1

The uneven impact of the global economic recession and austerity on places and people: Bristol and

Liverpool comparedResearch Workshops: Bristol, 5th November & Liverpool, 15th

November 2013

Patricia Kennett & Jacqui Croft, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol

Richard Meegan & Gerwyn Jones, European Institute for Urban Affairs, LJMU

IntroductionESRC Research Project: Uneven impact of crisis & austerity - Bristol & Liverpool:– interviews with key stakeholders;– social survey 1,013 households in 2

city travel to work areas (Winter 2011);

– follow-up in-depth interviews with 58 households (Winter 2012/13).

Workshop Structure1. Cities, the economic downturn and austerity: impacts and responses.2. The voluntary and community sector: impacts and responses.3. Impacts on and coping strategies of households.4. Concluding comments and discussion.

4

1. Cities, the economic downturn and austerity: impacts and

responsesImpacts:• 2 city-regions entering the recession• impact – city-regional economies• impact – local government public

expenditure cuts & welfare reform

Policy responses:• cities and city-regions & ‘localism’

5

Great Recession – in UK the latest in

4 post-war recessions

Post-WWII:

• uninterrupted growth for nearly 3 decades

• 4 recessions since • current Great Recession

longest lasting – drop in output but employment/ unemployment ‘paradox’

The four post-war recessions in the UK: GDP annual % change, and Unemployed Persons, Aged 16 and Over, 1971

– 2011

6

2 city-regions, 2 different development trajectories

Employment past 4 decades: (UK 1971=100)

Bristol city-region

• sustained growth punctuated by recessions but strong recovery

Liverpool city-region

• decline accelerating through mid-1970s and early 1980s recessions

• late-1990s upturn halted by latest recession

City-regions entering recession – employment change (%) 1997-2008

Both growing

Bristol CR - above national and 2x Liverpool CR

Liverpool CR - upturn after sustained decline

7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

19.6

18.5

17.617.1

16.215.7

15.314.9

13.1

12.3

9.4

6.9

4.8

3.63.5

City-regions entering recession – population change (%) 1997-2008

Bristol CR

• growing faster than national

Liverpool

• Population still falling – but slowing on previous decades

8

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

10.0

7.77.5

6.05.8

5.0

4.03.93.93.4

2.6

0.9

0.2

-0.6

-1.5

9

City-regions entering recession –

GVA per capita change (%) 1997-2008:

Liverpool CR growth at national rate…slightly above Bristol CR

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

74.773.072.7

68.568.5

63.263.161.1

59.458.658.556.5

54.8

51.250.1

Recession impact - employment change % 2008-12Total employment:• cities – Bristol down more

than Liverpool & national• TTWAs – down about same &

more than national• CRs – BCR down more than

LCR & national

FT employees:• cities – Liverpool down more

than national, Bristol less• TTWAs & CRs down in both

more than national

PT employees:• up significantly in Liverpool -

city, TTWA & CR • up in Bristol - TTWA and CR

but city exception …‘underemployment’

10

11

Recession impact - employment change by sector (%) 2008-2012 National gains/local falls:• mining/utilities(Liverpool)• education (both)National losses/local gains:• info& communication (both)• motor trades (Liverpool)• accommodation & food (both)• transport & wholesale

(Liverpool)• business admin (Liverpool)• arts, entertainment (Bristol)• public admin & defence

(Bristol)National & local gains:• health, professionalNational & local losses:• retail, construction,

manufacturing

Job Loss/Gain Sectors GB Bristol TTWA

Liverpool TTWA

Largest National

Increases ↑

Largest National

Falls ↓

Health Professional, scientific & technical

Mining, quarrying & utilities

Education Property Agriculture, forestry & fishing)

Information & communication

Motor trades Accommodation & food services

Transport & storage (inc postal)

Wholesale Business administration & support services

Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services

Financial & insurance Public administration & defence

Retail Construction Manufacturing

Total Green = increase; Red = fall

12

Recession impact - % change in real earnings (residence-based)

Marked drop in real earnings with recession, notably in:

