Discuss the ways in which British cities have become more socially divided in the last thirty years. What are the reasons for this?
Discuss the ways in which British cities have become more socially divided in the last thirty years. What are the reasons for this?
Uneven development is seen as an inherent feature of Capitalist development, and as a direct consequence spatial economic and social divisions have always existed within cities that adhere to this mode of production and consumption. However, the transition from fordism to post-fordism during the seventies has served to exacerbate and increase the effects of the destabilising processes associated with the economic restructuring that characterises Advanced Capitalist economies. One of the consequences of this is that there is a growing polarisation between those inhabitants who are able to take advantage of the flexible production and accumulation of wealth, lifestyle and resources, and a concentration of disadvantaged population whose ability and chance of upward social and economic mobility are severely restricted, by an ever increasing gulf that excludes them from taking part in economic and social exchange.
It is this essays intention to examine the effects of the restructuring of the labour and housing markets, in an attempt to illustrate the increasing economic, social and spatial polarisations, which have resulted from the deindustrialisation of manufacturing, the growth and decentrlisation of the service industry, the residualisation of council housing and the process of counter urbanisation. In an attempt to demonstrate how the restructuring of these markets has contributed to the widening gap between specific groups of people, in terms of circumstances and opportunities, there will be a focus on shifts in government policy, the jobs deficit, and changes in the industrial and occupational structure of the labour market, and income inequality. Additional to these considerations there will be a central focus throughout the essay on the prevalence of a permanent group of multi-disadvantaged population, whose postion within the labour and housing markets denotes their exceeding exclusion from the urban structure and society. It is acknowledged that labour market and housing disadvantage are not the sole reasons this sector of society is polarised from the mainstream, but that their operation serves to further delineate their postion within the urban hierarchy.
It must be emphasised that the degree of polarisation and social division will vary in accordance will location and in accordance with various local economic, social, political and cultural factors (Green 1998). Nevertheless, numerous commentators and evidence show that there are areas of poverty within most inner city areas, of all metropolitan cities. Despite half a century of the welfare state the divisions between the rich and the poor are greater than ever. Increasingly divisions within society manifest themselves in spatial terms; such divisions reveal themselves most starkly within Britain's cities, both spatially and socially with reference to particular marginalized population groups (Pacione 1996). Such divisions can be seen most starkly in the spatial concentrations of those who experience numerous disadvantages on the social housing estates within the UK's cities.
Research into income inequality and poverty has established that those trapped at the bottom of the economic system often inhabit the worst areas of housing within the city, and suffer most from the costs of urban change.
There has been, and still is a multitude of debate surrounding the term 'social exclusion' or what it entails to be 'socially excluded', so much so that the concept has been introduced as a governmental policy objective and the Labour administration has launched a Social Exclusion Unit in an attempt to conquer this phenomenon. As Davoudi and Atkinson (1999) debate that the concept suffers from a distinct lack of clarity, and the associated linkage to the term 'underclass', when referring to the growing numbers of people who suffer isolation from mainstream society, has been much maligned by Gans (1990) and Greed (2000). Yet the reality is that there does exist a multi-impoverished and disadvantaged mass of people, who through the multidimensional nature of disadvantage are excluded from interacting within the mechanisms of society, for a variety of complex social and economic reasons. Disadvantage is not just confined to the realms of the labour market or housing, poor health; high levels of crime, poor educational attainment, and a lack of access to services are all markers of social exclusion. It has not been possible to explore each of these considerations in detail but it is recognized that unemployment and poor housing are leading determinants when examining the nature of poverty and the processes that lead to social division
When addressing the processes involved in social division, relevant attempts to combat the problems brought about by increasing segregation and polarisation have to acknowledge the fundamental importance of the outcome of a variety of interaction between public, private, social, economic and political forces (Pacione 1997), that operate a variety of spatial scales from global to local. Britain's labour market has had to respond to the restructuring of the global economy, increasing power of quasi- monopolist corporations and the internationally mobility of financial capital which have all reduced the power of the nation state, and have been a vital ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
When addressing the processes involved in social division, relevant attempts to combat the problems brought about by increasing segregation and polarisation have to acknowledge the fundamental importance of the outcome of a variety of interaction between public, private, social, economic and political forces (Pacione 1997), that operate a variety of spatial scales from global to local. Britain's labour market has had to respond to the restructuring of the global economy, increasing power of quasi- monopolist corporations and the internationally mobility of financial capital which have all reduced the power of the nation state, and have been a vital component in the resulting social, economic and spatial divisions apparent in Contempary Britain.
