Critically analyse the government's well-publicised claims that the North-South divide is a myth, and that 'the disparity within regions is at least as great as that between them'.

Critically analyse the government’s well-publicised claims that the North-South divide is a myth, and that ‘the disparity within regions is at least as great as that between them

By the end of the twentieth century, the decline the manufacturing sector had produced an apparent North South divide within the UK. To dispel these claims the government issued a report under the title ‘Sharing the Nations Prosperity’ which outlined, what it claimed, were the major disparities within the country. This essays aims to firstly give an indication of the probable causes for the North-South divide, before outlining the significant points laid out by the government report. These points will then be criticised with reference to other sources of information on regional differences within the UK.

Before delving into the intricacies of the question, it is important to clarify what is actually meant by the concept of the North-South divide, and where it originates. Firstly, it is important to note the fact that there has almost always been a divide through the country. This can be observed in the economic growths of most western countries’ developments, areas of natural resource being important during industrialisation and areas of high-level academia and population being important during more consumer based, service providing periods. It is well documented that through the 19th century, leading up to the outbreak of the First World War, that the North was considered the more dynamic and prosperous region of Britain. Lewis and Townsend point out that this dominance was ‘forged by the Industrial revolution of the late 18th century, centred on cotton in Lancaster, and later reinforced by the growth of key export-based industries such as shipbuilding, engineering, coal mining and textiles (Lewis & Townsend, p.22). It is fact in this period that Manchester began to emerge as the ‘capital of the North’ instead of York. Even more significantly, its population had increased by a factor of 3.5 between 1780 to 1831, and in many ways appeared to eclipse London during that period (Smith, P.12).

After 1914 other western countries had begun to catch up Britain’s level of industrialisation, so even areas such as the chemical industry, which Britain had pioneered, se found countries like Germany and the United States storm past. By this period, Britain only accounted for 11% of world output, compared to Germany’s 24% and the US’s 34% (Smith, P.18). It was around this period that Britain commenced de-industrialisation, which would be one the main factors in the emergence of a North-South Divide. It is safe to say that with De-Industrialisation the amount of available employment in the manufacturing industry greatly declined as well. This became more apparent during the depressions in the inter-war period, and also seemed to contrast to that of the increase in service sector jobs and consumer based mass production, like that of televisions in the south. It is in fact the difference in manufacturing type labour, and the dependency on manufacturing, that assisted in emphasising the divide between the North and South. Whereas much of the North incorporated unskilled, manual labour in resource acquisition, the majority of southern occupations in manufacturing were centred around domestic consumption and more specialised. In addition, the emergence of industries like the tourist industry were almost exclusive to the South. Consequently, cities like Liverpool were affected very deeply by the decline in manufacturing., this was mainly due to the type of manufacturing industry being carried out there e.g. shipbuilding. Liverpool lost one-half of its manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 1984, representing almost a third of total job losses during the period (Armstrong & Taylor, P.5).

By the beginning of the 1980’s the manufacturing decline had reached its peak and when Thatcher began cutting assisted funding to Northern Regions of large deprivation, the apparent effect of the decline became much more pronounced. Coupled with the rejection of the Keysian concept of full employment as a key governmental value, the contrast between Northern and Southern regions became painfully clear. It was at this point when there became clear pressure from the public over what was seen as an issue that government should try to address.

All of this leads to question of whether the North-South divide ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

All of this leads to question of whether the North-South divide still exists today, and if so is it as clear-cut as many argue. Firstly, there is the issue of how the government refutes the claim that there is a North-South divide. This is a claim, which appeared during 1999, and was backed up by a Government driven report under the name ‘Sharing the Nation’s Prosperity’. The report outlines some specific aspects of British regions in an attempt to show that ‘the disparity within regions is at least as great as that between them.’ This is illustrated in numerous ways, but the main angle seems be confined to showing that in most social aspects, even within the supposedly least deprived Southern regions there are still areas within them that rate less well than those in the North.

