The Uneven impact of Economic Recession: Bristol and Liverpool Compared
ESRC Project Reference: RES-062-23-2963
Working Paper 3: A Socio-Economic Profile of Liverpool and Bristol: The Impact of the Recession
Dr Gerwyn Jones
DRAFT NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CIRCULATION
Introduction
This paper presents a socio-economic profile of Brsitol and Liverpool, primarily focusing on the impact of the
recession upon both city’s and their respective city region’s and travel to work areas (where this data is available). The paper begins by briefly assessing what shape Bristol and Liverpool were in when they eneterd
the recession, primarily in relation to demographic, economic and deprivation indicators. The second part of
the paper explores in more depth how the recession has impacted people and household’s in the two city’s and their city regions, by looking at a range of indicators, including employment, unemployment, economic activity rates, house prices, mortgageg possession claims and insolvency rates, amongst others.
[N.B. This paper will be updated again in the autumn/winter of 2012.]
A.Entering the Recession: Deomography, Economy, Levels of Deprivation & Qualifications
1.Demography
Population Change
As Figure 1 refelects, the cities of Bristol and Liverpool have seen their populations converge over the past two decades, with only a 4,000 difference between the two in 2010. This contrats to 1991, when the City of Liverpool had a population which exceeding Bristol’s by over 80,000.
Figure 1: Liverool & Bristol City Populations
Source: Nomis Mid-year population estimates
The population of the Bristol city-region currently stands at approximately 1,098,000, with the population of the Liverpool city-region approximately 1,472,700. Over the past decade, while the population of the Bristol city-region has grown by over a tenth, its Northern counterpart has seen its population decrease, albeit by a small margin of 1 per cent, and by a smaller amount than it witnessed during the preceding decade, when its population shrank by a twentieth.
Since the recession struck in 2008, both the Bristol and Liverpool city-region’s have registered positive growth. But while the former has grown by over 3.5 per cent, the latter has only marginaly registered an increase, of just 0.1 per cent (Annex 1 and Figure 2)
Figure 2: Population Change 1991-2010
Source: Nomis Mid-year population estimates
2.Economy
The Bristol economy entered the recession in a stronger position that it’s Liverpool counterpart. Total GVA for Bristol City and its city region have consisntantly outperformed that of Liverpool’s over the past 15 years, with the gap gradually widening during this period, particularly between the two city regions (Figure 3). By 2008, the year the recession first struck the UK, Bristol City Region’s total GVA stood at £25,500 million compared to approximately £19.8 million for the Liverpool City Region. During the same year, total GVA for Bristol City was approximately £11.5 million, again higher than its Liverpool counterpart which stood at just over £8.5 million.
Figure 3: Total GVA
Source: ONS
The strength of the Bristol economy compared to that of Liverpool’s is also reflected in GVA per capita figures. While Bristol has consitantly outperformed the national average for the past 10-15 years, Liverpool has lagged behind.
In 2008 Bristol City’s GVA per capita stood at £27,182, and that of the city region’s was £23,845. By contrast, Liverpool City’s GVA per capita had reached 19,647 by 2008 with the city region standing at £14,698 per capita. Figure 4.
Figure 4: GVA per capita
Source: ONS
3.Levels of Deprivation
Levels of deprivation within Liverpool were significantly higher than those in Bristol when recession struck in 2008.
The indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) is the Government’s official measure of relative deprivation at the local level. The indices consist of scores and rankings for each of the 32,482 Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOAs) in England. Seven domains feed into the overall IMD index score: income; employment; health and disability; education, skills and training; barriers to housing services; crime; and living environment. The IMD provides rankings for all 326 English district and unitary authorities, with 1 being the most deprived authority, and 326 the least deprived.
The authorities located in the travel to work areas of Bristol and Liverpool lie at opposite ends of the rankings. Four of the six Liverpool authorities have consistently ranked in the top 50 most deprived authorities for each IMD index between 2004 and 2010(N.B. the data indicators used in the 2010 index are derived from 2008; and likewise for the 2007 and 2004 indices, i.e. from approximately 2 years before the index date). Liverpool has consistently been the worst performing local authority nationally for its levels of deprived LSOAs, whilst Knowsley has also consistently featured in the top 5.
Apart from Bristol City, which has ranked in the top 80 local authorities between 2004 and 2010, the remaining authorities located in the Bristol TTWA have all been located in the bottom half of the rankings, amongst the least deprived authorities (Table 1).
