Social Policy Research 55 August 1994

The geography of poverty and wealth, 1981- 1991

Detailed analysis of the geography of poverty and wealth in 1981 and 1991 reveals a great deal of continuity during the 1980s, but also some importa n t changes. The study, by Anne Green of the University of War wick, found that:

The main losers from economic and social changes in the 1980s are parts of the largest urban areas and (former) coal-mining districts.

The main winners are areas in middle England on the fringes of a ‘Greater South East’ region, together with some mixed urban-rural localities in northern England and north-east Scotland.

In many large urban areas - notably London - there were increases in both poverty and wealth during the 1980s.

The gap between the wealthiest and poorest wards has increased, but polarisation was rather slow in relation to the considerable differences between areas that already existed in 1981.

Poverty has, however, become significantly more concentrated in particular places.

The incidence of poverty tends to be greater in northern than in southern Britain and greater in large cities than in small towns and rural areas.

Poverty is most widespread in areas with a narrow industrial base in long- term decline.

The localised severity of poverty is most marked in the large metropolitan areas of northern Britain and in inner London.

While there are pockets of wealth throughout Britain, the largest concentration of wealth is in south-east England.

Income and wealth The importance of a geographical pe r s p e c t i v e Analyses using the three alternative measures show Processes of economic and social change in the 1980s that the contours of poverty and wealth vary between had uneven impacts across different population sub- areas. Whereas some areas appear at the top of the groups and localities in Great Britain. There is rankings on all three measures of a particular increasing concern that those losing out from these indicator (for example, Liverpool on the changes - particularly when segregated in particular unemployment rate indicator), for other areas there is geographic areas - may become isolated from the greater variation in the rankings on the different mainstream of society. This study aims to plug the measures of distribution. For example: gaps in existing knowledge about the geography of • in the South Wales Valleys the extent of winners and losers by providing a picture of the poverty tends to be more marked than the degree distribution of poverty and wealth in 1981 and 1991, or intensity; i.e. it is the widespread nature of and tracing the main continuities and changes over poverty that is the most distinctive feature; this period. The main source of information for geographical • the degree of wealth in Surrey and Berkshire is studies at the local scale is the Census of Population. relatively more pronounced than the extent or Since details about income are not available from the intensity; i.e. the key characteristic of these areas is Census, it is necessary to use other ‘proxy’ indicators the high average values on wealth indicators; capturing the multi-dimensional nature of poverty • in many of the largest cities it is the localised and wealth. This study used: intensity of poverty/wealth that is more marked • the unemployment rate, inactivity rates, no-car than the overall degree or ex t e n t . households and renter-households as indicators of poverty; Key features of the geography of poverty and wealth • households with 2 or more cars, residents in Important variations in the degree and extent of managerial and professional groups and high poverty and wealth are evident between different qualifications as indicators of wealth. regions and different sizes of urban areas. If each of the ten thousand wards in Britain is ranked Some of the key features of the continuities an d in order of each poverty and wealth indicator in 1981 changes in the distribution of poverty and wealth may and 1991, and the average value of the indicator is be illustrated using the inactivity rate (i.e. the calculated for each one-tenth group of wards, it is proportion of people potentially in the labour force possible to get an overview of what happened over who remain outside it) as an indicator of poverty, and the decade. Such analysis confirms that the gap households with 2 or more cars as an