So is London really a drain on the rest of the country?

A sort of metaphor thingy. Image: David Blackwell/Flickr/creative commons.

One common complaint about London is that it acts as “a giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country” – an idea expressed by Vince Cable MP when business secretary, and often repeated by others. But a recent Centre for Cities report suggests that this isn’t entirely accurate.

London certainly is a magnet for young professionals. Our Great British Brain Drain report looked at where students and new graduates move around the country and showed that London is attractive to high achieving graduates in particular. Despite accounting for 19 per cent of all jobs, almost a quarter of new graduates worked in London six months after graduating. This increased sharply for higher achieving graduates and was particularly marked for Oxbridge graduates, 52 per cent of whom found themselves working in the capital six months after graduation.

But if London does suck economic activity from elsewhere, you would expect to see those places closest to it doing the worst – and this isn’t the case. Previous Centre for Cities research has shown that many of our most productive cities are located close to the capital. And as our latest report Talk of the Town shows, some of our most successful towns are those located in its orbit too.

For example, the map below shows the share of people either unemployed or claiming long-term benefits in towns 2011 (the latest available data for towns). It shows that towns neighbouring London have the best employment outcomes, with places such as Basingstoke and Newbury doing particularly well.

Share of residents unemployed or in receipt of long-term benefits, 2011. Image: Centre for Cities/census data.

While commuting to London plays a part in this, proximity to the capital also appears to strengthen the economies of nearby towns by making them more attractive places for investment, too. On average, 22 per cent of jobs in London’s neighbouring towns were in high-skilled exporting jobs (those that are more productive and higher paid), compared to the overall town average of 17 per cent. And as the chart below shows, the share of these jobs tends to be lower for towns either close to weaker cities or in more rural locations, despite the cheaper cost of commercial space in these areas.

The economic structure of a town, proximity to a city and cost of commercial space. Image: Centre for Cities/2011 census data.

Towns close to London also benefit from the movement of higher-skilled people out of the capital. While there is an inflow of young professionals into London in their 20s, this trend is reversed for people aged from 31 onwards with a net outflow of this cohort, many of whom have a degree. Many of these people don’t move very far though, with over half of the people who left London moving to a town or countryside location in the Greater South East.

The concerns that Cable and others have expressed about London have also been applied to other big cities. For example, the Northern Powerhouse minister Jake Berry has suggested that the growth of Manchester and Birmingham is sucking the life out of their surrounding towns too. But our research shows that it’s actually their underperformance of both these cities that should be of concern for nearby towns, not their success.


Reflecting the experience around London, those towns close to successful cities tend to have better employment outcomes, in part because of access to jobs in the nearby city, and stronger economies in their own right. It is the lack of a halo around our less successful economies that is the problem. And this isn’t just bad for the residents of that city and the national economy as a whole, but also for the residents of nearby towns too.

As such, towns across the country shouldn’t be concerned about whether neighbouring cities are too successful – but instead whether they aren’t successful enough.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.