There are some classic examples of this disparity within the report. GDP in York was as high as 127 (100 being UK average), compared to that of only 74 for East Sussex in the South East. The ILO unemployment rate in county Durham measured only 6.5%, whereas in Portsmouth it was 8.4%. Interestingly, the report covers huge areas of Britain’s social growth to demonstrate how much diversity there can be within each region. Merseyside has one of the most serious concentrations of unemployment and social exclusion in Europe, yet neighbouring Cheshire has the fifth highest GDP per capita in England. This is significant because of Liverpool’s prominence as an important manufacturing company up until the 1980’s. There are some interesting facts about the South-West. While Bristol and Plymouth both exhibit above average quality of life, both contain areas of inner city deprivation. What is most striking though is the contrast between some of the more remote areas of the South West. Although set in some of the country’s most picturesque surroundings large areas of Exeter, Somerset and Devon find themselves with very little local economy, outside essential consumer services and self employed businesses (of which the South West is second only to London), and a small amount of tourism. Cornwall, up until the opening of the Eden project allowed for the creation of numerous jobs and tourism, had the lowest earnings and GDP of any English county. One of the report's more significant findings focuses on the huge disparity within London. At first glance London looks very prosperous, it has by far the country’s highest GDP (over 400 in Inner West London), has more cultural, sport, heritage sites than the next five biggest UK cities put together. Yet with all this wealth and supposed prosperity London also contains 13 of the 20 most deprived districts in the country. In fact, over two thirds of London Districts are shown to lie on the 50 most deprived areas. This illustrates a huge disparity between a region that contains some of the most wealthy and productive concentration areas in the entire world.

Although individually these statistics show a very limited picture of regional disparity, they do help to illustrate a point. Even with the huge decline in manufacturing labour over the last 90 years or so, there are still areas in the original manufacturing heartland, in the North, which continue to show signs of prosperity. The results also show a clear disparity within the Southern regions and especially within London itself. These statistics go a long way to backing up the government’s claims that ‘the disparity within regions is at least as great as that between them.’

However, if the government can show disparity within regions, how much relevance does this have to showing that the North-South divide is a myth? Interestingly, the government was careful not to actually dispute the North-South divide directly, but place its emphasis on the inequalities within regions. Although the BBC and the Guardian have both claimed otherwise, the government has used measures that are more evasive over the North-South debate, than simply calling it a myth. Nevertheless, there are many areas the government neglected to give proper attention to, and if one looks at statistics from the Regional Trends 37 report, some distinctions between Northern and Southern social aspects are so large it would be futile to simply dismiss them. Important indicators are those not involving money and income. This is because these are generally relative to each other, so even if some gets paid twice that of some one else in the North, they may be paying three times as expensive mortgage bills, food and living costs and council tax, plus numerous other variables.

Thus, if one looks at education (or the percentage of pupils gaining five or more GCSE grades A*-C in 2000/1) there is clearly a gap between that of the North and South regions. Whereas the Southern areas (Southwest, Southeast and East Anglia), excluding London, average around 49.5%, the rest of the country manages approximately 41%. Even the East Midlands, which shows the best of the rest at 43%, is no better than London. Another illustration of a North-South divide can be shown in people’s health. Mortality rates are highest in the North East and North West and lowest in South East and West England, the difference being almost 15 units (based on ratio and UK = 100). Regional Trends also highlights more specific issues, like for example, women dying from ischaemic heart disease in the South and East were all less than 160 deaths per 100,000, compared to North East England where cases accounted for over 200 per 100,000 women (Regional Trends 37, P.2). The report also shows that in 2001 the North accounted for the four regions of highest unemployment rates, with the East Midlands being only about equal with London. The Commons select committee on education and employment in 2000, also stated this, saying,

‘Unemployment in southern regions, with the exception of London, is still substantially below the average regional level… The International Labour Organisation unemployment rate in the north east is almost three times the rate in the south east’ (BBC news, MP’s highlight North-South divide, 19/04/2000)

Unemployment can be a good indicator, but Kevin Morgan (P.799) suggests that the economically inactive index is a much better indicator of labour workforce tendencies and unemployment trends. The index takes into account conditions such as premature retirement and long-term illness instead of unemployment. This therefore indicates people that are of working age but are not included in unemployment rates. This is significant because people under these circumstances actually outweigh the amount of unemployed in the UK (1997 by almost double). The contrast between Northern and Southern regions using this index becomes very pronounced. Whereas in the South only 12% fall into this category, the amount in the North is as much as 30% (Glyn & Erdem, 1999, sited in Morgan 2002, p.799).

All of these fragments show that the government was being to simplistic in its approach to the North-South divide. Whereas the ‘Sharing the Nation’ report gave ample details on specific discrepancies between regions and highlighted internal disparities, it did not outline the fundamental differences between the North and South, which are back bone behind the North-South divide debate. In fact, although there has been shown to be a disparity within regions there is no logical reason to dismiss interregional inequalities simply because intraregional disparities also exist (Morgan 2002, p.799). It is more probably that the government intended to highlight the interregional disparities in an attempt to mask the North-South divide and bring attention away from the issue.

