Space, place and households: The growing divide in an era of
austerity
Presentation to EASP/SPA Conference 2012
University of York, UK 16-18 July 2012
Research Team:
Dr Patricia Kennett (PI), Professor Richard
Meegan, Dr Gerwyn Jones and Dr Jacqui Croft
ESRC Grant Number: RES-062-23-2963
Key issues
• The differential implications of the economic
downturn for cities and households and
implications for social policy
• De- and re-spatialisation of inequality and
social differentiation
• Social, ideological and moral shift
• Deepening of divisions?
Dual crisis
• UK cities as `agents of world city network formation’
(Taylor 2004)
• Economic revival, world connectivity and `engines of
economic growth’
• Dual dynamic of financial and urban crisis (Aalbers 2012)
-Finance led accumulation regime
- Urban restructuring, expansion and
speculation
• Globalisation, cities and economic cycles
The research
• Highlight differential and uneven impact of economic
crisis and austerity measures between cities and
households
• Social survey of 1,000 households conducted by
Ipsos-MORI in 2011 in Bristol and Liverpool across 10
household types
• Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in Bristol
and Liverpool
Urban Contexts
Bristol
Liverpool
• Research centre
• Archetypal post-industrial
city
• Financial sector – banking,
finance, insurance
• Affluence / persistent
deprivation
• Population growth
• Highly skilled and well
qualified
• Transport network and port
• Long history of economic
decline
• Population decline
• Concentration of
deprivation
• “Transformation pole” –
reinventing
• Capital of Culture 2008
• Growth in financial services,
call centres
• High level public sector
employment
Liverpool’s renaissance
• ‘The city’s better off. [...] Or, at least, it’s – how shall I put it –
it’s less desperately poor. The red bits on the map are starting
to shrink. It’s gobsmacking.’[037]
While another cited levels of economic growth:
• ‘Well, it’s interesting for Liverpool because with economic
growth in a city that has outstripped, um, both the UK and
core cities’ average, recently Liverpool’s experienced, you
know, Liverpool’s been going through this renaissance.’[036]
% of population
Category
Wealthy
Achievers
Household
groups:
ACORN
categories
Urban
Prosperity
Comfortably
Off
Moderate
Means
Group
Bristol
Liverpool
UK
Affluent Greys
4.71
2.62
7.90
Flourishing Families
8.43
7.43
9.00
Educated Urbanites
4.88
1.67
5.50
Starting Out
7.23
1.34
3.10
Secure Families
16.32
19.41
15.50
Prudent Pensioners
3.50
3.28
2.70
Post-Industrial Families
9.90
4.54
4.70
Blue Collar Roots
7.52
10.60
7.50
Struggling Families
11.27
23.56
13.30
Burdened Singles
2.62
9.10
4.20
Hard Pressed
Perceived changes in household finances
100.0%
6.0%
2.9%
13.4%
14.0%
90.0%
2.9%
7.1%
10.4%
9.4%
9.9%
21.2%
28.2%
80.0%
35.0%
34.5%
40.0%
70.0%
33.3%
30.2%
38.6%
35.0%
43.3%
29.8%
60.0%
50.0%
Improved
40.0%
Stayed the same
68.9%
62.1%
30.0%
54.0%
58.4%
47.1%
50.0%
54.2%
Got worse
58.3%
50.5%
41.2%
20.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
1.9%
1.0%
.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
.0%
1.0%
Affluent Greys
Flourishing Families
Educated Urbanites
Starting Out
Secure Families
Prudent Pensioners
Post-Industrial Families
Blue-collar Roots
Struggling Families
Burdened Singles
.0%
Don't know
Households’ ability to meet living costs
100%
90%
80%
21.0%
38.0%
35.9%
31.7%
15.6%
11.7%
19.8%
13.9%
27.4%
38.1%
We have enough
to live
comfortably
28.2%
31.7%
70%
60%
45.8%
42.5%
50%
40%
50.0%
42.0%
43.0%
40.8%
44.2%
34.0%
39.8%
46.5%
30%
33.0%
20%
29.2%
27.1%
We have enough
just to meet
basic expenses
We don't have
enough to meet
basic expenses
16.0%
0%
3.0%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
