Family names, city size distributions and residential differentiation in Great Britain, 1881–1901

Abstract

Cities have specialised in particular urban functions throughout history, with consequential implications for urban and regional patterns of economic and social change. This specialisation takes place within overall national city size distributions and is manifest in different but often similarly variegated residential structures. Here we develop a novel and consistent methodological approach for measuring macro-scale city size and micro-scale residential differentiation using individual digital census records for the period 1881–1901. The use of family names and neighbourhood classification of dominant economic and social roles makes it possible to relate the changing city size distribution in Great Britain to patterns of urban growth and residential differentiation within urban areas. Together, we provide an integrated and consistent methodology that links the classification of all major urban area growth in Great Britain to attendant intra-urban geodemographic changes in urban residential structures. We suggest ways in which this manifests social and economic change across the settlement system for both new and long-established residents.

An Individual Level Method for Improved Estimation of Ethnic Characteristics

“…It also has potential implications for the conduct of input – output analysis (Miller and Blair 1981). Such detail and flexibility enable a much more robust and transparent definition of the urban structures that are arranged in urban hierarchies (Broitman et al 2020), while names-based classifications enable the variegated social mixing of established populations and more recent migrants to be described and analysed (Lan et al 2021). Our use of asylum seekers to validate the research is integral to the case for using names to identify and appraise migrant characteristics in regional analysis more generally (e.g.…”

Mapping the cultural divides of England and Wales: Did the geographies of ‘Belonging’ act as a brake on British Urbanisation, 1851–1911?

“…While urban/rural classifications are included as interaction effects—rural to urban, urban to rural etc., represented by parameter U ij —London is included as a main effect, separate to other urban destinations given its unique status in both the British economy and urban hierarchy [ 16 , 88 ]. Indeed, as London has always been the primate British city—its size far exceeding that predicted by a rank-size distribution—the attractions of London might not be fully captured by the other explanatory variables in the model and instead, London’s more intangible—and perhaps unquantifiable—attractions might be better captured by a dummy variable [ 89 , 90 ].…”