JANUARY 2002

Online
Geo file 412

Garrett Nagle

URBAN AND RURAL DEPRIVATION IN THE UK

Deprivation in the UK Figure 1: The inner city’s web of decline, deprivation and despair

According to the Joseph Rowntree

Foundation:
• Around 9.5 million people cannot
afford to keep their homes
adequately heated, free from damp
or in a decent state of decoration –
the housing conditions that most
people regard as “adequate”.
• Some 8 million people cannot
afford one or more essential
household items such as a fridge, a
telephone or carpets for the living
areas in their homes.
• Around 4 million people are not
fed properly by today’s standards.
For example, they do not have
fresh fruit and vegetables, or two
meals a day.
• Some 6.5 million adults go
without essential clothing – such
as a warm, waterproof coat –
because of lack of money.
• Almost 7.5 million people are too
poor to engage in “normal” social
activities, like visiting friends and
family, attending weddings and Source: Matthews (1991)
funerals or having celebrations on
special occasions. Figure 2: Summary of poverty and social exclusion indicators

Between 1983 and 1990 the number of Indicator Trend

households living in poverty grew Over the medium Over latest year
from 14 per cent to 21 per cent of the term
population. By 1999 the figure was Income
higher still, at more than 24 per cent. 1. Gap between low and median income Steady Steady
However, the number of households 2. Individuals with low income
(below 50% of average income) Worsened Steady
defined as living in chronic, long-
3. Intensity of low income
term poverty fell from 4 per cent to (below 40% of average income) Worsened Worsened
2.5 per cent.
Children
4. Children in workless households Improved Improved
The nature of deprivation in 5. Children in low-income households Worsened Steady
the UK 6. Low birthweight babies (%) Steady Worsened
7. Pupils gaining no GCSE above grade D Improved Improved
The Government’s New Policy 8. Permanently excluded from school Worsened Improved
Institute provides some of the most 9. Children whose parents divorce Improved Steady
comprehensive and up-to-date social Young adults
data available. These suggest that the 10. Unemployed (16–24) Improved Steady
nature of deprivation is both 11. On low rates of pay (16–24) Steady Steady
widepread (Figure 1) and changing 12. Problem drug use (15–24) Worsened Worsened
(Figure 2). For example, the number 13. Suicide (15–24) Steady Steady
of people living in households with Adults aged 25 to retirement
less than half of the average national 14. On low rates of pay Steady Steady
income has more than doubled since 15. Insecure at work Steady Improved
the 1980s. On the other hand, levels of Older people
overcrowding and the numbers of 16. Pensioners with no private income Worsened Worsened
low-income households without 17. Long-standing illness or disability Steady Improved
central heating have both reduced
Communities
substantially over the last five years. 18. Burglary Improved Improved
But the number of households in 19. Without central heating Improved Improved
temporary accommodation continues 20. Overcrowding Improved Improved

Geofile Online © Nelson Thornes 2002

January 2002 no.412 Urban and Rural Deprivation in the UK

Figure 3: Most severely deprived 16 to 24-year-olds who were suburban deprivation is on the
districts in England, 1991 unemployed earlier this year, and the increase too.
million in work who were being paid
Ranking District less than half the male median hourly
1 Newham
Ethnic minorities in the inner
wage.
2 Southwark city
3 Hackney The majority of the UK’s ethnic
4 Islington Urban deprivation
population live in urban areas,
5 Birmingham Deprivation in urban areas is particularly in the inner cities. They
6 Liverpool widespread (Figure 3). The most are associated with high levels of
7 Tower Hamlets severely deprived districts in England deprivation. Across all conurbations,
8 Lambeth are in large urban areas;10 of the 15 Bangladeshis live in the most
9 Sandwell most deprived districts are in deprived wards, followed by
10 Haringey London. This is somewhat surprising, Pakistanis and Caribbeans.
11 Lewisham given the strength of the economy in
12 Knowsley London and the South East. However, The reasons for living in a particular
13 Manchester within the urban areas there is a clear conurbation are likely to be largely
14 Greenwich inner city/suburban contrast. This is historical. Location within that
15 Camden clearly shown in the map of conurbation is likely to be more
16 Hammersmith and deprivation in London (Figure 4) and closely related to current
Fulham the map of standardised mortality circumstances. High concentrations of
17 Newcastle upon Tyne rates (Figure 5). Nevertheless, ethnic minority communities are
18 Barking and
Dagenham Figure 4: Index of deprivation in London, by borough, 1991
19 Kensington and
Chelsea
20 Waltham Forest
21 Wandsworth
22 South Tyneside
23 Bradford
24 Middlesbrough
25 Nottingham
26 Westminster, City of
27 Wolverhampton
28 Salford
29 Brent
30 Blackpool

Source: Department of the Environment

to rise sharply, and the poorest

pensioners are twice as likely to live in
badly insulated housing as the best-off
pensioners.
Source: Department of the Environment
Significant health inequalities persist.
Premature deaths are becoming more Figure 5: Standard mortality ratios in London, 1995
geographically concentrated, children
in the manual social classes are twice
as likely to die in an accident as those
in the non-manual classes, and the
poorest two-fifths of the population
are one and a half times as likely to be
at risk of a mental illness as the
richest two-fifths.

