Monday 5 February 2007

London still dominates

Way back in 2002 I wrote this:
The UK is probably the most centralised of all modern countries. Even after devolution, 87% of our taxes are levied at the national level. In the US it's 18%. In the rest of Europe taxes are levied roughly half by the national governments and half locally. Where the taxes are collected goes economic and political power. I remember reading some years ago that Washington DC had the highest per-capita wages in the US and that most of them were dependent in some way on the federal government. That's in a country levying a mere 18% of taxation at the centre.

A very large part of London's economy is there precisely because it is the capital city of a country whose government spends some 40% of our GDP and whose London-resident ministers channel almost all of that expenditure through the London-based civil service. This in turn means that London hosts the national press (English, not British actually), the BBC, commercial TV, media-associated industries like advertising and PR, the political parties, almost all lobbyists, charities, trades unions and professional organisations. This centralisation of decision makers and influencers in turn makes London the natural location for the head offices of companies whose operations are spread throughout Britain. All of this is why the South-east dominates our economy and why it is impossible to solve the imbalances in housing and transport.

If we want to see a more economically balanced Britain we can either reduce government expenditure to, say, 10% of GDP, or we can spread government more evenly throughout the country. I support the first option. I suspect that neither will be implemented.

The only bit that needs changing after four years is that government now spends more than 40% of our GDP and the consequences are presumably worse.

Readers may remember that I've done this analysis before. It shows the number of jobs per region in the current journal of a UK-wide professional body. These vacancies are almost all in the private sector:

London 52
Southeast 11
East 1
Southwest 2
West Midlands 4
East Midlands 0
Wales 0
Yorkshire 1
Northwest 2
Northeast 0
Scotland 1
Northern Ireland 0

Total 74

So, 70% of the UK jobs are in London and 85% are in London plus the Southeast.

There may be a "Scottish Raj" but the UK still has a very bottom heavy economy. Needless to say, I still think that the answer is to eliminate almost all of the state's activities.

(UPDATE: a commentator writes:

is there not, though, a link between your figures here and the population density of the areas. england makes up near 90% of the uk's population with around 75% of that being south of the midlands area. it's no surprise that the jobs are where the people are..

I've done a further analysis based on the 2001 census:
London: population share 12.2%; job share 70.3%
Southeast population share 13.6%; job share 14.9%
East: population share 9.2%; job share 1.4%
Southwest: population share 8.4%; job share 2.7%
West Midlands: population share 9%; job share 5.4%
East Midlands: population share 7.1%; job share NIL
Wales: population share 4.9%; job share NIL
Yorkshire: population share 8.4%; job share 1.3%
Northwest: population share 11.4%; job share 2.7%
Northeast: population share 4.3%; job share NIL
Scotland: population share 8.6%; job share 1.3%
Northern Ireland: population share 2.9%; job share NIL)

2 comments:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

David Farrer
Donald, 
 
I'm qualified as a Company Secretary. The jobs were advertised in the latest issue of Chartered Secretary Magazine

11 February 2007, 11:30:49 GMT
– Like – Reply





Donald Maclean
Excellent piece. The figures speak for themselves, the causes are more arguable, but there is little doubt that there is a huge imbalance. Can I ask what profession you based this on, perhaps figures came from lisjobnet?

10 February 2007, 16:21:30 GMT
– Like – Reply





Neil Craig
I suspect company secretaries are a particularly strong example of a trend you have correctly identified. 
 
However free marketish either party may claim to be, the advantage of a big company HQ being located within schmoozing distance of ministers & "first division" civil servants is obvious. Capital cities worldwide have a higher standard of living than the hinterlands. Britain has a particular problem because we don't have a centralised government but a southeasternised one.

