Returning to one of my earlier comments, and Ray's last point, surely the
Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (www.neighbourhoods.gov.uk) and related
programmes such as NDC and Sure Start, are such a policy. 

Tim Blackman

Quoting Ray Thomas <[log in to unmask]>:

> The pattern Allison Roche describes is wholly consistent with the growth in
> the geographical inequalities in the distribution of unemployment in all 
> other parts of the country.   Inner London may be distinguished by higher 
> levels of inward migration.   But the other side of the coin is outward 
> migration to relatively affluent areas.    Inequality between areas is 
> maintained and can be expected to have increased.
> 
> Does the GLA or Southwark recognise growing such inequality?    Are there 
> policies designed to reduced inequalities?
> 
> We can be fairly confident that the unemployment rate is the best single 
> indicator of income inequalities.   Even the proportion of single parents is
> 
> closely related to the level of unemployment, as David Webster has 
> demonstrated.   The higher the level of unemployment the fewer the number of
> 
> marriageable men.
> 
> There is nothing surprising in the persistence of areas of low incomes. 
> Danny Dorling has shown that such patterns of persistence go back to the 
> 19th century.   Nor is it surprising in term of the availability of 
> statistical information at least as far as unemployment is concerned. 
> Geographical inequality can now be well illustrated on the basis of ILO 
> statistics for 2003.  Newly available claimant unemployment statistics show 
> the growth of inequality from 1996 extending up to  the current months data 
> in 2005.
> 
> But what is surprising is the lack of use of statistics relating to the 
> 'inner city problem' by government and the lack of any coherent policies 
> that might ameliorate this form of growing inequality.
> 
> Ray Thomas
> 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel/Fax 01908 679081
> ***********************************
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Roche, Allison" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:23 PM
> Subject: FW: Fw: UK health inequalities - Guardian report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roche, Allison
> Sent: 13 September 2005 17:17
> To: 'R.Thomas'; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Fw: UK health inequalities - Guardian report
> 
> 
> Overall the unemployment rate is falling and the employment rate is moving
> up and down dependent on the migration moving into the area in inner London
> . The employment rate as a measure of progress against Worklessness and the
> specific disadvantaged groups is not a good measure of progress because
> there is no fixed relationship between the % of the rate and the employment
> level (numbers of people working) because of the varied population base
> (which is calculated monthly using a variety of population indicators and is
> always changing). Look at the example below for Southwark:
> 
> Employment rate and level*
> Southwark              2001            2002        2003             2004
> 2005
> Employment Rate        65.0%          65.8%         65.0%          64.4%
> 61.3%
> Employment level       102,000        102,000     107,000          109,000
> 97,000
> 
> (*LFS 2005 – using May as the annual baseline)
> 
> What the LDA and other London Boroughs have realised is that some boroughs
> have had a lot of rapid inward migration which have increased the population
> base but these new migrants may not be working and so the employment rate
> falls. This is a trend in London and so no comparison with the UK employment
> rate can be valid as the population has not increased as rapidly as in
> London.
> 
> The collection of data for Southwark is beginning to show a falling
> employment rate but relatively stable Income support and JSA rate. This
> hints that a) new migrants are young students and probably living in
> Southwark (cheap London housing and close to central centre) to go to
> college etc. The age group of 16 - 24 = 17% and 20 - 34 = 30% of the working
> age population. There is also a large significant 45+ (27%)to retirement
> group who are moving out of employment into Incapacity and Disability
> Benefits or economically inactive.
> Targeting disadvantaged groups is essential in Inner City London but more
> important is collecting Local data to tell the whole story and target
> programmes towards these groups appropriately.
> So the employment rate is not a good indicator measuring progress for a
> variety of reasons and in Southwark we have had to develop a set of other
> targets to understand our local population change and churns.
> 
> Allison Roche
> Research Officer for Southwark Alliance
> 
> Economic Development & Strategic Partnerships
> Regeneration Department
> Southwark Council
> Council Offices
> Chiltern, Portland Street
> London SE17 2ES
> 
> Tel: 0207 525 5531
> Fax:0207 525 5510
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of R.Thomas
> Sent: 13 September 2005 16:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fw: UK health inequalities - Guardian report
> 
> 
> Increasing the employment rate may be a worthy target.   But one of the
> effects of this emphasis has been to increase part-time employment among
> women.   Remember that the ONS counts all paid work of an hour or more a
> week as employment!
> 
> Increasing the employment rate for disadvantaged groups (lone parents, low
> qualifications, etc) may also be a worthy target.  But it does not tackle
> the problem directly.  Disadvantaged groups are largely concentrated in
> 'inner city' type areas.
> 
> Every major town and city has its concentrations of high unemployment, for
> example, and there are very few  concentrations of high unemployment that
> are not in towns or cities.   The focus on disadvantaged groups does not
> take good account of this growing scale of spatial segregation.
> Inequality under Labour is increasing manifesting itself in the geographical
> distribution of the population.
> 
> I don't know how the Government measures wards with the "poorest initial
> market position".  I don't think that the government has any such useful
> measures or that there is consistency in governmental measures in this kind