Although the number of unemployed

people has fallen since 1993 from 3
million to 1 million, official surveys
have identified a growing number of
“economically inactive” people who
say they want work. However, there
has also been an increase in the
number of households where no one
has worked for two years or more,
over the same period. The continuing
economic vulnerability of young
adults is indicated by the half million Source: Guinness and Nagle (1999)

Geofile Online © Nelson Thornes 2002


principally an urban phenomenon,
more typical of London than of other
cities. However, unlike other cities,
concentration in London is higher in
the outer city than the inner city.
London and the West Midlands are
the two conurbations with the highest
concentration of people from ethnic
minority groups.
• Overall, Bangladeshis and
Pakistanis live in wards with the
highest concentrations of people
from ethnic minorities. Across all
conurbations, Indians/African-
Asians and Pakistanis tend to live
in wards where their own ethnic
group accounts for approximately
half of all minority ethnic groups.
However, there is variation between
conurbations:
• In the West Midlands, the
Caribbean, Pakistani and
Bangladeshi populations are more
concentrated than they are in
London, but the Indian
population is more dispersed.
• Pakistanis in West Yorkshire live
in wards with the highest
concentration of any ethnic
minority group in any
conurbation.
• In London, in contrast with other
conurbations, the proportion of
the population from an ethnic
minority is highest in the outer
parts of the city. This suggests that
there is something different about
the inner and outer city divide in
London compared with other
cities.
Suburban deprivation
Suburbs house the majority of
Britain’s urban population. Suburban
Britain has been neglected in current
debates about population and housing
change. There have been few recent
studies examining the future
development of suburbs.
Looking at different areas of
Birmingham, Bristol, London and
Tyneside, some suburbs are becoming
less stable in terms of their local
economies, social structure and
environment. Symptoms include:
• deteriorating community facilities,
including community centres,
health facilities and local green
space;
• declining local shopping centres
and parades, with outdated
facilities and a gradual loss of jobs;
Geofile Online © Nelson Thornes 2002
January 2002 no.412 Urban and Rural Deprivation in the UK
• public transport that has not
adapted to changing needs, leading
to increasing dependency on cars;
• large areas of ageing housing of a
single type, that has been little
adapted to changing housing
needs and social patterns.
Change is occurring in many places,
but in a piecemeal fashion;
opportunities for improvement are
being lost. There are many parts of
suburbia that are visually attractive,
socially popular, economically stable
and having a strong sense of
community, making it wrong to
stereotype all suburbs in a negative
way.
Deprivation in rural areas
Many parts of rural Britain experience
deprivation and have problems linked
with poverty and unemployment.
Deprivation takes many forms, such
as a lack of affordable housing,
employment opportunities, transport
etc. Provision of social housing in
rural areas is not sufficient in itself to
sustain socially mixed communities.
In many rural areas of England there
are problems of access to affordable
housing. House prices have been
driven up by the desirability of living
in the countryside and the already low
level of provision of council housing
in rural areas has been further
diminished by “right to buy” sales.
In recent years, registered social
landlords (RSLs) – mostly housing
associations – have become the main
providers of new social rented
housing. Affordable homes rented
from rural housing associations play a
welcome part in preventing young
people and others with low incomes
from being forced out of their own
villages by rising house prices. But
such provision is patchy, and it is the
availability of jobs that largely
determines whether young people
stay or abandon the countryside.
The availability of social housing
varies widely in rural areas – even
between neighbouring villages. The
communities with the best supply of
affordable homes for rent, ironically,
tend to be those with the greatest
concentrations of poverty and
unemployment, such as former
mining villages.
Coalfields and deprivation
Britain’s coalfields in northern
England and South Wales developed
rapidly during the 19th century to
power the nation’s industrialisation,
and often became places primarily
dependent on a single industry.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s,
Britain’s coal mining industry
collapsed dramatically. This
destroyed at a stroke the economic
livelihood of many coalfield villages,
rupturing their cultural and social
fabric, and precipitated a deep sense
of loss. Coalfields are unique in
character. Neither rural nor urban,
their run-down housing estates share
the social problems of the worst urban
areas, while their isolation is
comparable to that of other rural
areas.
There have been many national
policies in response to coalfield
decline as well as local, community-
based initiatives. Government and EU
funding has supported environmental
improvements, including a clear-up of
much of the dereliction caused by
mining. British Coal Enterprises and
other regeneration agencies have been
less successful, however, in creating
training, employment and business
opportunities. Some jobs have been
created, but there has been little
growth of small and medium-sized
businesses, and even less development
in high-tech manufacturing. A wide
range of community initiatives have
provided alternative types of work