• BANES

• Liverpool & Sefton

LIVERPOOL

Sefton

Halton

St. Helens

Wirr

al

Knowsley

Bath &

NE Somerset

BRISTOL

South Gloucs

North Somerse

t UK-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

14.5

9.6

4.5

16.7

4.6

13.3

4.4

6.3

9.810.6

8.6

-7.7 -7.4-6.6

-5.0-3.9

-2.7

-7.7

-5.9 -5.7-4.5

-7.2

2002-08 % change 2008-12 % change

Recession impact - unemployment rates, 16-64s, 2004-12

Total, males and females up in both - cf. national:• gap widening Liverpool• gap closing Bristol

Males:• Liverpool city - recent upturn

following 2009 peak • Bristol peaked later – 2011 –

but recent downturn

Females:• Liverpool city - peaked 2010

followed by downturn• Bristol city - peaked year

earlier but recent upturn

13

0

5

10

15

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total unemployment LiverpoolLALiverpoolcity-regionEngland

Bristol, Cityof, LABristol city-region

0

5

10

15

20

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Male unemployment Liverpool LA

Liverpoolcity-regionEngland

Bristol, Cityof, LABristol city-region

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Female unemployment LiverpoolLALiverpoolcity-regionEngland

Bristol city-regionBristol,City of, LA

Recession impact - unemployment rates, 16-24s, 2004-12

YOUTH hit hard in both cities

Bristol - from lower base: • city claimants rate up 6

times to recession peak and 7.5 times for city-region (GB 4 times)

• numbers up 6 times in city and nearly 7 times in city-region

• …a significant new policy issue?

Liverpool : more of the same with gap with national widening

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

16-24s Unemployment rate Liverpool

Liverpoolcity-regionBristol, CityofEngland

Bristol city-region

1.2

3.2

1.4

3.0

0.5

2.1

0.3

1.8

0.2

1.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan-Sept2013

16-24s Claimant Count - Over 6 monthsLiverpool city-regionLiverpool

Great Britain

Bristol, City of

Bristol city-region

2091,145

318

2,298

1,232

2,390 2,158

6,240

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Bristol Liverpool Bristol city-region Liverpool city-region

16-24s Claimant Count - Over 6 months2008 2012

Recession impact – population change (%) 2008-2012

Population growth:

• continuing in Bristol CR – just above national

• previous decline converted into growth in Liverpool CR – albeit lowest of capital and other second-tier CRs

15

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

5.4

4.3

3.7

3.4

3.23.13.03.03.0

2.3

2.01.91.8

1.6

1.3

16

Recession impact – GVA per capita change (%) 2008-2011

GVA per capita:

• holding up in both Bristol and Liverpool CRs - equal 3rd highest increase and just above national

• BUT…

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

4.5

2.12.02.01.8

1.31.11.1

0.8

0.1

-0.6-0.7

-1.6

-1.9

-2.8

17

GVA per capita, 2011

…GVA per capita in Liverpool CR still lowest of capital and second-tier CRs

London

Edinburgh

Bristol

Belfast

Leeds

Glasgo

w

Leiceste

r

Nottingham

Birmingh

am

Mancheste

r

Sheffield

Newcastle

u Tyne

Cardiff

Liverpool

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

City-region UK£

18

Austerity – local government cuts

Cuts biased towards more disadvantaged local authorities:

Cuts larger in Liverpool CR than Bristol CR

Knowsley

St Hele

ns

Wirr

al

BRISTOL

North So

merset

-£400

-£350

-£300

-£250

-£200

-£150

-£100

-£50

-£336-£329

-£231-£220

-£208

-£173

-£117

-£69 -£69-£61

Cumulative reduction in Revenue Spending Power 2010/11 to 2014/15, £s per person - Bristol and Liverpool city-regions

19

Austerity – local government cuts -

Liverpool - biggest cuts of core cities

Bristol - lowest

Liverp

ool

Manch

ester

Birmingh

am

Newca

stle

Nottingham

Sheffi

eld

Leed

sBris

tol

Core Cities A

verage

-£350

-£300

-£250

-£200

-£150

-£100

-£50

-£329

-£284

-£227-£218

-£211

-£198

-£130

-£117

-£214

Cumulative reduction in Revenue Spending Power 2010/11 to 2014/15, £s per person - Core Cities

20

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cuts in Spending Power vs. Indices of Deprivation

Unitaries

London Boroughs

Metropolitan Districts

Core Cities

Cuts after transition grant http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1796201.xls