Table 1: IMD Rankings 2004-2010
Local Authority / Average Score 2004 / Average Score 2007 / AverageScore 2010 / Average Rank 2004 / Average Rank 2007 / Average Rank 2010
Knowsley / 3 / 5 / 5 / 8 / 8 / 12
Liverpool / 1 / 1 / 1 / 5 / 5 / 5
St. Helens / 36 / 47 / 51 / 41 / 49 / 64
Sefton / 78 / 83 / 92 / 99 / 107 / 114
Wirral / 48 / 60 / 60 / 75 / 95 / 103
Halton / 21 / 30 / 27 / 30 / 39 / 32
Bath and North East Somerset / 255 / 272 / 247 / 259 / 279 / 254
Bristol / 67 / 64 / 79 / 68 / 68 / 93
North Somerset / 228 / 215 / 201 / 244 / 242 / 224
South Gloucestershire / 298 / 308 / 272 / 299 / 308 / 273
Source: IMD 2004, 2007, 2010. 1=most deprived; 326=least deprived
According to the 2010 IMD, Liverpool is the worst performing Core City in terms of deprivation levels, while Bristol is the least deprived(Table 2).
Table 2: Core Cities IMD Rank
Core City / 2010 Rank of Average Score(2007 in brackets) / 2010 Average Rank(2007 in brackets)Liverpool / 1 (1) / 5 (5)
Manchester / 4 (4) / 4 (4)
Birmingham / 9 (10) / 13 (14)
Nottingham / 20 (13) / 17 (12)
Newcastle / 40 (37) / 66 (56)
Sheffield / 56 (63) / 84 (89)
Leeds / 68 (85) / 97 (114)
Bristol / 79 (64) / 93 (68)
1=most deprived; 326=least deprived
Figure 5 shows the contrasts in levels of deprivation between Liverpool and Bristol, revealing striking differences. In 2010, over 14 per cent of Liverpool’s LSOAs were located in the most deprived 1 per cent in England, and a quarter featured amongst the most deprived 5 per cent. This compared to 0.4 per cent and 5.2 per cent, respectively, for Bristol. The largest proportion of Bristol’s LSOASs, nearly 40 per cent, ranked amongst the least deprived 50 per cent of LSOAs in England. Only 14 per cent of Liverpool’s LSOAs featured here.
Figure 5: Percentage of LSOAs in National Deprivation Percentiles
4.Qualifications
Bristol entered the recession with a more skilled and qualifiedpopulation compared to Liverpool. In 2008 over one third of Bristol City’s population possessed an NVQ Level 4 qualification or above, compared to just a fifth in Liverpool. While Bristol has consistently outperformed the national average, Liverpool has always lagged behind. Figure 6.
Figure 6: Qualified to NVQ4 & Above
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
Despite improvements over the years leading up to the recession, approximately a fifth of Liverpool’s residents had no qualifications in 2008. This compared to just over a tenth for its Bristol counterparts. Again, while Liverpool far exceeded the national average, the proportion of Bristol residents with no qualifications has consistently registered lower than the national trend. Figure 7.
Figure 7: Population with no Qualifications
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
B.The Impact of the Recession on People & Household’s
5.Employment & Unemployment
5.1Employment – more resilient in Bristol
The Bristol City-Region had an employment rate of 75.7 per cent in the year March 2010 to April 2011, 11 per cent higher than that of the Liverpool City region, which stood at 64.9%. While the former is approximately 5 per cent above the national average, the latter lags behind the national average by a similar amount.
Since the recession the Liverpool City-Region has seen it employment rate fall by 2 per cent, reaching its lowest ebb in 2009/10, when it stood at 64.3 per cent. The Bristol City-Region mirrored this trend, hitting it lowest rate of employment in the same year, at 74.5 per cent. However, it witnessed less of a fall in overall employment rate between 2007 and 2010, down by only 1 per cent.
The city of Liverpool had an employment rate of just under 60 per cent in 2010/11, a drop of 4 percentage points from its pre-recession 63.5 per cent rate. Conversely, Bristol City’s employment rate increased by 2 percentage points between 2007/08 and 2010/11
The city of Liverpool has also witnessed a continued fall in employment after the recession, falling by just over half a percentage point between 2009/10 and 2010/11. By contrast, Bristol witnessed a 3.5 percentage point increase during the same year. While the Liverpool city region performed better than the citypost recession, with a 0.5 percentage point increase in employment, this lagged someway behind the Bristol city-region’s 2 percentage point increase over the same period. Figure 8.
Figure 8: Employment Rate Trends 2007-2011
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
5.2Unemployment – Liverpool faring the worst
During the recession of 2008 and 2009 the city of Liverpool experienced the highest growth in unemployment, increasing by over 5 percentage points between 2007/08 and 2009/10, although growth in the Liverpool city-region was on a par with that in Bristol City and the Bristol city-region, which all experienced just over a 3 percentage point increase in unemployment, during the same period (Table 3 and Figure 7).