One of the points above pointed out the fact, that London contained 13 of the 20 most deprived areas. At first glance, this seems to signify some truth to the government’s claims, but it proves to be useful to consider which other regions fall in the same category. Regions that have been neglected mention in the government report suddenly indicate holes in the government’s argument. Within the top five most deprived areas lie Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. These cities represent three of the largest concentrated urban areas outside London. Birmingham itself accounts for a population of over a million, the largest in the West Midlands, and Liverpool almost 500,000 people, the largest in the North West. This indicates that when the government tries to emphasis London as containing deprived areas, it is indicating that even with these cities' prosperous areas they still rank lower than London worst slums. Even Newcastle lies in the top 20, with Sunderland, the largest region in the Northeast at almost 300,000 just outside the top 20. This all helps to show a rather simplistic outlook from the government. It is very well to split up cities into smaller regions, but to be selective about which cities to break down can lead to misleading statistics. It is a fact that almost any densely populated, urban city will present low paid and skilled, consumer provider employment for the general populace. It is also true that although well, educated people tend to migrate away from rural areas to urban areas in search of jobs, there is logical reason, and much less, indication of unskilled, less educated individuals moving away from cities (Wall, P.16-20). What this of course implies is that, almost any city will inevitably contain areas of deprivation and high unemployment. Additionally, where breaking down London exposes numerous regions of deprivation, if one was to do the same the same for say, Birmingham, the deprived areas would be much more pronounced, and although clearly indicating a disparity within regions, it would also indicate a more significant gap between southern cities, like London, and its Northern counterparts, namely Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Sunderland, among others.

Earlier in the essay, London was omitted from some of the regional statistics to emphasise the disparity between North and South. This is because, as illustrated above, urban areas and large cities have different characteristics to that of large regions, such as the nine or ten regions England is split into in most reports. It is the characteristic of most cities to contain some deprived areas, and the ‘Sharing the Nations Prosperity’ indicates that most of the country’s large cities come very high in the regional deprivation scale. If this were the case, it would clearly be illogical to utilise cities like Birmingham to illustrate the disparity within the West Midlands, and misleading to neglect to indicate that it is a more deprived area than London. Yet the report gladly exploits the less prosperous regions London, while not making the distinction between London infrastructures in comparison to the other regions.

In conclusion, the governments ‘Sharing the Nations Prosperity’ clearly indicates intraregional disparity, however, while not refute the evidence that in no way contradicts the concept of the North-South divide. The divide is a product of the way in which the country industrialised and de-industrialised, and with the decline of manufacturing, the problem seems to be one inherently imbedded in the UK’s infrastructure. This is also a problem, which is very hard to measure, variables such as migration making regional development ever the more difficult. Gwyneth Edwards stated that ‘the divide is certainly still there; but we can not say whether it is growing or narrowing’ (based on Office of national statistics results 2001, cited in ‘North-south social divide still marked, official figures show’, Guardian Unlimited, 28/09/2000)

Bibliography

Armstrong, Harvey & Taylor, Jim (1988): Regional Policy and the North-South Divide, Employment institute, Herts

Government Response to the ODPM select committee report on reducing regional disparities In Prosperity (03.2003): TSO Publishing, Norwich

Smith, David (1989): North and South, Penguin Group, Suffolk

Townsend, Alan & Lewis, Jim (1989): the North-South divide, Paul chapman Publishing, London

Walls, Howard, J. (2001): Voting with your feet in the UK: Using cross migration rates to predict living standards, Papers in Regional Science, Vol.80, Pg.1-23

Prestwich, Roger & Taylor, Peter (1990): intro to Regional and urban policy in the UK, Longman Group UK, London

BBC News (19/04/2000): MP’s highlight North South divide,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukpolitics/NS3019 (assessed 02/02/04)

Bowers, Steven (28/09/2000): North-South divide still marked, official figures show, The guardian, www.GuardianUnlimited.co.uk/specialreports/60178 (assessed 02/02/04)

Hartley-Brewer, Julia & Denny, Charlotte (22/08/2000): New warning on

north-south divide, the Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk (assessed 02/02/04)

Regional Trends 37 (2002) : www.regionaltrends.gov.uk (assessed 02/02/04)