IMD2

007

Aver

age

dist

rict

sco

re h

ttp://

ww

w.c

omm

uniti

es.g

ov.u

k/do

cum

ents

/com

mun

ities

/pdf

/733

520.

pdf

LIVERPOOL

MANCHESTER11

14

3,23,20,7,21

15

1617

139

29

12

18

2824

2726

6 SHEFFIELD

BIRMINGHAM

NOTTINGHAM

NEWCASTLE

LEEDS

BRISTOL

54

10

12

25

8

19

22

30

21

Welfare reform - cuts in train

Bigger cuts in Liverpool CR than Bristol

Total Impact of Welfare Cuts to 2014/15: Financial loss per working age adult, £s per year

Knowsley

St. Helens

Bath &

N. East

Somerset

S. Glouc

-900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

-797

-702

-589

-632 -636-620

-350

-480 -472

-335

GB

22

Welfare reform - cuts in train

Liverpool biggest cuts of core cities

Bristol 6th

Total Impact of Welfare Cuts to 2014/15 - Financial loss per working age adult, £s per year (GB=£470)

LIVER

POOL

Mancheste

r

Newcastle

Sheffield

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

-702

-607 -605

-560

-490 -480 -471 -460

GB

23

Policy responses – urban governance and ‘localism’

Urban government and urban governance balancing act:

• coping with public spending cuts

• engaging with ‘localism’: elected Mayors, LEPs, ‘city deals’, Combined Authority (Liverpool CR)

• city and city-regional arrangements

Core Cities Bristol Liverpool Core Cities Group Lobbying for central government supportElected Mayors Independent Leader Labour GroupMayoral Commissions Education and skills (focus on

young people) Fairness (reducing inequalities) Homes (provision of affordable

housing) Sports (raising participation in

sport and physical activity).

Health (health and wellbeing) Education (future of education

in city) Europe (maximising EU funding) Fairness (embedding fairness

political, business and civic life)& Mayor’s Poverty Action Group

Key Projects Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone European Green Capital

programme (2015) Mayor’s Fund for Bristol –

charitable donations for third sector support

Mayoral Investment Board Mayoral Development

Corporation: - Liverpool City Enterprise Zone - 5 Mayoral Development Zones

City-regions West of England LEP Liverpool City LEPEconomic development: key sectors

Creative and media Advanced engineering, aerospace

and defence Micro-electronics and silicon

design Environmental technologies and

marine renewables Tourism

Low carbon economy Knowledge economy Visitor economy Superport

Key projects Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone (Bristol)

5 Enterprise Areas: Avonmouth Severnside; Bath City Riverside; Emersons Green (inc. Bristol and Bath Science Park); Filton; Junction 21 (Weston-super-Mare)

Port - new deep-water container terminal

Mersey Gateway river crossing Liverpool BioCampus Wirral Waters and Liverpool

Waters waterfront redevelopment - Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone/ International Trade Centre

City Deals Business rate retention Transport funding (Greater

Bristol Metro and Bus Road Transit Network)

Public Property Board managing land and property assets

City growth hub for inward investors in Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone

Skills development including Skills Funding Agency funding for Further Education colleges

Trade and inward investment - International Business Festival

Skills and worklessness - funding for job training and apprenticeships;

Transport - transport investment fund

Promotion of science and knowledge assets

Low carbon economy - offshore wind infrastructure pilot

River Mersey clean up

What we know nationally (1)

3 Transmission Mechanisms:(i) Central government austerity/cuts(ii) Decreased charitable giving(iii) Increased demand

24

What we know nationally (2)

• Impact on VCS uneven• Dependency on statutory funding & cuts made

by LAs key:Most deprived LAs biggest cuts In most deprived LAs vol. sector 4x more

likely say statutory funding most important income source

VCS working with most disadvantaged groups most dependent on statutory funding

25

Liverpool and Bristol

3 major differences influencing impact on voluntary sector locally:(i) scale of cuts from Government to LA(ii) dependency on statutory funding(iii) socio-economic profile of population – influence on demand

26

Voluntary Sector Statutory Funding Recipients

27

Levels of Deprivation: IMD 2010

28

Who uses voluntary sector services?• Most socio-economically deprived households

(& much more of these in Liverpool)