4.8%
.0%
4.0%
.0%
4.4%
.0%
6.2%
.0%
5.2%
.0%
7.3%
.0%
2.9%
7.9%
.0%
Educated Urbanites
Starting Out
Secure Families
Prudent Pensioners
Post-Industrial Families
Blue-collar Roots
Struggling Families
Burdened Singles
17.5%
10%
Flourishing Families
19.2%
21.6%
Affluent Greys
20.4%
25.7%
We have enough
to meet basic
expenses with a
little left over for
extras
Don't know
Unemployment 16-24 year old age group
(% unemployment rates)
Local Government Finance Settlements
Authority
Estimated 201112 Revenue
Spending Power
(including NHS
support for
social care)
Change in 201112 revenue
spending power
(%)
(£million)
Estimated 201213 Revenue
Spending Power
(including NHS
support for
social care)
Change in 2011- Total Percentage
12 revenue
Change 2011/12
spending power
& 2012/13
(%)
(%)
(£million)
Liverpool
563.819
-11.34
530.461
-7.14
-18.48
Knowsley
193.935
-10.77
183.017
-6.53
-17.30
Sefton
269.486
-6.76
255.807
-3.93
-10.69
Bristol
416.300
-3.62
398.510
-3.05
-6.67
North Somerset
165.705
-2.35
159.567
-2.37
-4.72
South
Gloucestershire
204.817
-2.42
198.029
-2.21
-4.63
Source: DCLG
Cuts in Spending Power vs Indices of Deprivation
50
LIVERPOOL
45
MANCHESTER
IMD2007 Average district score
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/733520.pdf
11
BIRMINGHAM
40
NOTTINGHAM
17
16
35
14
30
2
30
BRISTOL
1
13
9
27
26
15
6
10
25
NEWCASTLE
8
29
24
SHEFFIELD
28
LEEDS
12
3,23,20,
7,21
18
5
4
20
22
15
25
19
Unitaries
10
London Boroughs
Metropolitan Districts
5
0
0.00%
Core Cities
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
Cuts after transition grant http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1796201.xls
10.00%
Complexity and diversity
‘[...] our sense was we had lots of professional people coming through, who
you know had spent ... who’d been employed for a long time, and the idea
of finding work and moving to a new job was completely you know
anathema to them really, and they didn’t know how to go about applying
for jobs, and they were completely unprepared for the way the job market
is now.’ (Bristol)
‘I would say we really, really started noticing a change in the makeup of our
client structure [...] about 3 years ago [...]. I noticed that we were no
longer seeing just those people who are on a low level of income, who
were on say a low level of employment income plus benefits, or just
benefits alone – it was now people who had income from employment,
who had a substantial asset as a property or a vehicle, who normally were
sustaining their situation from their employment income, and maybe
supplemented by some low level benefits, like child benefit for example.’
(Bristol)
Increasing numbers, different groups
‘It’s not so much an increase in the type of issues that come
through, ‘cos the issues have always been there and always
will, it’s an increase in the numbers with those issues. And it’s
the difference in the groups that are being affected as well,
it’s people who’ve been in work all their lives, have got no
knowledge of the benefit system ... and it’s getting more and
more complex.’ (Liverpool)
Respondents’ outlooks for the next 12 months
100.0%
8.0%
9.7%
12.6%
17.5%
90.0%
31.7%
12.6%
15.6%
29.0%
11.9%
30.2%
80.0%
70.0%
54.0%
60.0%
50.5%
58.4%
51.5%
47.9%
48.5%
Improve
54.6%
50.0%
43.3%
Stay the same
42.7%
47.0%
40.0%
Get worse
30.0%
20.0%
27.1%
36.0%
34.0%
23.1%
10.0%
.0%
2.0%
2.9%
32.0%
24.8%
1.9%
7.1%
1.0%
24.0%
25.8%
23.0%
9.4%
2.1%
33.7%
3.1%
3.9%
5.9%
Don't know
Final Remarks
• Tensions and contradictions of
`financial/urban’ complex not been addressed
• Starker neo-liberal agenda impacting on cities
and households in different ways
• Recalibration of risk and responsibility
• Economic and social vulnerability to
uncertainties – resilience and resources