The transition from a fordist to post-fordist economy produced a radical restructuring of industry and the labour markets. Since the mid-seventies economic restructuring has led to the decline in the manufacturing employment base of Britain, and has been largely responsible for the bulk of full-time, male job losses in cities. The de-industrialisation of the UK's manufacturing base coincided with the growth of service sector employment, which placed greater emphasis on highly skilled, non-manual labour as the primary consideration for the majority of the labour market. The decline in the opportunities available for manual workers, or those with few qualifications resulted in large-scale unemployment.
The relative and absolute decline of employment in the major cities has not diminished in the last two decades (Turock & Edge 1998), leading to increased rates of poverty. The unemployment rate is one of the most widely used proxy indicator of disadvantage, and it has been established that at regional, local, and intra-urban scales the most marked increase in concentrations of people out of work have been in the large cities, particularly the inner districts of large conurbations have experienced the deepest decline, especially evident in the northern half of the country (Green 1998). Those locations also identified as having high levels of unemployment are those areas with few highly educated people, and those with large proportions of rented accommodation (HMG 1998).
Employment growth is now centred on professional and managerial positions, which are often inaccessible to the majority of those who suffered blue-collar job losses. This deficit in the labour market has been compounded by the decentralisation of economic activity and services away from the core of the city to its peripheral edges or suburbs. Significantly the distribution of opportunity is now located at some distance both spatially and socially from the previous manufacturing base and central loci of the earlier fordist economy. As a direct result of this there has been an insufficient rate of appropriate job growth within city centres or commuting distance that people from within the city can compete for (Turock & Edge 1998).
Greg & Wandsworth (1994), make direct linkages between soaring male unemployment during the eighties, as a result of de-industrialisation, and the increase in both economic and social polarisation within Britain as a whole. Additional to unemployment figures research into poverty and income inequality has focused its examination on levels of economic inactivity. Green (1998) revealed that those area with high levels of unemployment also displayed significantly high levels of economic inactivity that contributed to the concentration of available employment into fewer households.
The rise of the multiple earner household has been well documented by The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1995) (1998), and notable Greg and Wandsworth et al (1994), used the 1991 Census of London ho conclude that a clear pattern had emerged that established locational and social disparities in the growth of multiple income households. It was evident that there was a growth in income polarisation at the household level, with vastly more multiple income households to be found in Outer London, and far fewer in Central and Inner London Boroughs. Incidentally those areas, which saw some of the most marked increases in unemployment during the 1980s and early 1990s, saw least growth in the benefits of part-time female employment.
Labour market shifts vastly increased female participation in the new service growth industries; changes in job type and description were also accompanied by a decline in job security through the introduction of part-time contracts and more flexible working practises appealed more to women, who often combined paid employment with running a household. Patterns of growth in employment were particularly concentrated in the suburbs and accessible rural districts of major urban centres, appearing to exhibit a socio-economic plane of division, which favoured married middle class women whose husbands were in full-time employment, thus facilitating the growth of the dual income household. Poorer women and those whose husbands were unemployed failed to exploit these new jobs as the inflexible structure of the benefit system often meant that working would make them worse off.
Economic restructuring not only increased unemployment and social inequality in the period since the mid 1970s but also has had major impacts on the patterns of residence within UK cities (Lee & Murie 1999). The operation of the labour and housing markets interact as to produce spatial concentrations of people with similar social and economic characteristics. Arguably the pattern of housing change in the UK has reflected a less generous welfare state regime and the growth in home ownership has increased social polarisation.
Employment vulnerability reduces the choice of residence, so those who are disadvantaged in the labour market tend to be those found in the least desirable housing. A mass exodus from the cities by its inhabitants and the decentralising of industry has lead to a negative social imbalance that works against those people left in what is considered to a be less desirable location. The net shift of population out of metropolitan areas has been averaging around 90,000 people a year for the past decade and a half (TCPA 1999). Out-migration is a selective process favouring those who are in work and with better-paid non-manual jobs. House builders are developing largely segregated estates at process well above the national average. Centrally located job losses and counterurbanisation have not only led to economic disparities between the city and the rest of the country, but has increased the geographical and social unevenness of the population.