• Who used CAB for financial advice past 3 years?10% of total cohort BUT 20% of lower income families

• Low income families 3x more likely use welfare rights advisor

29

A Struggling Sector in Liverpool• “[After] the general election the cuts started…

[and] we lost eighty grand of our core funding…more than half of our income…That was entirely down to area based grants, which were abolished.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

• “In April 2011 we laid off 60 per cent of our staff…thirty four people out of the door…That hurt.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

30

And Strugglers in Bristol…

For those too dependent on statutory funding:

• “Being too dependent on one source of funding is really unhealthy…So [for us] to be dependent on the [city] council was always not [a] very clever [strategy].” [Bristol VCS organisation]

• “You don’t have to look very far to see agencies which are entirely folded and stopped altogether because of the economic downturn…or services which still exist, but exist on a much reduced basis.” [Bristol VCS organisation]

31

Who is struggling?

• Those serving most deprived people & places hit hardest – more dependence on statutory funding:

• “We lost about half of our local authority financial [support]. That particularly impacted our refugee support work, because all of that had been funded either by area based grants, which no longer existed, or CRU [CC community resource unit) funding, which was cut in accordance with the revenue support grant.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

32

But more demand!

• “We’ve had a 15% increase in demand for the service this year [2011]…It could be higher, but we can only cope with as much as we can cope with…We’re turning people away all of the time.” [Bristol VCS organisation]

33

How is the sector responding? (1)

• Short term survival strategies:staff redundancieswage freezesrolling monthly contractsFT to PT workinguse of financial reserves

34

How is the sector responding (2)• “Immigration services down the road went from 12 staff

to one…That’s not even sustaining a service…basically all that person is doing is putting the organisation to pasture, concluding all existing case work with a view to ending the service.” [Bristol VCS organisation]

• “Voluntary organisations are living off their reserves and they’re at the point now, where for many they’re operating as a shell of their former selves so they have reduced their full time staff or even down to zero and they’re just operating as volunteers and looking for better times.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

35

How is the sector responding? (3) • Some organisations coping better where pots of funding

still available – e.g. debt & financial advice:

• “We’re a specialist debt advice agency…that’s fairly unique in the sector…and we’ve been able to sustain ourselves a bit better.” [Bristol VCS organisation]

• “You’re beginning to get a skewing of the voluntary sector provision according to what are macro problems in society, so the advice organisations are getting by, and others working at a more preventative level are struggling.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

36

How is the sector responding? (4)

• Medium & Longer term strategies:increased collaborationcharging for servicesaccessing local philanthropy

37

How is the sector responding? (5)

• “There has been a shift for groups being encouraged to collaborate and work more in partnership…Groups are being forced to work in partnership [by funders]…some groups aren’t going to survive…because there isn’t the funding…or they don’t have the capacity to work in a different way.” [Bristol VCS organisation]

• “Our traditional services, such as specialist business support for the voluntary sector; we [now] only give a small amount of that service for free, the rest is chargeable.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

38

How the sector is responding (6)• BUT warnings that less well off people and

organisations, in poorest areas may miss out:

• “We’ve introduced charging for services…But it does skew the support because it means that it goes to those who can pay…and [disadvantaged] areas of the city where we would like to invest time and energy…we’re limited how much we can [help]…In the longer terms it means those areas that are most disadvantaged are also the furthest away from support of an organisation like ours.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

39

How the sector is responding (7)

• Accessing business philanthropy obstacles:

Faltering economic growth & private sector still struggling

Philanthropy goes to those who give best company PR

40

How is the sector responding (8)

• “For a business to get involved with a charity they’ve got to gain something from it…a charity that’ll bring them some kudos and some [positive] media coverage…A charity that works with drug and alcohol clients, businesses don’t want to get involved in that…It’s only selected charities, and it tend to be children’s and older people’s.” [Liverpool VCS organisation]

41

So what for the VCS?• Unevenness of impact leading to cut services

and vital provision to most disadvantaged people & places

• Increased marketization?• Skewing of provision?• Relationships & more innovation key – Mayor’s

Hope Conference a start in Liverpool? VCS Assembly & Networks in Bristol?

• BUT VCS a missing partner in ‘new’ governance structures?