indicator of between the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ wards did widen in we a l t h : various ways between 1981 and 1991, lending support • inactivity rates tend to be higher in Wales than to the hypothesis that polarisation by area has in any other part of Britain; increased. However, this was rather slow in relation to the considerable differences which already existed • whereas in 1981 inactivity was greatest in between areas in 1981. many remoter rural areas of the ‘Celtic fringe’, in 1991 inactivity was most extensive in those Measuring geographical variations in areas characterised by a declining mining / poverty and wealth manufacturing base, and parts of large cities; Three alternative measures are used to summarise the • on the households with 2 or more cars indicator distribution of poverty and wealth: the picture is one of continuity, with a • degree: the average value across a local area for consolidation of wealth in an elite group of areas an indicator - the simplest of the three measures; to the west of London. • extent: the proportion of wards within a local In general, localities in inner London and other large area ranked in the ‘top’ 10 per cent of the cities were the most likely to experience relative national distribution of wards on an indicator. growth in the degree and extent of poverty between This provides an insight into the ‘extensiveness’ 1981 and 1991. By contrast, localities in mixed of poverty and wealth within a locality/area (local urban-rural areas - particularly those located on the authority or local labour market area); fringes of the ‘Greater South East’ region (in • intensity: the average of the ‘top 3’ ranked Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, wards within a local area on a particular Warwickshire and Wiltshire) witnessed greater than indicator - highlights the localised severity of average increases in the degree and extent of wealth poverty/wealth in a locality/ area. over the decade. The changing fortunes of London most likely to reside in areas with a relatively high Some of the most pronounced changes in the incidence of poverty. geography of poverty and wealth during the 1980s By comparing the position of areas across occurred in London - notably inner London. There different indicators of poverty and wealth it is was an increase in the degree and extent of non- possible to identify areas of ‘c o n c e n t r a t e d employment between 1981 and 1991, and the initial poverty/wealth’ - exhibiting multiple aspects of ‘core’ of disadvantage spread outwards. Alongside the poverty/wealth. There was a net increase in the process of ‘professionalisation’, this has led to a number of areas with ‘concentrated poverty’ over the polarisation of the social structure within London. decade, but continuities between 1981 and 1991 are more pronounced than changes (see Tables 1 and 2). The net increase in the number of ‘concentrated The increasing concentration of poverty and wealth wealth’ areas was less, but this disguises a larger Overall, fewer localities had one or more of their number of areas loosing and gaining ‘concentrated constituent wards represented in the ‘top’ tenth of the wealth’ status over the period. Key features of the national distribution of wards on poverty and wealth geography of ‘concentrated poverty / wealth’ areas indicators in 1991 than in 1981. This indicates a trend in c l u d e : towards a greater concentration of poverty and wealth over the 1980s. Wards characterised by ‘extreme’ • the rural/suburban/small and medium-sized poverty are concentrated in a smaller number of town bias of ‘concentrated wealth’ wards which localities than are wards of ‘extreme’ wealth - contrasts starkly with the large urban centre / old indicating that poverty is more geographically industrial area bias of ‘concentrated poverty’ wards; concentrated than wealth. • the increases in the numbers of both Analyses using data from the ethnicity question in ‘concentrated poverty’ and ‘concentrated wealth’ the 1991 Census of Population highlight the relative areas in inner London between 1981 and 1991; concentration of minority ethnic groups in ‘extreme’ poverty areas. There are also some important • the ‘escape’ of some areas from ‘concentrated variations between minority ethnic groups, with the poverty’ between 1981 and 1991 - notably many Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black populations being steel closure areas which suffered massive jobs losses in the early 1980s; Table 1: ‘Concentrated poverty’ localities • the increase over the decade in the proportion of 1991 & 1981 1991 only 1981 only the ‘poorest’ wards which are 01 Clydebank 01 Birmingham 01 Afan in the ‘poorest’ localities and 02 Cumnock & Doon Valley 02 Camden 02 Blaenau Gwent a similar increase in the 03 Dundee City 03 Clackmannan 03 Caithness proportion of ‘wealthiest’ 04 Easington 04 Cynon Valley 04 Corby wards which are in the 05 Glasgow City 05 Gateshead 05 ‘wealthiest’ areas. Nevertheless, 06 Hackney 06 Halton 06 Dumbarton at least half of the ‘poorest’ 07 Hartlepool 07 Hamilton 07 Kensington & Chelsea neighbourhoods lie outside 08 Inverclyde 08 Hammersmith & Fulham 08 Western Isles the ‘poorest’ areas and at least 09 Islington 09 Haringey 09 Westminster half of the wealthiest 10 Kingston-upon-Hull 10 Isles of Scilly neighbourhoods lie outside 11 Knowsley 11 Lewisham the ‘wealthiest’ areas. 12 Lambeth 12 Middlesbrough 13 Liverpool 13 Newcastle upon Tyne Economic and social changes 14 Manchester 14 Newham during the 1980s appear to be 15 Merthyr Tydfil 15 Nottingham leading to a growth in ‘no- 16 Monklands 16 Salford earner’ households, 17 Motherwell neighbourhoods and labour 18 Rhondda markets, in conjunction with 19 Rhymney Valley a growth in ‘dual career’ 20 Sandwell households, neighbourhoods 21 South Tyneside and labour markets in other 22 Southwark lo c a t i o n s . 23 Sunderland 24 Tower Hamlets About the study Table 2: ‘Concentrated wealth’ localities These results are based on proxy indicators of poverty 1991 & 1981 1991 only and wealth from the 1991 and 1981 Censuses of Population. The analyses cover the whole of the Great 01 Barnet 01 Cambridge Britain population, and are presented at three 02 Bearsden & Milngavie 02 Camden geographical scales: 03 Brentwood 03 East Hampshire 04 04 Hammersmith & Fulham 05 Chiltern 05 Kincardine & Deeside • 280 local labour market areas 06 City of London 06 Wandsworth • 459 local authority districts 07 East Hertfordshire • approximately 10 thousand wards. 08 Eastwood 09 Elmbridge A range of statistics of distribution and segregation 10 Epsom & Ewell 1981 only are used to summarise spatial patterns of poverty 11 Guildford 01 and wealth. 12 Harborough 02 Bracknell 13 Hart 03 Chelmsford 14 Hertsmere 04 Gordon Further information 15 Kensington & Chelsea 05 Horsham A full report, The Geography of Poverty and Wealth, by 16 Kingston upon Thames 06 Maldon Anne E Green, is available from The Publications 17 07 Mid Bedfordshire Secretary, Institute for Employment Research, University 18 Mid Sussex 08 Northavon of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, Tel: (0203) 524127. 19 Mole Valley 09 Wimborne 20 Newbury Further information can be obtained from Anne Green, 21 Reigate & Banstead Tel (0203) 524113, Fax (0203) 524241. 22 Ribble Valley 23 Richmond upon Thames 24 Runnymede 25 Rushcliffe 26 St. Albans 27 Sevenoaks 28 Related Fi n d i n g s 29 South Cambridgeshire The following Social Policy Findings look at related issues: 30 South Northamptonshire 31 South Oxfordshire 32 Spelthorne 31 Household budgets and living standards 33 Stratford-on- (Nov 92) 34 Surrey Heath 34 Comparing different households in measuring 35 Tandridge poverty (Jan 93) 36 Three Rivers 43 Catholic-Protestant income differences in 37 Uttlesford 38 Vale of White Horse Northern Ireland (Sep 93) 39 Waverley 49 UK income distribution during the 1980s 40 Wealden (Jun 94) 41 Westminster 50 UK income distribution 1961-1991 42 Winchester 52 The UK male wage distribution 1966-92 43 Windsor & Maidenhead 44 Woking For further information on Findings, 45 Wokingham 46 Wycombe call Sally Corrie on 0904 654328 (direct line for publications queries only).

Published by the The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is an independent, non-political Joseph Rowntree Foundation body which funds programmes of research and innovative The Homestead, 40 Water End development in the fields of housing, social care and social policy. York YO3 6LP It supports projects of potential value to policy-makers, decision- Tel: 0904 629241 Fax: 0904 620072 takers and practitioners. It publishes the findings rapidly and widely so that they can inform current debate and practice. ISSN 0958-3815