Why do some cities create jobs, while others lose them?

Where is England's mystery boom town? Image: The Voice of Hassocks/Wikimedia Commons.

Which English city do you think has seen the biggest growth in its jobs market over last century or so? Is it London with its financial wizardry and exciting new tech industry? Manchester with its trams and its media? Cambridge with its science park?

We're being terrible unfair here, because you will quite literally never guess. (You really won’t.) Here’s the top 10:

Now Crawley, a mid-sized town in West Sussex, has two big factors working in its favour on this one. One is that it was tiny in 1911, with a population of just 5,000. It's now 20 times that size, thanks in large part to being a convenient 45 minute train ride from central London. And even though it’s mainly a dormitory town for the big city, when a town’s population grows by that much, its job market is inevitably going to grow by a fair bit, too.

The other advantage Crawley is sitting on is the presence of a rather big airport next door at Gatwick. Being next to an airport can do many horrible things to a town, but if considered from a purely employment perspective, they tend to be rather good.

You can spot the same phenomena at work in some of the other cities that make the top 10. Many of them have seen significant population growth over the last century; two more are conveniently placed for international airports.

But other factors seem to be in play, too. Being close to London clearly helps. So does the presence of a university, around which research-focused companies can cluster. There isn’t an obvious single factor.

Now consider the towns and cities which have going in the opposite direction. In 1911, Burnley, a market town in eastern Lancashire, had a population of more than 106,000. By 2011 it had fallen to 73,000, a fall of nearly a third.

But that's nothing compared to the collapse in the town's job numbers, which have fallen by half.

With this table it’s much, much easier to spot the pattern. Every one of these towns and cities is in the densely populated northern belt that stretches across England from the Mersey to the Humber. In 1911, this was Britain’s industrial heartland.  A century later, it wasn't anymore.


The importance of being southern

These tables both come from “A Century of Cities”, a report published early this month by the Centre for Cities think tank, which looks at a hundred years of economic data covering cities in England and Wales. For obvious reasons, the report is concerned in part with Britain’s north/south divide. But it also argues that we’ve been misdiagnosing that divide – or at least, that we’ve been coming up with the wrong treatment for it.

A century ago, the report says, the biggest driver of city growth was proximity to resources. That could mean coal, or other things you put into factories; then again, it might mean docks or transport links. Either way, it was fundamentally a matter of physical geography.

Now, though, the biggest driver of growth is proximity to “knowledge”: the cities that have thrived are those which have succeeded in attracting skilled workers and clusters of expertise. In other words, it's now human geography that drivers growth.

That means that the cause of the north/south divide is not the collapse in manufacturing in itself (after all, London lost plenty of manufacturing jobs, too). Rather, it’s the failure to develop or attract the skilled workforce you need to replace it with something else.

In other words, policies intended to revive the manufacturing sector, most recently chancellor George Osborne’s pledge to create “march of the makers”, are solving the wrong problem. Apart from anything else, modern manufacturing just isn’t as employment intensive as it once was.

Knowledge is power

It’s also overly simplistic to say that job growth has been an entirely southern affair. Here's a map of which cities have lost and gained jobs over the last century:

Click to expand

The south is clearly doing better; but in the north, the picture is mixed, rather than universally terrible.

There's a stronger correlation than the one between "southernness" and growth; that's the one between skills and growth. Here’s another map, showing the share of each city's jobs in private sector knowledge-intensive business (KIBs). The correlation with jobs growth is far from perfect, but it definitely seems to be there:

Click to expand

As to what drives the distribution of those exciting sounding KIBs jobs, one big factor is history. There is also a clear correlation between where knowledge-based jobs were in 1911, and where they were by 2013: if a city didn’t have many of them a century ago, it’s pretty unlikely to have that many of them now. 

That said, the impact history has isn't always a straightforward one, and an early industrial decline may work in a city’s favour when it comes to breaking into new types of industry. These graphs show the distribution of different types of jobs in Manchester over time:

The city’s manufacturing sector was already collapsing by the middle of the 20th century. But one side effect seems to have been that the number of knowledge-intensive jobs in the city began to grow early, too.

Now look at the same graphs for Birmingham:

Birmingham's industrial decline came later – but it’s been slower to build up its share of high-value service jobs, too.

So, how do you improve a struggling regional economy? The report makes three suggestions. You can improve the skill of the workforce. You can encourage “knowledge networks” – universities, research centres, clusters of business and so forth – to form, boosting the productivity of those workers.

Or you can deal with the scars left by industry – desolate factories and so on – and focus activity in the city centre to encourage that process. All of these suggestions should lead to more productive individuals, working in a more productive way.

But building an airport helps, too.

 
 
 
 

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Seoul Metro System but were too afraid to ask

Gwanghwamoon subway station on line 5 in Seoul, 2010. Image: Getty.

