London shows that Manchester and Birmingham city centres aren’t currently generating the prosperity they should be for other parts of their cities.
The publication of the deep dives into the Manchester and Birmingham economies that Centre for Cities has done in conjunction with Resolution Foundation and Centre for Economic Performance at LSE underscores a central Centre for Cities’ recommendation message to both places: their future success will depend in part on the performance of their city centres, and these centres are currently too small.
A fair challenge to this approach, as is the case with the trickle out argument from cities to surrounding towns, is that focusing on job creation in the city centre will do little for places like Oldham or West Bromwich. But is this true?
The data in our latest briefing shows that this is understandable conclusion to reach. The maps below split neighbourhoods (lower super output areas) into four areas depending on whether they are below or above the city average on two indicators: resident incomes and share of working residents commuting into the city centre.
Similar patterns are seen across each city:
Source: ONS; Census 2011
Source: ONS; Census 2011
This suggests that the prosperity generated in the city centres doesn’t provide benefit across the wider city areas, and a strategy focusing on improving the city centre economies of each will do little for places like Oldham and West Bromwich.
But London suggests otherwise. The capital shows the spread of prosperity that more successful Manchester and Birmingham city centres could have. Central London accounted for 42 per cent of all of the city’s (much larger) overall output in 2019, compared to 18 per cent in Manchester and 15 per cent in Birmingham. As Figure 3 shows, this much stronger performance generates prosperity for a much larger area. Applying the Manchester share of commuting into the centre as the cut off (using the London average would mask the effect being demonstrated) shows that most of the city (and indeed many towns beyond it) benefits from this. This means that expanding the size of the economies of Manchester and Birmingham is an important part of increasing the access to prosperity that people living across those two cities have.
Source: ONS; Census 2011
Note: The map uses the average commuting figure into Manchester city centre for the commuting cut off. The average share of residents commuting to the city centre was much higher in London because central London is more successful, and using the central London figure would mask the effect being demonstrated.
As is the case in the cities and towns debate, it isn’t easy politically to make the case that growing the city centre will bring benefits for surrounding areas, especially in places like Oldham and West Bromwich compared to Didsbury and Sutton Coldfield.
But London’s experience shows that an expanding centre is an important part of bring change across the whole city and beyond. And while it is far from the only policy intervention required to increase prosperity across both cities, it is an important part of the approach.
Director of Policy and Research Paul Swinney explores whether a focus on boosting prosperity in the city centres of major cities would benefit struggling parts of the city.
Centre for Cities says increasing the size of Manchester and Birmingham city centres is an important part of generating prosperity in places elsewhere.
Two new reports in conjunction with Resolution Foundation and Centre for Economic Performance at LSE set out what choices and trade-offs policy should make to get the cities to make the contribution they need to be making to the national economy.
Centre for Cities’ Realising Regional Growth event brought together Lord Sainsbury, Andy Burnham and Gordon Brown, alongside other local leaders to discuss the future of Manchester’s economy and its potential as an innovation hub.
Leave a comment
Robin Spragg
I am not convinced!
The reason London appears more successful is because the admin boundaries do not show the outer urban and rural commuting areas, so the successful areas fill most of Greater London. We all know London is more successful because it houses the Government, public service, and all the corporate headquarters. Do we move all those to Birmingham and Manchester?