Often those who experience manual job loss predominately occupied social rented properties. In some inner city estates unemployment is as high as 30-40%, and the effects of spatially concentrating poverty serve to further disadvantage these groups of people as they become marginalized from the mainstream labour market. The multi-dimensional nature of those problems experienced in poor neighbourhoods goes beyond that of just labour market disadvantage. Nevertheless it cannot be ignored that the lack of a job is a key factor that perpetrates the process of social exclusion.
Disproportionate numbers of marginalised groups live in the social rented sector that has increased the polarisation between owned and rented tenure. In addition to regional differences the Index of Local Deprivation, has shown a growing polarisation at the intra-urban level between those rich areas that continue to gain in wealth, and those poorer estates that continue to degrade (Lambert 2000). Souring housing process and the lack of affordable housing being built has led to a super-polarisation of the housing market leading to further segregation between housing tenure. Gentrification and city centre redevelopment has created wealthy exclusive enclaves that often co-exist alongside poor quality social rented housing in the inner ring of the same city.
In terms of type of area, council estates revealed the greatest deterioration and as Green (1998) illustrates there tended to be an increase in already high levels of unemployment, a greater than average decline in economic activity for males, and despite growth in nationally levels of female employment, these too showed a marked decline. Housing tenure as a vital factor in contributing to the status of a neighbourhood, the distinct link between poverty, low income and disadvantage and social rented housing has increasingly polarised its inhabitants. Although the incidence of poverty is not just confined to sprawling metropolitan council estates, housing tenure is an accurate indicator of the social divisions prevalent in society. Disproportionate numbers of those who are very young, very old, either unemployed or in low income jobs, dependent on benefits, of ethnic minority, lone parents or economically inactive live in the social rented sector.
By the end of the 1980's characteristics between homeowners and renters were becoming progressively dissimilar. Insofar as a succession of government policy following Conservative's 1980 Housing Act de-regulated the provision of council housing and privatised a vast majority of it through 'The Right to Buy' policy initiative. Additional to this mortgage lenders offered opportunities for previous council tenants as well as a more varied section of the population the chance to participate in the owner occupier market. Although successfully infiltrating the lower echelons of the urban hierarchy, and creating a more varied collection of owner occupiers, the extent of which the best of council housing was removed from those left in the social rented sector and served to decrease the social base and quality of the existing stock left.
Residualisation saw the remaining stock dominated by those sections of society who has nowhere else to go. As eligibility for tenure became stricter due to limited numbers, tenants who displayed multiple disadvantage problems, with the highest level of need were concentrated into this unpopular form of housing.
Although nationally council housing continues to dominate the majority of the worst degraded neighbourhoods, the pattern outside of London is likely to include more privately rented or even owner occupier hones (HMG 1998). Lee & Murie (1997) argue that during the 1990s there has been a shift in urban housing policy that has placed greater emphasis on neighbourhood deprivation and the spiral pf decline associated with concentrations of deprived households. Using early policy statements from the former Department of Environment (DoE), and from the current Labour government's Social Exclusion Unit, Lee and Murie demonstrate the direct relationship that government has placed on the problem of poverty and the social rented sector. Central government appears to perceive the difficulties of polarisation within urban areas as essentially a social phenomenon confined to specific neighbourhoods (Davoudi & Atkinson 1999). The expansion of the owner-occupier sector and the social and spatial divisions within as well as between tenures has not been included within government aimed at tackling social exclusion. Research by a variety of academic commentary has established that levels of poverty within the bottom hierarchy of owner-occupier and privately rented tenure are relatively similar to those on low incomes in the social rented sector. It is therefore wrong to assume that concentrations of deprived households and the associated problems of multiple deprivations are exclusively located within social rented properties. Disadvantage is increasingly a fragmented problem in terms of the people it effects and the area of the city in which they live.
In general economic and social conditions and opportunities within Britain's urban centres have become sharply more polarised. This is especially evident when contrasting the richest inhabitants against those at the bottom of the income hierarchy. However, the portrayal of a vast juxtaposition between the prospering suburbs and the decay and abandonment of the inner rings of the city is to incorrectly generalise the complex social and economic trajectories, which interact to produce a fragmented and diverse set of spatial economic and social divisions at the intra-urban level. There are undoubtedly pockets of extreme culmative disadvantage that exist within all of the UK's metropolitan centres, but as Hall (1996) argues they are not the only inhabitants left within the city, nevertheless the social divisions between every sector of the population has become greater and the mechanisms of a free market economy aggravate this issue. The divisions of society are indeed embodied in space and place and the city separates out different types of people acting also to bring certain types of people together.