Since the recession, unemployment has fallen furthest in Bristol, down by a percentage point in the city and just over a percentage point in the city-region between 2009/10 and 2010/11. While it has also fallen in Liverpool, it has been to a lesser extent, falling 0.6 per cent in the city and 0.3 per cent in the city region, approximately in line with the national average trend.
Unemployment remains higher than its immediate pre recession rate across the board. Figure 9.
Table 3: Unemployment 2007-2011
Area / Apr 2007-March 2008 / Apr 2008-
March 2009 / Apr 2009-
March 2010 / % change 07/08-09/10 / Apr 2010-
March 2011 / % change 09/10-10/11
Liverpool / 7.5 / 8.6 / 12.8 / +5.3 / 12.2 / -0.6
Liverpool City Region / 7.2 / 8 / 10.4 / +3.2 / 10.1 / -0.3
Bristol / 4.6 / 4.2 / 8 / +3.4 / 7.1 / -0.9
Bristol City Region / 3.6 / 3.8 / 7 / +3.4 / 5.7 / -1.3
England / 5.3 / 6.4 / 8.1 / +2.8 / 7.7 / -0.4
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
Figure 9: Unemployment Trends 2007-2011
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
5.3Male & Female Unemployment – male unemployment higher, but continued growth in female unemployment in Liverpoolpost recession
Male unemployment has consistently been higher than female unemployment in both Liverpool and Bristol, matching the national trend (Figures 10 and 11).
Both immediately prior to, during and after the recession male unemployment in Liverpool and its city region has remained at approximately 5 to 6 percentage points higher than that of its Bristol counterparts. Male unemployment peaked at 15.4 per cent in the city of Liverpool in 2009/10, compared to 9.4 per cent in Bristol City, and 9 per cent for the national average. Both the city regions registered a peak of 13 per cent and 8.3 per cent, respectively, during the same period.
In both city’s male unemployment grew by approximately 5 percentage points between 2007/08 and 2009/10, which were higher increases than their respective city-regions, where male unemployment increased by 4 percentage points in the Bristol city region and 3 percentage points in the Liverpool city region.
Figure 10: Male Unemployment Trends
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
Female unemployment trends show more divergence between Liverpool and Bristol. While female unemployment in Bristol City and its city region followed a similar trend to male unemployment, i.e. peaking in 2009/10 before decreasing in 2010/11, it has continued to increase in Liverpool post recession, particularly so in the city region. Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11: Female Unemployment Trends
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
Figure 12:% Point Change Male & Female Unemployment
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
5.4Age Group Unemployment – young hit hardest in both Bristol & Liverpool
Across Bristol, Liverpool and nationally, youth unemployment has been the hardest hit by the recession, followed by unemployment in the 25-49 age group, with the 50-64 year old age group registering the lowest increases in unemployment. These can be seen in the wholesale percentage change increases between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 unemployment figures. After the recession the picture has been more mixed, with unemployment levels reducing in some age groups and areas, whilstincreasing in others, as reflected in the changes between the 2009/10 and 2010/11 figures. Table 4.
Table 4: Age Group Unemployment 2007/08-2010/11
Liverpool / Liverpool City Region / Bristol / Bristol City Region / EnglandDate / 16-24 / 25-49 / 50-64 / 16-24 / 25-49 / 50-64 / 16-24 / 25-49 / 50-64 / 16-24 / 25-49 / 50-64 / 16-24 / 25-49 / 50-64
07/08 / 16.8 / 5.9 / * / 17.7 / 4.9 / 4.5 / 12.5 / 3.3 / * / 8.5 / 2.9 / 2 / 13.8 / 3.9 / 3.2
08/09 / 16.9 / 7.3 / * / 18.8 / 6.1 / 4.7 / 9.3 / 3.4 / * / 7.6 / 3.1 / 2.8 / 16.0 / 4.9 / 3.6
09/10 / 23.6 / 10.9 / * / 23.6 / 8.5 / 5.2 / 18.9 / 7.0 / * / 17.8 / 5.8 / 3 / 20.1 / 6.4 / 4.7
10/11 / 28.2 / 10.0 / * / 24.0 / 8.2 / 4.9 / 11.3 / 6.7 / * / 9.7 / 5.2 / 4.3 / 19.0 / 6.1 / 4.7
Change
07/08 to 09/10
(%) / +6.8 / +5.0 / * / +5.9 / +3.6 / +0.7 / +6.4 / +3.7 / * / +9.3 / +2.9 / +1.0 / +6.3 / +2.5 / +1.5
Change
09/10 to 10/11
(%) / +4.6 / -0.9 / * / +0.4 / -0.3 / -0.3 / -7.6 / -0.3 / * / -8.1 / -0.6 / + / -1.1 / -0.3 / 0.0
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis. *Data not available.
