The North-South Divide: The

Relationship Between Austerity

and Life Expectancy Inequalities
in England

Lydia Dunham

BA Economics and Geography

2022
GEOG3615 201234605

Table of Content
s
Acknowledgements:...........................................................................................................2
Abstract:...............................................................................................................................3
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................4
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................5
List of Appendices..............................................................................................................5
Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................................................6
1.1 Background and Rationale:..................................................................................................6
1.2 Aims and Objectives:...........................................................................................................7
Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................9
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................9
2.1 The history of the North-South Divide in Britain:............................................................9
2.2 Post-2008 Austerity, Northern Powerhouse and Levelling Up Initiatives:...................9
2.3 Deprivation and Inequality:...............................................................................................10
2.4 Life Expectancy in England:.............................................................................................11
2.5 Gap in the Literature and Overall Aim:............................................................................13
Chapter 3: Methodology..................................................................................................14
3.1. Introduction:........................................................................................................................14
3.2. Research approach and theoretical framework:............................................................14
3.3. Research design:................................................................................................................14
3.4. Data collection:...................................................................................................................14
3.5. Sampling:.............................................................................................................................15
3.6. Data analysis:......................................................................................................................16
3.7. Limitations:..........................................................................................................................17
3.8. Ethical considerations:......................................................................................................18
Chapter 4: Results............................................................................................................19
4.1 Introduction:.........................................................................................................................19

1
GEOG3615 201234605

4.2 Austerity and Deprivation:..................................................................................................19

4.2.1. Change in Central Government Grants to Local Authorities, per capita, between 2010 and
2018..................................................................................................................................................................19
4.2.2. Average change in central Government grants per quintile – National level...............................19
4.2.3. Average change in central Government grants per quintile – Regional level..............................20
4.2.4. Change in central Government grants in Quintile 1........................................................................21
4.2.5. Change in central Government grants in Quintile 5........................................................................23

4.3 Life Expectancy and Austerity...........................................................................................26

4.3.1 Average Change in Life Expectancy per Deprivation Quintile - Regional Level...........................26
4.3.2 Average change in female life expectancy per quintile at regional level, 2010 - 2018................26
4.3.3. Average change in male life expectancy per quintile at regional level, 2010 - 2018..................27
4.3.4 Change in Life Expectancy – Quintile 1.............................................................................................28
4.3.6 Change in Life Expectancy – Quintile 5.............................................................................................29
4.3.8 Relationship between a change in life expectancy and a change in Government
grants – National level...............................................................................................................30
4.3.9 Relationship between female life expectancies and Government grants......................................31
4.3.10 Statistical analysis - Spearman’s Rank Calculation.......................................................................31
4.3.11 Visual analysis - Scatter Diagram....................................................................................................31
4.3.12 Relationship between male life expectancies and Government grants.......................................32
4.3.13 Statistical analysis - Spearman’s Rank Calculation......................................................................32
4.3.14 Visual analysis - Scatter Diagram....................................................................................................33
4.2.15 Comparison of Local Authorities with Falling Life Expectancies and their Level of Change in
Government Grants, 2010 – 2018................................................................................................................34

Chapter 5: Discussion......................................................................................................36
5.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................36
5.2 Relationship between Austerity and Deprivation............................................................36
5.3. Relationship between Life Expectancy, Austerity and Deprivation............................38
5.4. The North-South divide......................................................................................................40
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Further Research............................................................43
6.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................43
6.2 Limitations and Future Research......................................................................................44
References.........................................................................................................................45
Appendices........................................................................................................................52

2
GEOG3615 201234605

Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Martin Purvis, for his knowledge and consistent
encouragement throughout the entirety of this dissertation process. I would also like to thank
family and friends for their assistance in proofreading and for their constant support throughout
the completion of my degree at Leeds. Most notably, a special thanks is extended to my sister,
Ella, for always picking up the phone in my time of need. Her persistent optimism, time and
array of knowledge shared will be forever appreciated.