and services. Programmes with a high
level of contact and involvement of
local people have generally been more
successful than “top down” initiatives
started and led by statutory agencies.
Many coalfields remain blighted by
severe socio-economic problems
relating to unemployment, long-term
sickness and poverty. Poverty affects
those in employment as well as the
unemployed, because new jobs tend to
be low-paid. As a result, the coalfields
have become places with poor
infrastructure, high levels of ill-health
and unemployment.
Persistent economic inactivity,
poverty and related problems
continue to characterise these places.
Job losses in other sectors and cuts in
local government expenditure have
exacerbated the problems. Reduced
employment opportunities and
diminished service and facility
provision compound the
marginalisation of coalfield
communities.
Attracting investment in
manufacturing or in service activities,
January 2002 no.412 Urban and Rural Deprivation in the UK
Figure 6: Factors associated with deprivation
Social background
Religion
Household composition
Skills and employment
Tenure
(Adapted from Dorsett, R., Ethnic Minorities in the Inner City, The Policy Press.)
such as call centres, does not
necessarily alleviate problems of
poverty. Often the prime attraction
for such companies is the availability
of large numbers of people in search
of work. Companies are able to recruit
rigorously and selectively to build up
workforces who are willing to work
flexibly for low wages, frequently in
non-unionised workplaces. Work is
often part-time and sometimes
temporary. Women regularly take up
the new jobs; this can create problems
within mining communities with a
strong tradition of men supporting
their families.
Geofile Online © Nelson Thornes 2002
• Being in a higher social class is associated with
lower relative deprivation.
• Respondents for whom religion is very important
live in more deprived wards than those with no
religion or for whom religion is not important.
• Among South Asians, Muslims tend to live in wards
with a high level of relative deprivation and a high
minority ethnic concentration. Hindus and Sikhs, on
the other hand, live in wards with quite high
concentration but a low level of deprivation.
• Among Indians and African-Asians, Sikhs live in
wards with a slightly lower level of relative
deprivation than do Hindus. Conversely, Muslims
live in wards with a higher level of deprivation.
• Where a family is mixed, with a white member plus a
member from a minority ethnic group, the level of
deprivation is very low, comparable to that of all-
white partnerships. Although those in all-Indian
partnerships may live in areas of low deprivation,
they may also live in areas of high minority
concentration.
• Couples without children tend to live in wards with
lower deprivation. They also tend to live in more
mixed populations, although this pattern is not
nearly so marked.
• Higher levels of qualification are associated with
lower levels of deprivation. The same overall pattern
is evident when considering minority concentration,
albeit less marked.
• For minorities, being educated to A-level standard
or higher reduces the level of deprivation.
• Individuals with higher incomes are less likely to live
in deprived wards.
• The more paid workers there are in a household,
the lower is the level of general deprivation of the
ward in which they live. For ethnic minorities,
concentration varies in a similar way.
• Households with a higher level of income are more
likely to be in wards with a low level of deprivation
and ethnic minority concentration.
• For all ethnic groups, owner-occupiers are more
likely to live in areas with lower relative deprivation
than are people who rent.
• Those who own or are buying property which was
previously privately owned live in less deprived
wards than those with other types of tenure. People
from ethnic minorities who are in social housing or
shared accommodation live in the most deprived
areas.
In short, little progress has been made
in rebuilding the productive capacity
of the former coal districts around
new economic activities. As a result,
high rates of unemployment, low rates
Focus Questions
1. Suggest reasons why people in inner cities may experience
deprivation.
2. Apart from the characteristics in Figure 2, suggest other indicators that
may characterise deprivation.
3. Complete a diagram similar to Figure 1 outlining the nature of problems
in rural areas.
of economic activity, low wages and
the environmental and social
problems that stem from poverty
remain.
Conclusion
The UK is a relatively rich country.
On a global scale it is very much part
of the developed world and it is
classified as an MEDC. However,
within the UK there are severe
variations in standards of living. The
lower end of the wealth scale is
characterised by deprivation, and the
nature of deprivation is very varied. It
is not confined to inner cities or
ethnic minorities, affecting suburban
and rural areas too, as well as all
ethnic groups including the white
population. It is widespread and
changing.
Bibliography and
recommended reading
Chamba, R., et al. (1999), On the Edge:
Minority Ethnic Families Caring for a
Severely Disabled Chil, The Policy
Press.
Gordon, D., et al. (2000) Poverty and
Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph
Rowntree Founation
Gwilliam, M., et al. (1999) Sustainable
Suburbs, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Matthews, H. (1991) British Inner
Cities, OUP.
Power, A., and Mumford, K. (1999)
The Slow Death of Great Cities? Urban
abandonment or urban renaissance,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Rahman, M., et al. (2000) Monitoring
poverty and social exclusion, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.