> of area.   How might such measures take account of the fact that most areas
> of high unemployment are close to town and city centres that are daily
> importers of labour from suburban and exurban locations?
> 
> The largest concentration of unemployment in the UK is in inner London.
> Hardly an unfavoured area with regard to employment    The parliamentary
> constituency that has had the highest level of unemployment in the UK for
> more than a decade  is  Ladywood (Clare Short's constituency).   Ladywood
> includes the thriving central area of Birmingham.
> 
> It seems tht the types of job being created by RDAs etc are not of a kind
> that match the labour market offerings of those who live in 'inner city'
> types of area.   And as far as unmployment is concerned geographical
> inequalities are being increased.
> 
> Ray Thomas, Open University
> ****************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
> behalf of Tim Blackman
> Sent: Sun 11/09/2005 12:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Fw: UK health inequalities - Guardian report
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that in conditions of generally improving employment rates,
> life
> expectancy etc., it is a real challenge to achieve faster improvements in
> the
> weakest areas - which is necessary to close the gap. There are significant
> programmes trying to do this, including the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy
> and
> Regional Development Agencies. Of course, more could be done.
> 
> How does Ray's criticism square with the Government's PSA target for
> employment?:
> 
> Employment
> As part of the wider objective of full employment in every region, over the
> three years to Spring 2008, and taking account of the economic cycle:
>         • demonstrate progress on increasing the employment rate, joint
> with
> HM Treasury;
>         • increase the employment rates of disadvantaged groups (lone
> parents, ethnic
> minorities, people aged 50 and over, those with the     lowest
> qualifications and
> those living in the local authority wards with  the poorest initial labour
> market position); and
>         • significantly reduce the difference between the employment rates
> of   the
> disadvantaged groups and the overall rate. (PSA4)
> 
> Tim Blackman
> 
> Quoting "R.Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
> > It is of course true that unemployment in the UK has been reduced - though
> > I
> > would say steadily rather than dramatically.
> >
> > But the inequality in the geographical distribution of unemployment has
> > increased.   The areas with the highest unemployment rates in 2005 are the
> > same as those with the highest rates in 1996.   And the rate relative to
> > the
> > mean has increased in most of these areas.
> >
> > We know this from the statistics of claimant unemployment that are
> > available
> > in full detail.   But these statistics are derided by the UK Government in
> > favour of ILO statistics that are quite inadequate in local detail.   The
> > growth in the geographical distribution of unemployment is not
> > acknowledged
> > in Government policies.
> >
> > New Zealand has an excellent record according to ILO unemployment
> > statistics.
> >   But does it have anything like claimant unemployment statistics?   Do
> > any
> > such statistics show growing inequality?
> >
> > Ray Thomas, Open University
> > *********************************
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message-----
> > From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
> > behalf
> > of Peter Davis (ARTS SOC)
> > Sent: Fri 9/9/2005 9:53 PM
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Cc:
> > Subject:      Re: Fw: UK health inequalities - Guardian report
> > Critics of New Labour's record on tackling inequality need to come up
> > with specific policies that the government has not to date entertained
> > that, if implemented, would make the difference and that are politically
> > and practically feasible. To note the intransigence of existing
> > inequalities is the easy part; this is a commonplace of sociological
> > observation that keeps many colleagues - and the Guardian - happily in
> > employment.
> >
> > But let us note that under the current government there has been, in
> > contrast to the previous administration, a dramatic decline in
> > unemployment, a significant reduction in child poverty, and a slow, but
> > steady and cumulatively marked, redistribution of income. So, this has
> > not translated into corresponding reductions in health inequality. Why
> > not? The obligation is now surely on the critics - and the rest of us -
> > to identify how this relatively beneficent picture of macro social and
> > economic policy success might be translated into an equally striking
> > improvement in health outcomes.
> >
> > Peter Davis
> > Professor and HoD, Department of Sociology
> > University of Auckland
> > Private Bag 92019
> > Auckland
> > NEW ZEALAND
> >
> > Ph.: +64-9-3737-599, x 85109(City), 89740(Tamaki)
> > Fx.: +64-9-3737-439
> >
> > ,
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> Southwark Council does not accept liability for loss or damage resulting
> from software viruses.
> 
> The views expressed in this e-mail may be personal to the sender and should
> not be taken as necessarily representing those of Southwark Council.
> 
> The information in this e-mail and any attached files is confidential and
> may be covered by legal and/or professional privilege or be subject to
> privacy legislation.  It is intended solely for the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, the
> retaining,  distribution or other use of any transmitted information is
> strictly prohibited.
> 
> E-mails are transmitted over a public network and Southwark Council cannot
> accept any responsibility for the accuracy of a message that may have
> sustained changes in transmission
> 
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> 
> www.mimesweeper.com
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 


-- 
Tim Blackman
Professor of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Durham
School of Applied Social Sciences
32 Old Elvet
Durham
DH1 3HN
United Kingdom
Tel. 44+(0)191 3346840