42

43

3. Impacts on and coping strategies of households

44

Crisis and Austerity in Everyday Lives

2008-2009 – • Labour market impact and falls in income• Middle-upper income groups as well as

working age adults without children suffered greatest unemployment

• Fall in real incomes, larger proportionate reductions at higher points of income distribution

• Combined with benefit and tax credit increases contributed to decreasing inequality .

Perceived changes in households finances by Acorn group

Ability to meet living costs by Acorn group

47

Household Responses

• Spending less & being more careful about spending most common response.

• Other actions included: changing shopping habits, cutting back on luxury items and eating out, cutting back on utilities, buying more on credit and saving less.

• Quarter of households had cut back on everything – women, ‘Struggling Families’ and ‘Burdened Singles’ as well as households with dependants.

• ‘Secure Families’ most likely to have postponed major expenditure, paid off mortgages earlier or made additional payments.

12

50

39

32

30

30

25

40

21

19

8

5

36

9 8

Spent More

Spent Less

Cut back luxury items

Cut back eating out

Cut back on travelling

Cut back on utilities

Cut back on everything

Changed shopping habits

Postponded major expenditure

Used car less

Bought more on credit

Paid off mortgage early/made additional repayments

Saved less

Saved more

None of these

48

Changes made by households past 3

years with and without

dependants

• Households with dependants more likely to have spent less and been more careful across a range of activities compared to households without dependants.

• Households without dependants more likely to state `none of these’ responses.

Spen

t more

Spen

t less

Cut bac

k luxu

ry ite

ms

Cut bac

k eati

ng out

Cut bac

k trav

elling

Cut bac

k utiliti

es

Cut bac

k on ev

eryth

ing

Change

d shopping h

abits

Postponed

majo

r exp

enditu

re

Used car le

ss

Bought m

ore on cred

it

Paid off m

ortgag

e earl

y/mad

e additional

payments

Save

d less

Save

d more

None of th

ese

15

5952

44 4134 34

54

2620

156

40

93

11

47

34

2726

2922

35

19

19

5

5

35

810

No Dependants

Dependants

49

Actions Taken by Households

• Demonstrates importance of household resources, as well as those of family and informal networks.

• Using money from savings to meet expenses and pay bills.

• Lending money to family or friends to help pay bills.

20%

23%

4%

33%

2%

3%1%

42%

Borrowed money from a family member or friend to help pay the bills

Lent money to family members or friends to help them pay the bills

Had your children move back in to the family home to save money

Used money from your savings to meet expenses or pay your bills

Remortgaged your home

Postponed getting married or having a baby

Other

None of these

Household survey (December 2011)

Least affected:• ‘Flourishing Families’, ‘Affluent Greys’,

‘Prudent Pensioners’ (‘Educated Urbanites’ & ‘Starting Out’s’ on some categories)

• ‘Owner occupiers’ (and private tenants on some categories)

• Males• Households with no dependants

50

Household surveyMost negatively affected:

– ‘Struggling Families’ & ‘Burdened Singles’

– ‘Social Tenants’ – Females– Households with dependants

i.e. most disadvantaged households hit hardest – in both cities

51

Survey finding reinforced in follow-up interviews a year

later 4 broad household groups:

• ‘Thriving’ - little impact and significant financial resilience

• ‘Getting by’ - affected (reduced wages, pay freezes, increased living costs) but resilience factors

• ‘Vulnerable’ – badly affected, debts, diminishing savings, vulnerability to benefit changes, income cuts

• ‘Struggling’ – no financial resilience at onset of recession and to future ‘shocks’

52

53

Educated Urbanite in secure, well paid employment (‘Thriving’)

• 31 year old single female, no dependants, working full-time on permanent contract. Gross annual income between £45,000 and £54,999.

• Living in city centre apartment, renting from private landlord. Aspirations to buy own property, saving for deposit.

• Downturn not affected her much, other than noticing bills rising and being aware of impact on housing market.

• Overall interviewee coping very well through downturn. Single, no dependants, and with a well-paid secure job, in which she had received above inflation annual pay rises of over 5% in past three years.

• She was planning for the future and managing to save regularly, which gave her further resilience.