Seoul’s metro system carries 7m passengers a day across 1,000 miles of track. The system is as much a regional commuter railway as an urban subway system. Without technically leaving the network, one can travel from Asan over 50 miles to the south of central Seoul, all the way up to the North Korean border 20 miles north of the city.

Fares are incredibly low for a developed country. A basic fare of 1,250 won (about £1) will allow you to travel 10km; it’s only an extra 100 won (about 7p) to travel every additional 5km on most lines.

The trains are reasonably quick: maximum speeds of 62mph and average operating speeds of around 20mph make them comparable to London Underground. But the trains are much more spacious, air conditioned and have wi-fi access. Every station also has protective fences, between platform and track, to prevent suicides and accidents.

The network

The  service has a complex system of ownership and operation. The Seoul Metro Company (owned by Seoul City council) operates lines 5-8 on its own, but lines 1-4 are operated jointly with Korail, the state-owned national rail company. Meanwhile, Line 9 is operated jointly between Trans-Dev (a French company which operates many buses in northern England) and RATP (The Parisian version of TfL).

Then there’s Neotrans, owned by the Korean conglomerate Doosan, which owns and operates the driverless Sinbundang line. The Incheon city government, which borders Seoul to the west, owns and operates Incheon Line 1 and Line 2.

The Airport Express was originally built and owned by a corporation jointly owned by 11 large Korean firms, but is now mostly owned by Korail. The Uijeongbu light railway is currently being taken over by the Uijeongbu city council (that one’s north of Seoul) after the operating company went bankrupt. And the Everline people mover is operated by a joint venture owned by Bombardier and a variety of Korean companies.

Seoul’s subway map. Click to expand. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The rest of the lines are operated by the national rail operator Korail. The fare structure is either identical or very similar for all of these lines. All buses and trains in the region are accessible with a T-money card, similar to London’s Oyster card. Fares are collected centrally and then distributed back to operators based on levels of usage.

Funding

The Korean government spends around £27bn on transport every year: that works out at 10 per cent more per person than the British government spends.  The Seoul subway’s annual loss of around £200m is covered by this budget.

The main reason the loss is much lower than TfL’s £458m is that, despite Seoul’s lower fares, it also has much lower maintenance costs. The oldest line, Line 1 is only 44 years old.


Higher levels of automation and lower crime rates also mean there are fewer staff. Workers pay is also lower: a newly qualified driver will be paid around £27,000 a year compared to £49,000 in London.

New infrastructure is paid for by central government. However, investment in the capital does not cause the same regional rivalries as it does in the UK for a variety of reasons. Firstly, investment is not so heavily concentrated in the capital. Five other cities have subways; the second city of Busan has an extensive five-line network.

What’s more, while investment is still skewed towards Seoul, it’s a much bigger city than London, and South Korea is physically a much smaller country than the UK (about the size of Scotland and Wales combined). Some 40 per cent of the national population lives on the Seoul network – and everyone else who lives on the mainland can be in Seoul within 3 hours.

Finally, politically the biggest divide in South Korea is between the south-west and the south-east (the recently ousted President Park Geun-Hye won just 11 per cent of the vote in the south west, while winning 69 per cent in the south-east). Seoul is seen as neutral territory.  

Problems

A driverless train on the Shinbundang Line. Image: Wikicommons.

The system is far from perfect. Seoul’s network is highly radial. It’s incredibly cheap and easy to travel from outer lying areas to the centre, and around the centre itself. But travelling from one of Seoul’s satellite cities to another by public transport is often difficult. A journey from central Goyang (population: 1m) to central Incheon (population: 3m) is around 30 minutes by car. By public transport, it takes around 2 hours. There is no real equivalent of the London Overground.

There is also a lack of fast commuter services. The four-track Seoul Line 1 offers express services to Incheon and Cheonan, and some commuter towns south of the city are covered by intercity services. But most large cities of hundreds of thousands of people within commuting distance (places comparable to Reading or Milton Keynes) are reliant on the subway network, and do not have a fast rail link that takes commuters directly to the city centre.

This is changing however with the construction of a system modelled on the Paris RER and London’s Crossrail. The GTX will operate at maximum speed of 110Mph. The first line (of three planned) is scheduled to open in 2023, and will extend from the new town of Ilsan on the North Korean border to the new town of Dongtan about 25km south of the city centre.

The system will stop much less regularly than Crossrail or the RER resulting in drastic cuts in journey times. For example, the time from llsan to Gangnam (of Gangnam Style fame) will be cut from around 1hr30 to just 17 minutes. When the three-line network is complete most of the major cities in the region will have a direct fast link to Seoul Station, the focal point of the GTX as well as the national rail network. A very good public transport network is going to get even better.