Income polarisation has been exacerbated by the growth of the dual income households within the suburbs, with the lower levels of the urban hierarchy suffering from high levels of unemployment, economic inactivity, benefit dependency and the rationalisation of the welfare system. Those unable to break away from dependency on state intervention are increasing finding government policy that focuses its support away from those vulnerable members of a market dominated urban system, onto those initiatives which support further growth and increased competition within the most prosperous and dynamic sections of the urban economy, and to those sections of the population who work and invest in this mode of production and living.
Social exclusion is a reality for a growing sector of society, whose dislocation from the labour market is the driving force responsible for their additional disadvantage. Evidence has stipulated that the cause of this increasing phenomenon is attributed to the loss of traditional male employment through deindustrialisation, and the lack of relevant employment opportunities. Although this essay does not consider the term 'underclass' to be an appropriate description of this sector of society, it is apparent that there is a prevailing and ever increasing body of the population who are persistently jobless and are concentrate into the poorest housing. Both the housing and labour markets do interact and compound relative disadvantage but this is essentially an urban problem rather than exclusively prevalent within the sink estates that the governments Urban Task Force and Social Exclusion Unit appear to have targeted.
There is also a clear ethnic dimension to the problem of multiple disadvantages, with high levels of ethnic minorities who are unemployment and concentrated within social housing estates. Although not possible to dissect this factor in great detail it is nonetheless a focal factor found when attempting to examine the nature of those who are in poverty. Also a distinctive north/south divide emerges with the industrial heartland of the north suffering most from massive job losses, and the south-east of the country remains far more prosperous within the south region as it does within the whole of the country.
It must be reiterated though that the problems of impoverishment does appear to be an essentially urban problem, and not just confined to social housing estates but the problem is not attributed to an essentially homogenous group of people. Synthesizing the work of Fainstein, Gordon and Harloe (1996) it is evident that there is a dislocation and lack of cohesion throughout society, and that the image of the city is one of fragmentation rather than a dual existence between a rich minority and an impoverished mass.
The consequence of this uneven development is an inherent feature of the post-fordist Capitalist economy that Britain has embraced, a characteristic of post-fordism is that patterns of inter-related social, economic and spatial divisions will only ever increase and there will be considerable variations in the standard of living between population groups and areas.
Bibliography
Atkins, D. Champion, T. Coombes & M. Fotherington, S. (1998), Urban Exodus, CPRE.
Breheny, M. (1999) The People: Where will they work? TCPA.
Byrne, D. (1999), Social Exclusion, Open University Press.
Davoudi, S & Atkinson, R. (1999) Social Exclusion and the British Planning System, Planning Practise and Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.225-236.
Fainstein, S. Gordon, I & Harloe, M. (1992), Divided Cities-New York, London and the Contempary World, Blackwell.
Gans, H, J. (1990) Deconstructing the Underclass: The terms dangers as a Planning Concept, APA Journel, 09, pp.271-277.
Greed, C. (2000), Introducing Town Planning, Ed. 3, Anthlone.
Green, A. et al (1997) Income and Wealth, Routledge.
Parkinson, M. (1998), Combating social exclusion: lessons from area-based programmes in Europe, Bristol Policy Press & The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Hall, P. (1999), Cities of Tomorrow, Updated Ed, Blackwell.
Hall, T. (1998), Urban Geography, Routledge.
HMG (1998) Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.
Lambert, C. (2000) Society and Economy Distance Learning Module, Basic Concepts: Social Division and Economic Change, Faculty of the Built Environment UWE.
Lee, P & Murie, A. (1999). Spatial and Social Divisions within British Cities: Beyond Residualisation, Housing Studies, Vol. 14, No.5, pp.625-640.
Levitus, R. (1998) The inclusive society? : Social exclusion and new Labour, Macmillan.
Pacione, M. (1997) Britain's Cities: Geographies of division in Urban Britain, Routledge.
Roger, J. (1992), The Welfare State and social closure, Critical Social Policy No:35, pp.45-63.
Short, J. (1996) The Urban Order, Blackwell.
Turock, I.& Edge, E. (1998), The jobs gap in Britain's cities: Employment loss and labour market consequences, The Policy Press.
Young, J. (1999), The exclusive society: social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity, London, Sage.
http://www.jrf.org.uk