• I

54

Financial insulation from property portfolio (‘Thriving’)

• 40 year old female living with partner and two young dependants, working part-time on a secure, permanent contract. Partner relatively secure, full-time employment. Annual gross income between £55,000 and £99,999.

• In addition, household’s income supplemented by a property portfolio (5 properties) accumulated over the past 20 years.

• One was the respondents first home that she kept when she moved in with her partner, with the mortgage cleared by a gift from her parents. Another was her partner’s mother’s former house, the other three were properties that they had bought and renovated - on buy to let mortgages.

55

Middle to high earners becoming squeezed by rising living costs (‘Getting

by’)• 40 year old female married with two dependants,

working full-time in fairly secure job with annual gross income of approx. £80,000. A homeowner, paying £1,400 a month in mortgage repayments. Property worth about the same as owed on it.

• Downturn had fairly big impact; rising living expenses such as food shopping, utilities and fuel. While having enough to meet basic living expenses, no spare income to invest in savings.

• In spite of good earnings household struggling to meet financial commitments and felt this had got worse during economic downturn. Managing to meet bills, but only with careful budgeting and finding it harder to cope financially.

56

‘Getting by’ but limited resilience• Overall household had good asset wealth, and

both bread winners on good wages, meaning they were able to ‘get by’.

• But they had no other form of resilience. Losing a salary in future could make a huge difference to the financial survival of this household. Although they did feel secure in their jobs at present, the interviewee was aware of their precarious position and had some insurances as protection.

57

Squeezed incomes and debt accumulation (‘Vulnerable’)

• 41 year old female living with partner and two dependants. Both working full-time (public sector and third sector). Owner occupiers who had lived in their house for over 10 years. Annual household income between £35,000 and £44,999, having reduced by approximately £2,000 over the past three years. Pay freezes; a job redeployment which led to a reduction in wages; loss of family working tax credits; and increasing pension contributions - key factors leading to this reduction.

• Day to day living expenses increasingly difficult to afford large credit card debts (£40,000) racked up. Increasing day to day living expenses and increasing credit card interest rates since the credit crunch in 2008 identified as key reasons for spiralling debts.

58

Squeezed incomes and debt accumulation (‘Vulnerable’) – contd.

• Great deal of uncertainty with regard to their future outlook as Government’s austerity measures continue to be rolled out, affecting public and third sector employment.

• Overall a household attempting to do the ‘right’ things in working, owning a home, and juggling family life, but finding themselves facing some uncertainly in the face of increasing living costs; debt; and the shadow of austerity cuts on both their employment situations.

59

Redundancy, diminishing income, and future income uncertainty (‘Struggling’)

• This 31 year old female respondent was married with one dependant, working full time as an NHS nurse. Her partner was self-employed, having previously been made redundant from full time employment in construction industry.

• They had coped by claiming some benefits and using their savings. Over the last 3 years they had used all of their savings, and were no longer eligible for benefits.

• Partner recently started his own business, but income was low and irregular. Their annual gross income was between £25,000 and £34,999.

60

‘Struggling’ – ‘cut back on everything’• Household cut back on everything, with just enough income to

cover basic expenses. Experienced trouble paying rent, which was £650 a month.

• A precariously placed ‘struggling family’ with few options to build financial resilience. All income going towards day to day living costs.

• Past coping strategy of increasing working hours to provide resilience no longer open to them, because of changes in both work situations.

• Being a nurse in the NHS, current austerity measures had placed the respondent in a very uncertain position with regard to future employment and earnings. Interviewee suggested that situation may yet worsen, and with her being the main bread winner, any future decreases in her wages, would leave household in a very fragile position

61

4. Concluding comments and discussion

• Impacts and responses to crisis and austerity a ‘moving target’.

• Impacts uneven, widespread and interconnected.

• Growing divisions within and between city regions and groups of people.

• Winners & losers – organisations, people & places…intensified in recovery?

62

Policies for a sustainable future?

• National policy debates – costs of living, social mobility, monetary and fiscal policy.

• Sectoral and spatial rebalancing of the economy…but incoherent national economic development strategy and urban policy?

• Urban governance and localism – city and/or city-regional?

• Innovative but fragmented urban governance?• Changing relationships – local government, business,

and voluntary sector? ‘Representative’ or ‘conditional’ localism?

• Eroded resilience or adaptation and restructuring?