7 February 2007, 15:52:25 GMT
– Like – Reply





David Farrer
the selective nature of your case study. secretaries 
 
I agree that mining jobs, for example, will be limited to certain areas, but all major companies have a Company Secretary. The vast majority of people now work in non-manufacturing jobs - even Glasgow is now something like 80% in the service sector. So the question is: why aren't those senior jobs that are found at the heart of our major companies spread around the UK conurbations more or less in line with population? My argument is that the UK's unique degree of political centralisation impacts on where companies base their head offices. It's quite different in less politically centralised countries such as Germany or the US. If Britain had a Boeing, a Microsoft, a Starbucks and an Amazon, I find it difficult to believe that four companies of such importance would all be headquartered in one comparatively small provincial city.  
 
James: Yes, both please.

6 February 2007, 20:03:19 GMT
– Like – Reply





james higham
...If we want to see a more economically balanced Britain we can either reduce government expenditure to, say, 10% of GDP, or we can spread government more evenly throughout the country. I support the first option. I suspect that neither will be implemented... 
 
Why not both?

6 February 2007, 19:41:22 GMT
– Like – Reply





David Farrer said...

chief Y is a vowel campaigner
yeah... i forgot to stress the selective nature of your case study. secretaries; i am sure the same could be said of nurses, police, teachers and any other profession where the majority of the investment is in the south due to there being a higher population. i am also confident that if you picked farming, mining, factory work and so on that the economy would seem less "bottom heavy" as you put it.

5 February 2007, 23:45:38 GMT
– Like – Reply





chief Y is a vowel campaigner
okay i'll let you have that one; for me the south east is the humber down over... meh... 
 
but back to the profession point. the north and scotland (from what i picked up in my 5 years there/here) still seem to have more labour jobs and less so called white collar businesses. in this there would be less of a need for secretaries as there are less hq's and so on.  
 
the south is also - annoyingly - more prosperous than the north and from the m4 corridor down over sees more investment in none factory work (you should see the number of foriegn factories in teeside, wierd) this is where the office work tends to go. plus we all know that people in this country migrate more to the south than the north. 
 
in short, the economy is stronger there because there are more people to drive the economy. this uptake in economic affluence attracts the perceived aspirant jobs - ie middle management and all that shallow nonsense. success breeds success, people move to succeed from where opportunities and rarer which in turn attracts even more levels of investment. 
 
its cyclical pattern which needs to be addressed within the confines of how to improve the more impoverished areas - which is why i begrudgingly dont have an issue with the executive relocating offices to glasgow.

5 February 2007, 21:42:20 GMT
– Like – Reply





David Farrer
It's Company Secretaries. Most of the employers aren't identified but include Macquarie Bank, George Wimpey, Linklaters, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Diageo, Bank of East Asia and lots just described as "PLCs". 
 
The Southeast is the counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Oxford, Berks, Bucks and the IOW. 
 
The Southeast is the only area with a similar proportion of these jobs as its population share. London is six times over-represented; everywhere else is well under.

5 February 2007, 19:08:51 GMT
– Like – Reply





chief Y is a vowel campaigner
what's the job profession? if it's for nursing etc then i wouldnt be surprised as there are more hospitals in that region (due to there being more people) but if it was for mining, or sheep shearing i would expect most of the available work to be more northern. 
 
i'll check the census out later; always had it in mind most people live south of the midlands (though what do you call south east? for me it's anywhere below york but i still think it's a population density thing.

5 February 2007, 16:50:41 GMT
– Like – Reply





David Farrer
Going by the 2001 census, 26% of the UK population is in London and the Southeast but they get 85% of the jobs I saw advertised. 
 
Keep? 
 
At the most: defence, foreign policy (unilateral free trade), and policing/courts (these to be at the local level).

5 February 2007, 14:26:19 GMT
– Like – Reply





chief Y is a vowel campaigner
is there not, though, a link between your figures here and the population density of the areas. england makes up near 90% of the uk's population with around 75% of that being south of the midlands area. it's no surprise that the jobs are where the people are... 
 
eliminating the state's activities sounds fun, which one's would you keep?

5 February 2007, 13:28:30 GMT