The geography of poverty: A political map of poverty under New Labour

The geography of poverty appears tohave changed under New Labour’s firstterm of office. Although the picture is far

from complete, there appears to have been awidening gap between rich and poor areasduring the first two years of Labour’s term

Measuring the geography of poverty in theUK is severely restricted by lack of data. Short-ly after Labour came to power, the official geo-graphical measure of poverty was the 1998Index of Local Deprivation, which was basedon 1996 data. This was replaced in 2000 by thenew Indices of Deprivation based on 1998data. Although comparisons between the twomeasures are difficult, because they rely on dif-ferent methodologies and data, the main mea-sure of deprivation – income– is available for both timeperiods.

But using this measureas an indicator of poverty isnot ideal, as it is based onincome support data andthe government has directcontrol over income supportclaims. At the extreme, ifgovernment were to excludea group from being able toclaim income support,poverty rates would appear

to fall. However, at present no other com-prehensive current geographical measure ofpoverty exists.

Poverty decreases by constituencyTo deal with the problems of changing geo-graphical boundaries of electoral wards, datahas been aggregated to parliamentary con-stituencies. Overall and perhaps unsurpris-ingly, poverty rates were found to be highestin Labour constituencies, followed by Liber-al Democrat constituencies. They were low-est in Conservative constituencies.

Table 1 shows how many people were inpoverty, that is, claiming income support (inthe summer of 1996) or income support or

THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY 87

The geographyof poverty

A political map of poverty under New Labour

DANNY DORLING

University of Leeds

LUDI SIMPSON

University of Manchester

1070-3535/01/02087 + 04 © 2001 IPPR

Table 1 The changing geography of poverty

All claimants % change 96 (IS) 98 (IS+JSA)

Labour cabinet minister seats 251,026 223,803 -11% Old Labour seats (won in 1992) 2,793,952 2,457,182 -12% New Labour seats (won in 1997) 1,312,250 1,119,399 -15% Other seats 398,529 341,431 -14% Conservative seats 852,145 709,697 -17% Shadow cabinet seats 94,449 79,092 -16%

Britain (total) 5,702,351 4,930,604 -14%

88 NEW ECONOMY

means-tested jobseeker’s allowance (JSA)(summer 1998). This is the latest datareleased – data for 1999 is not expected untilsummer 2001 and there is no data availablefor 1997.

Nationally, using this measure, the num-ber of people in poverty fell by almost half amillion (14 per cent) between 1996 and 1998.Levels of poverty fell least in the constituen-cies of the incoming Labour Cabinet. Therehas been no ‘pork-barrel’ effect, as the Amer-icans call it – evidence of preferential policiesfor the home areas of the most powerfulmembers of the incoming administration.

Poverty also decreased by less than thenational average in Old Labour seats or non-cabinet constituencies which Labour had wonin 1992 as well as 1997. In New Labour seats,or those won by Labour for the first time in1997, poverty fell faster; butpoverty measured in thisway fell fastest in the Con-servative and shadow cabi-net seats, by 17 and 16 percent respectively – where ithad been lowest to beginwith. Things got better – butthey got better most in areaswhere they were alreadybest.

The numbers of childrenwho were living in familiesclaiming income support

or JSA fell by some 400,000between 1996 and 1998 – a13 per cent overall fall(Table 2). While childpoverty has fallen fasterthan the overall povertyrate, the gap betweenLabour and Conservativeconstituencies in improve-ments in child poverty hasbeen greater than for allother groups.

The number of lone par-ents claiming income support fell by 6 per centnationally between 1996 and 1998 (Table 3),but by twice as much in the shadow cabinetseats as in the Labour cabinet seats. A simi-lar, although slightly less pronounced, dif-ference is evident in pensioner incomesupport claims (data not shown here).

Part of the reason for the widening gapbetween parliamentary constituencies isshown in Table 4. The most dramatic fall inincome support claims has been among thosewho were unemployed. The income supportor means-tested jobseeker’s allowance claimsof the unemployed fell by around 0.5 millionbetween 1996 and 1998.

