This piece explores geographical inequalities and the plight of “left behind places” and highlights the negative impact this issue has on economic growth. The piece calls for appropriate spatial policy to spread economic growth more evenly across the country, offers some specific ways forward, and warns of the costs of failing to adequately address the issue.
What kind of ‘growth’ for ‘left behind places’?
Introduction: ‘left behind places’ and geographical inequalities
‘Left behind places’ has become an international marker of geographical inequalities following the 2008 global economic crash as concern mounted about people and places disconnected from contemporary growth models and overlooked by politicians and policymakers. This contemporary manifestation of geographical inequality has fostered a geography of discontent and contributed to the rise of populism. The plight of ‘left behind places’ has exposed the limitations of existing approaches to spatial policy that have prioritised economic growth, productivity, and innovation but have largely failed to ameliorate or resolve their plight. For ‘left behind’ people and places, ‘trickle down’ or ‘spillover’ effects central to conventional economic development policy have not worked – or not worked fast enough – meaningfully to improve their living standards, opportunities, and prospects.
Such geographical inequalities and their contemporary recognition as ‘left behind places’ are an acute, longstanding, and persistent problem for the UK and its cities and regions and a continuing puzzle after over a century of regional policy. Entrenched spatial divides exert an increasing drag upon national economic growth by leaving economic opportunities unrealised and potential untapped, generate rising costs for public provision to ameliorate their negative impacts and leave social needs unmet, and fuel spatial polarisation and discontent. Our ‘Beyond Left Behind Places’ project aimed to examine this ‘left behind’ condition and potential policy responses by undertaking a cross-national study in France, Germany, and the UK including six case studies of La Grand Combe and Roanne in France, Herne and Kusel in Germany, and Bishop Auckland and Walsall in the UK.
What does being ‘left behind’ mean for people and places?
Our research found that the condition of being ‘left behind’ is not only economic but social, environmental, political, environmental, and infrastructural too. This multi-dimensional understanding includes and extends beyond only economic ‘growth’, broadening the frame and policy discussion about what is needed to address geographical inequalities.
Our study revealed there are different kinds of ‘left behind’ regions in which the multiple dimensions of ‘left behindness’ are configured in different ways. Our analysis of regional development trajectories in the EU-15 between 1982 and 2017 highlighted three main types of ‘left behindness’ based on ‘persistent economic and demographic lag’, ‘persistent economic and demographic decline’, and ‘deindustrialisation-driven decline’ (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Trajectories of regions across the EU, 1982-2017
We found that the language of ‘left behind places’ is more prevalent in the UK whereas the condition was described in terms of being ‘overlooked’ or ‘forgotten’ in France and Germany. But some residents in such places do not feel ‘left behind’, benefitting from lower local housing costs, and travelling to access employment, services and leisure opportunities over a wider geography.
We identified three main manifestations of ‘left behindness’ across the six cases: a lack of higher-skilled employment opportunities; the decline of town centres and high streets; and, reduced levels of service provision and the closure of facilities.
Political disinterest and a lack of belief in a better future were prevalent among residents in all the cases. There was a general absence of engagement with national and local politics which were seen as having little local impact and divorced from everyday needs.
Recent place-based policies for ‘left behind places’ have adopted a property-led model of regeneration. This approach may work in terms of improving the built environment, appearance and image of such places, but is unlikely to reach the most ‘left behind’ people in these areas.
Policy ‘for’ and ‘with’ ‘left behind places’
Moving beyond relying upon narrowly conceived conventional local economic development approaches, our research identified clear messages for policy based on several guiding principles:
- reaffirming the value of the people and places which have been ‘left behind’ or overlooked by politicians and policymakers
- adopting an inclusive and bottom-up approach that aims to increase each person’s set of capabilities and opportunities
- recognising that while ‘left behind places’ are unlikely to become centres of high-tech industry, they do have assets that can support future economic and social activities and attract people and businesses
- integrated policies are required to address the multi-dimensional condition of ‘left behindness’ and should aim to make ‘left behind’ areas better places to live by enhancing the opportunities available to residents
- a multi-level approach is needed requiring local, regional and national government to work together and address the lack of resources and powers available to support ‘left behind’ people and places
- community engagement and participation to identify future priorities and goals are needed to address feelings of disaffection and powerlessness, recognising the knowledge and attachments of residents as important assets for policy development.
Specific directions for policy include:
- open-up and democratise interpretations and visions of ‘development’ in ‘left behind places’
- adopt a place-based approach tailored to local circumstances and needs, while recognising the importance of broader forces and trends
- increase residual incomes and access to employment
- fix the basics of local infrastructures and services
- encourage local policy experimentation and innovation within and between countries especially with alternative models of development, moving ‘beyond GDP’ from incremental to radical.
The risk in trying to progress this agenda in the UK currently is that the prioritisation of national economic growth is focusing scarce resources upon places with the most immediate economic expansion potential which has historically disproportionately benefited major urban centres and especially London and the Greater South East. Yet meaningfully reducing geographical inequalities and addressing the plight of ‘left behind places’ through appropriate spatial policy now is relatively less expensive than leaving it to later when it will become even more costly and difficult.
About the authors
Andy Pike is the Henry Daysh Professor of Regional Development Studies in the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, UK. His research interests, publications and research projects are focused on the geographical political economy of local, regional and urban development and policy.
Danny MacKinnon is Professor of Regional Development and Governance and a Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University. He is an economic and political geographer whose research is centrally concerned with the institutions and politics of local and regional development.
John Tomaney is Professor of Urban and Regional Planning in the Bartlett School of Planning, and Pro-Provost (Regional Communities) University College London. Previously he was Henry Daysh Professor of Regional Development and Director of the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University.
Sanne Velthuis is a Research Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Southampton. She specialises in mixed-methods research exploring spatial inequalities and ways to broaden access to the benefits of local and regional economic, social, and demographic development.
Image credit: Tak Kei Wong on Unsplash