5.4.1Youth Unemployment
16-24 year old unemployment levels grew dramatically in both the city’s of Liverpool and Bristol between 2008/09 and 2009/10, increasing by approximately 7 percentage points in Liverpool, and doubling in Bristol, with an increase of over 9 percentage points. As figure 11 demonstrates, the key difference has been in young unemployment trends thereafter, with Bristol’s rate reducing to pre-recession levels during 2010/11, but the rate in Liverpool continuing to rise substantially, and increasing by another 4.5 percentage points during 2010/11 to just over 28 per cent, approximately two and a half times larger than the Bristol rate of 11 per centpost recession, and 9 percentage points higher than the national average. By contrast, by 2010/11 Bristol’s 16-24 year old unemployment rate was approximately 8 percentage points lower than the national average.
The city regions of Liverpool and Bristol have followed similar unemployment trends to their respective city’s, with the Bristol city-region recording a rate below the national average, and Liverpool been higher than the national rate. Interestingly, whilst the Liverpool city-region also registered a growth in youth unemployment in 2010/11, this was nowhere near the rate experienced in the city, with a more marginal 0.5 percentage point increase from the 2009/10 rate. Figure 13.
Figure 13: Unemployment 16-24 year old age group
5.4.225-49 Unemployment
Unemployment amongst the 25-49 age group also increased across the board following the recession, but to a lesser extent that youth unemployment, with approximately a 3.5 percentage point increase in both the city’s of Liverpool and Bristol between 2008/09 and 2009/10. Both city-region’s experienced a slightly lower 2.5 percentage point increase over the same period. Unlike youth unemployment, the rate for the 25-49 age group decreased across the board between 2009/10 and 2010/11, although it remained at least 3 to 4 percentage points higher than the immediate 2007/08 pre recession rate in both the city’s of Bristol and Liverpool, and the Liverpool City Region. The difference was slightly less in the Bristol city-region, with the 2010/11 unemployment rate just over 2 percentage points higher than it was in 2007/08. Figure 14.
Figure 14: Unemployment 25-49 Age Group
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis
4.5Inactivity Rates - much higher in Liverpool
In 2010 the economic inactivity rate for the Bristol city-region was 20 per cent, while that of the Liverpool city region was somewhat higher, standing at nearly 28 per cent.
Both city-regions have witnessed a contrast in fortunes during the recession. While economic inactivity rates in Bristol decreased year on year between 2007 and 2010, in Liverpool they increased in 2008 and 2009, before returning to slightly below their pre-recession rate in 2010 Interestingly, economic inactivity rates for Bristol City have converged with the city-region during the course of the recession. While they stood at 24.4 per cent in 2007, they have fallen during each subsequent year to stand at 20.6 per cent in 2010, just half a per cent higher than the city region. In 2007 the difference between the two was 3.5 per cent.
In Liverpool the opposite has occurred, with the gap in economic inactivity rates growing between the city and city-region during the course of the recession, particularly during the year that the recession struck when the City of Liverpool saw its economic inactivity rates jump to 36.5 per cent, 6.5 per cent higher than that for the city-region. Figure 15.
Figure 15: Economic Inactivity Rate Trends 2007-2010
Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis.
4.6Changes in Employee Numbers – stronger growth in Bristol
Employee numbers in Liverpool and Bristol moved in opposite directions between 2007 and 2010, decreasing in the former, and increasing in the latter. While Bristol performed stronger than the national average, Liverpool performed worse. Figure 16.
Full time employee numbers fell across Liverpool’s city (-4.7%), city-region (-7.6%) and travel to work area (-7.2%) between 2007 and 2010. While these were met by smaller increases in part-time employment in the travel to work area (+2.6%) and city-region (+2.2%), this was insufficient to prevent total employment rates from falling across the city (-3.2%), city region (-4.4%) and travel to work area (-4%) between 2007 and 2010. Figure 14.
In Bristol, although there has been growth in employee numbers across the board, this has been strongest in part-time employee numbers in the city-region (+3.4%) and travel to work area (+3.8%). Bristol city by contrast has seen full-time employee numbers grow strongest (+2.1%), with only a very marginal increase in part-time employee’s (+0.2%).
Figure 16: Employment Change 2007-2010
Source: BRES & ABI, Nomis
4.7Types of Jobs Affected
The types of jobs affected by the economic downturn, and the extent to which they have been affected, varies between Bristol and Liverpool, and between the city’s and their respective city-regions.
In Liverpool it has been administrative/secretarial and skilled trade occupations which have fared worst, and much more so in the city than the city-region (Figure 17).
In Bristol also, administrative/secretarial jobs have been hit hardest, although not to the same extent as those in Liverpool. But again, it has been the city, rather than the city-region which has been worse affected. Thereafter, in Bristol, professional and senior level/management occupations saw the second and third greatest reductions in employee numbers, again with the city faring worse than the city-region.