The changing numbers of people claimingall other benefits (excluding pensions) is seenin Table 5. Those claiming permanent sicknessand disability benefits constitute a large part

Table 2 The changing geography of child poverty

Children % change 96 (IS) 98 (IS+JSA)

Labour cabinet minister seats 147,680 131,008 -11% Old Labour seats (won in 1992) 1,594,560 1,404,294 -12% New Labour seats (won in 1997) 720,940 623,177 -14% Other seats 184,237 156,591 -15% Conservative seats 415,695 346,041 -17% Shadow cabinet seats 48,202 39,720 -18%

Britain (total) 3,111,314 2,700,831 -13%

Table 3 The changing geography of lone parent poverty

Lone parents % change 96 (IS) 98 (IS+JSA)

Labour cabinet minister seats 47,355 44,942 -5% Old Labour seats (won in 1992) 513,799 485,591 -5% New Labour seats (won in 1997) 242,614 227,381 -6% Other seats 64,718 59,377 -8% Conservative seats 145,072 133,329 -8% Shadow cabinet seats 17,051 15,387 -10%

Britain (total) 1,030,609 966,007 -6%


of this group. Here the overall picture is dif-ferent. These claims have fallen, and they havefallen most in the constituencies of OldLabour and the Cabinet. It is not clear whythe pattern should be different here, althoughthe changes in incapacity benefit and otherdisability benefits (which can be claimedalongside income support), combined withrising employment levels, may have had astronger impact in Labour constituencies.After a period of rapid growth in incapacitybenefit claims during the 1980s, particularlyin areas of high unemployment, the numberof claimants has fallen from the mid 1990sonwards.

The north/south divideAs the map shows, the smallest improve-ments in poverty levels under New Labourhave taken place in Scotland,South Wales and the Northand North East of England.Income support claims onlyincrease in a few con-stituencies – all north of theinfamous line between theSevern and the Wash, andthe majority in Scotland. Thefastest improvement hasbeen where rates werealready lowest, in the homecounties to the west of Lon-don. While the picture is

perhaps not quite as simpleas it appears here, thesetrends have evidently con-tributed to a wideningnorth/south divide.

What does this changing geography

indicate?The full impact of NewLabour on the geography ofpoverty can not yet beassessed because the data is

not yet available. New data is expected dur-ing the course of 2001, but the picture is stillincomplete as, for roughly a third of the peri-od under consideration, summer 1996 to spring1997, John Major’s government held sway.

Nevertheless, it is clear that there hasbeen a general improvement in living stan-dards across Britain since Labour came topower. This is shown here in terms of thedecline in income support claims. It is alsoevident in terms of the increases in variousincome support rates, the introduction of theworking families tax credit, a number ofminimum income guarantees, increasedchild maintenance payments and the intro-duction of the minimum wage. The govern-ment’s neighbourhood renewal strategy isalso seeking to put in place long-term regen-eration programmes for deprived areas,

Table 4 The changing geography of unemployment

Unemployed % change 96 (IS) 98 (IS+JSA)


Britain (total) 1,531,029 1,036108 -32%

Table 5 The changing geography of other benefits

Disabled & other % change 96 (IS) 98 (IS+JSA)


Britain (total) 1,339243 1,236,741 -8%

90 NEW ECONOMY

CARDIGAN BAY

BRENTSOUTH

STRAIT OF DOVER

THAMESESTUARY

BRISTOL CHANNEL

THE WASH

LIVERPOOL BAY

THE SOLENT

LINLITHGOW

FIRTH OF FORTH

ABERAVON

SWANSEA WEST

NORTH CHANNEL

IRISH SEA

The changing geography of want under New Labour

best improvement (15% or more lower)

next best improvement (10-14% lower)

average improvement (5-9% lower)

least improvement (0-5% lower)

worsening

SOLWAY FIRTH

Figures in parentheses are changes in income support claims for data used in the 1998 and 2000 deprivation indexes.

Map design: Philip Green The Sunday Telegraph


hopefully drawing lessons from the failureof past regeneration schemes.

The results presented here suggest thatthings have improved, but they haveimproved least where they needed toimprove most in order to ‘bring Britain backtogether again’ as the Government wishes.Politically this presents a particular challengefor New Labour since the benefits of the eco-nomic boom in the late 1990s appear to havebeen felt most keenly in Conservative areas.It is here that the greatest proportion of newjobs have been created and hence where thesteepest falls in reliance on benefits arefound. As a consequence, the poverty dividein Britain has continued to widen.

New neighbourhood statistics will become

available in 2001 and these will enable us todevelop a more detailed analysis of the geog-raphy of poverty in the UK. The capacity tohold government to account has been great-ly increased as a result of government’s will-ingness to be monitored in its progresstowards eradicating poverty. But the existingdata signals a warning that, in the early yearsof New Labour’s first term at least, econom-ic prosperity did not bring about an increasein cohesion across Britain.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Michael Noble for advice onthe data used in this article and to Lisa Hark-er for useful comments on an earlier draft �

The geography of poverty: A political map of poverty under New Labour

Documents

Transcript of The geography of poverty: A political map of poverty under New Labour