Examine The Extent To Which The Economic Impacts Of Austerity Have Been Experienced Differently Across Space And Between Different Social Groups (age, Gender, Race, Disabilities)

During the last several years austerity has been the UK government's dominant fiscal policy. Whilst such measures have primarily been used to reduce the deficit, the economic impacts of austerity across space and social groups has been pronounced and has faced much contemporary interest. These impacts have been far reaching, making millions more vulnerable to poverty and further impoverishing those already deprived. In this essay I will examine the extent to which the economic impacts of austerity have been experienced differently across space and between different social groups and briefly consider the reasons behind these disparities.

Though 70 per cent of all households across Britain are in receipt of at least one major benefit (Hamnett 2013), the impacts of austerity measures have varied significantly between spaces. Broadly, it can be said that austerity has seen its biggest impacts in pre-existing deprived areas, whilst affluent areas, such as large parts of the South of England and commuter districts, have emerged relatively unscathed. In particular, three areas throughout the UK have been hit exceptionally hard (Beatty and Fothergill 2012). These areas are the older industrial regions of the UK, such as the North East England, seaside towns such as Blackpool and Liverpool, and London boroughs, including both those that have traditionally been seen as "deprived', for example Hackney, and those more affluent boroughs, such as Westminster. Many of the places where the impacts of austerity have been greatest are indeed urban areas as this is where the majority of welfare claimants are concentrated. However, it must be appreciated that the impacts of austerity have also been significantly felt in rural areas. For example, significant impacts of austerity can be seen in coal mining and seaside districts, typically characterised by small towns and villages. Therefore, when examined in detail, the pattern of impacts from austerity is more complex than simply an urban-rural continuum.

Furthermore, the data used to examine the impacts of austerity can be misleading and plays a significant role in determining which areas may appear to be effected the most. For example, when looking at the overall impact of welfare reforms throughout 2014/2015, the North East had the lowest estimated loss of £&940 million per annum. However, when looking at this loss but through loss per working-age adult, it had the joint highest loss in the UK at £&560 per annum (Beatty and Fothergill 2012). As a result, regions that seem to have faired relatively well may actually be some of the areas most affected by austerity when examined using certain data.

It is not just spatially that the economic impacts of austerity have been experienced differently. Across social groups, the impacts of austerity, particularly as a result of welfare reforms, have been pronounced. These differences can be divided into many categories including age, disability, gender, race and social status i.e. families or lone parents. It is beyond the scope of this essay to adequately examine the impacts of austerity across all social groups and so I will concentrate on some of those social groups who appear to me to be the most discriminated against, namely gender, age and lone parents.

In regards to age, when compared to other social groups in the population, it would seem that children have been effected particularly severely by austerity measures (De Agostini et al 2014). Though children do not directly receive welfare, cuts in child benefit and various other austerity measures has meant that spending per child in key areas of early education, childcare and sure start services fell by a quarter between 2009–&10 and 2012–&2013 (Stewart 2015 cited Mumford and Green 2015). The impact of austerity on children and their increased vulnerability can be seen through studying Mumford and Green (2015) who examine food banks as increasingly important charitable organisations that play a role in caring for children in the face of a reduced welfare state. Brewer et al (2011) suggest that in the context of current policies, between 2009 and 2020 relative child poverty is expected to rise from 19.7 per cent to 24.4 per cent and absolute child poverty rise

from 17 per cent to 23.1 per cent. Thus, partly as a result of austerity measures, it is likely that in the future more children will come to rely on charitable rather than state support.

Differences between gender is another area where the impacts of austerity have been closely examined. Evidence suggests that austerity measures have had a disproportionate impact on women and present a particular challenge to their financial security and autonomy (Allen et al 2015& MacLeavy 2011). The Fawcett Society suggests that women are more likely to be hit by austerity as they require higher levels of support and assistance from the state. This greater need is due to a number of reasons including specific needs around pregnancy and maternity, greater caring responsibilities, typically lower earnings and a higher life expectancy which often results in living later years alone. As a result, any cutbacks in support from the state is likely to impact women more than men. In addition to the above, there are various other reasons which see women fair worse than men. For example, a significant proportion of national job losses are from the public sector, and as women account for 64% of the public sector workforce (The Fawcett Society 2012), this makes them especially vulnerable to redundancy and public sector pension reforms. Furthermore, lone parents, as I will demonstrate in the next paragraph, are also significantly effected by austerity, and as 92% of lone parents are women (The Fawcett Society), this further adds to the gender imbalance of austerity's impacts.

Lone parents are especially vulnerable to the economic impacts of austerity. For example, by transferring lone parents from Income Support to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), this has meant that though there has been no loss of income, on JSA the lone parent is required to look for work. Finding adequate flexible/part-time paid work that is compatible with child care responsibilities is likely to be increasingly difficult as opportunities in the labour market diminish, particularly in the public sector which provides more part-time and flexible working opportunities. Furthermore, requirements to look for work means that lone parents have less time to spend with their children and have to employ the services of a daycare/nursery which, at a time where costs are soaring, will only further strain their financial stability and see their expenditure increase and disposable income decrease. Changes to Child Benefits also means that whilst a family with two earners on an annual income of £&84,000 could still receive Child Benefit, a single parent earning £&43,000 will not, regardless of how many children they have, thus further reducing state support and further increasing the economic impacts of austerity for lone parents.

It is clear that though supposedly in the interests of the whole nation, the economic impacts of austerity have been experienced differently spatially and across social groups. Whilst austerity has succeeded in reducing the deficit, it has served to widen the gaps in prosperity between the best and worst local economies and the rich and poor. When all austerity measures are taken into account the poorest tenth of the population have been hit the hardest, seeing a 38 per cent decrease in their net income over the period 2010-15. By comparison, the richest tenth have lost the least, seeing a 5 per cent fall in their income (Oxfam 2013). The UK's current austerity programme thus evidently threatens to solidify the UK's position as a country of growing inequality and poverty. At a time when the UK calls for development and greater equality worldwide, it is questionable that it seemingly does not employ the same morals domestically. Though some inequality may be beneficial, the extremes in inequality as a result of the economic impacts of austerity are arguably holding back the UK. Only with greater equitability will we see greater numbers pulled out of poverty and a greater expansion of the UK economy.

References

Allen, K., Mendrick, H., Harvey, L. and Ahmad, A. (2015): "Welfare queens, thrifty housewives, and do-it-all mums: Celebrity motherhood and the cultural politics of austerity' Feminist Media Studies 15, 1-19

Beatty, C., Fothergill, S. (2014) The local and regional impact of the UK's welfare reforms. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2014, 7, 63–&79

Brewer M., Brown, J., and Joyce, R. (2012) Child and working-age poverty from 2010 to 2020 Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.

De Agostini P, Hills J and Sutherland H (2014) Were we really all in it together? The distributional effects of the UK Coalition government's tax-benefit policy changes Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE, London

Hamnett, Chris (2013) "Shrinking the welfare state: the structure, geography and impact of British government benefit cuts." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(4).

Lambie-Mumford, H. and Green, M.A. (2015): "Austerity, welfare reform and the rising use of food banks by children in England and Wales' Area 47(3).

Macleavy, J. (2011) A "new politics' of austerity, workfare and gender? The UK coalition government`s welfare reform proposals

Oxfam (2013) THE TRUE COST OF AUSTERITY AND INEQUALITY. UK Case Study

The Fawcett Society (2012): The Impact of Austerity on Women& London: Fawcett. Cambridge J Regions Econ Soc (2011) 4 (3): 355-367.