Rising Residential Segregation, but Less Racial Prejudice: How Can This Be?

Britain is becoming more sharply divided on ethnic lines, according to a study just published by the think-tank Demos. During the past decade, more than 600,000 white people have moved out of London to areas which are more than 90 per cent white. The effect is strongest amongst white Britons with children, with a fall of almost 20 per cent in the number of them living in London.

The Demos project is chaired by Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equalities Commission. At face value, the numbers suggest that racial prejudice is alive and well. It is not just whites who are seeking out white areas. According to Phillips, ethnic minorities are becoming more tightly clustered in areas where their own personal minority is well represented. But Phillips insists that the overall evidence does not show increased prejudice at all.  In fact, personal prejudice is declining. How can this be? Prejudice is allegedly falling, yet we are becoming more segregated along ethnic lines in terms of where we live.

The answer to this seeming paradox was provided over forty years ago by the brilliant American academic Thomas Schelling. Schelling, based at the University of Maryland, has carried out highly original work in areas such as national security and nuclear strategy, using a game-theoretic perspective. Along the way, he picked up the Nobel Prize in economics in 2005.

Schelling imagined a checkers (draughts) board, with many more squares than a standard one, on which an equal number of black and white checkers are placed at random. A small percentage of squares are left empty. The rules of Schelling’s game are very simple. One of the checkers is chosen to see if it wants to change location. Each square is surrounded by eight other squares. So including its own square, it looks at nine squares in all to see who else lives in its neighbourhood. Suppose the checker is white. Provided that in total there are five white checkers in the nine squares, it is happy to stay put. It does not mind living with black checkers on the other four. But if it is 4-5 rather than 5-4, it moves to one of the empty squares.

The players in this game have a very mild preference for living amongst players like them. They are happy to live with a large minority of the other colour. What happens as the game progresses? Each checker can decide, one at a time whether or not to move. Then they all get another chance to move if they want, given the new pattern of location. Remarkably, the board segregates very rapidly into dense blocks in which the checkers are all the same colour. It appears as if the players have a very strong preference to live near players of the same kind, which is not the case at all.

Schelling’s game is of course highly abstract, but it has profound practical insights. Increased tolerance and increased residential segregation need not be incompatible at all.

Paul Ormerod

As Published in City Am on Wednesday 27th November 2013

Share this post



e: aobyrne@volterra.co.uk
t: +44 020 8878 6333

Alex O’Byrne, Associate at Volterra, is an experienced economic consultant specialising in economic, health and social impact, economic strategy, project appraisal and socio-economic planning matters.

Alex has led the socio-economic and health assessments of some of the most high profile developments across the UK, including Battersea Power Station, Olympia London, London Resort, MSG Sphere and Westfield. He has significant experience inputting to EIAs and s106 discussions as well as drafting economic statements, employment and skills strategies and affordable workspace strategies.

Alex is also experienced at economic appraisal for infrastructure. He was project manager of the economic appraisal for the City Centre to Mangere Light Rail in Auckland. He also led the economic and financial appraisals of the third tranche of the Transport Access Program for Transport for New South Wales, in which Alex developed and employed innovative methodological approaches to better capture benefits for individuals with reduced mobility.

He is interested in the limitations of current appraisal methodologies and ways of improving economic and health analysis to ensure it is accessible to as many people as possible. To this end, Alex recognises the importance of transparent and simple to understand analysis and ensuring all work is supported by a robust narrative.

Alex holds a BSc (Hons) in Economics from the University of Manchester and he was a member of the first cohort of the Mayor’s Infrastructure Young Professionals Panel.


Senior Partner

e: eevans@volterra.co.uk
t: +44 020 8878 6333

Ellie is a partner at Volterra, specialising in the economic impact of developments and proposals, and manages many of the company’s projects on economic impact, regeneration, transport and development.

With thirteen years experience at Volterra delivering high quality projects to clients across the public and private sector, Ellie has expertise in developing methods of estimating economic impact where complex issues exist with regards to deadweight, displacement and additionality.

Ellie has significant experience in estimating the economic impact across all types of property development including residential, leisure, office and mixed use schemes.

Project management of recent high profile schemes include the luxury hotel London Peninsula, Battersea Power Station and the Nova scheme at London Victoria. Ellie has also led studies across the country estimating the economic and regeneration impact of proposed transport investments, including studies on HS2 and Crossrail.

Ellie holds a degree in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Cambridge.