,662.0 7 Newcastle1,627.0 8 Nottingham1,128.5 9 Bristol1,054.1 10 Leicester887.9 10 CRs27,897.2 Remainder22,850.8 England & Wales50,748.0
Probability of WC Non-core starters becoming WC Core by end of decade (out of all those still in work, stayers only) Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright.
Probability of WC Non-core 1991 becoming WC Core 2001, London vs 9CRs combined: stayers by gender & age in 1991 % = 9CRs compared with London CR Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright.
Probability of WC Non-core 1991 becoming WC Core 2001: all stayers of 10 City Regions (ranked) Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright.
Probability of WC Non-core 1991 becoming WC Core 2001 for 10 CRs: stayers, in-movers, premium Source: Calculated from ONS Longitudinal Study. Crown copyright. City Regions ranked by Stayer probability
Study 3: Summary of findings The London escalator has not only survived the ‘last fling of Fordism’ of 1970s but appears to have strengthened In 1991-2001 London’s premium over 9 other CRs (for stayers) is not due to compositional effects of age/gender Manchester is the most similar to London on the criterion used (12% behind), Liverpool least (32%) [all 23%] In-movers hold a premium over stayers of around 10% points for both London and 9 CRs combined Composition (age/gender) does not explain this ‘migrant premium’, also standardising for occupational level at start Could it be due to some unobserved personal attribute such as ‘ambition’ (migration is known to be a selective process)? Or is ‘selection’ operating through the recruitment process: i.e. mainly the contracted migration of people prepared to move for a (better) job and chosen by employers?
Concluding critique Has the ‘ER hypothesis’ stood the test of time? Certainly London/SE’s role as escalator region appears to have intensified (also evident in data on migration by age) But its role is not as clearcut as the basic model suggests: - many young-adult arrivals in ER stay only a short time (nb:- the CJRES study excludes moves to/from university) - a proportion of those stepping on the escalator seem to miss their footing! (nb:- Fielding acknowledged this) - it is not just migrants to London that have higher odds of upward social mobility; (nearly) as high in some other cities Implications of this last finding: Employer selection? Does all or most of the migrant premium occur at time of move? Next steps: Micro-level regression on continuous ‘job status’ indicator across 38 city regions. Plus updating to 2011.
Acknowledgements & disclaimer Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland The permission of the Office for National Statistics to use the Longitudinal Study is also gratefully acknowledged, as also is the help provided by staff (notably Christopher Marshall) of the Centre for Longitudinal Study Information & User Support (CeLSIUS). CeLSIUS is supported by the ESRC Census of Population Programme (Award Ref: RES 348-25- 0004) The material in this presentation has previously been cleared by ONS, but the author alone is responsible for the interpretation of the data