3
GEOG3615 201234605

Abstract:
The so-called divide between the Northern and Southern regions of Britain has remained a topic
of great debate for numerous years, and is a circumstance that continues to be at the forefront
of modern regional and national politics. With deindustrialisation, historical patterns of land use
and the agglomeration of certain industries contributing to the variances, discourse has turned
to the resulting regional inequalities of deprivation that have only deepened this divide further in
the past fifteen years.

The influence of austerity measures imposed on local governments as a consequence of the

2008 financial crisis is both disproportionate and exponential, with certain areas of public life
having to balance increasing demands for services whilst simultaneously suffering from
dramatic funding cuts. Local populations suffer dramatically as a result.

Life expectancy is an important indicator of national performance. It is also a vital indicator of

the general health of a population and is an area in which Britain’s performance lags behind its
neighbours in Western Europe (Public Health England, 2017). Furthermore, regional disparities
in general health, translated to life expectancy, are recognised by health officials and
policymakers, causing concern for the wider issue of regional inequality that threatens our
population.

Public spending on healthcare has and will continue to improve rates of life expectancy
worldwide. Rates of improvement are slowing and, in some cases, stalling, however, if the
British government truly prioritises this spending by supporting local governments to improve the
health of their populations, life expectancy improvements will resume.

Word Count: 9,991

4
GEOG3615 201234605

List of Figures:
Figure 1: Average percentage change in Government grants per capita, North vs. South.
Figure 2: Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 1 – North.
Figure 3: Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 1 – South.
Figure 4: Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 5 – North.
Figure 5: Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 5 – South.
Figure 6: Average percentage change in female life expectancy per quintile.
Figure 7: Average percentage change in male life expectancy per quintile.
Figure 8: Graph to show change in female and male life expectancy per local authority within Quintile 1,
2010 – 2018.
Figure 9: Graph to show change in female and male life expectancy per local authority within Quintile 5,
2010 – 2018.
Figure 10: Scatter diagram showing the relationship between a change in Government grants and a
change in female life expectancies, %.
Figure 1: Scatter diagram showing the relationship between a change in Government grants and a
change in male life expectancies, %.

List of Tables:
Table 1: Table showing the average change in central Government grants for Income Deprivation
Quintile.
Table 2: Percentage Change in central Government grants per local authority, Quintile 1
Table 3: Percentage Change in central Government grants per local authority, Quintile 5.
Table 4: Spearman’s Rank calculation outcome for female life expectancies, derived using
Socscistatistics online calculation.
Table 5: Spearman’s Rank calculation outcome for male life expectancies, derived using Socscistatistics
online calculation.
Table 6: Negative percentage change of life expectancy across all quintiles, compared with the change in
Government grants, 2010 - 2018.

List of Appendices:
Appendix A: Geographical split of Local Authorities per Quintile.
Appendix B: Rankings of Life Expectancy change and Government grant change, Female and Male.

5
GEOG3615 201234605

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and Rationale:
Inequality between countries around the world is a consistent area of focus for many
international institutions. What is perhaps a more concerning issue for the likes of developed
countries such as the United Kingdom is inequality within the nation itself. The OECD describes
a situation in which the richest ten per cent of the population holds nine times the amount of
wealth as those in the poorest ten per cent within OECD countries (OECD, no date). The United
Kingdom is a clear example of this, as regional inequality is a substantial concern for rates of
economic performance (Lord Sainsbury of Turville, 2021). Regional inequality can hold a
country back in terms of comparative economic performance on a global stage, due to
underperformance in terms of output, an inefficient position to be in for the distribution of goods
and services.

The 2008 financial crisis was a great economic shock to countries globally, notably due to the
interconnectedness and integration that a sustained rise in globalisation has produced in recent
years. Some would say that governments were required to act pragmatically to attempt to
mitigate the impacts of this economic shock, aiming to protect their citizens from falling incomes
and a rise in unemployment. The British Government’s consequent fiscal approach was one of
austerity, reducing levels of public expenditure to reduce the public budget deficit and make up
for the significant level of borrowing required during the height of the financial crisis.

Programmes of austerity are inherently controversial. A harsh economic stance that while in
theory improves government finances, is in reality likely to create divisions at the expense of
public services that are vital for those most vulnerable within our society (Gray and Barford,
2018). A report by Oxfam (2013) suggested that the austerity programme of the 2010s had the
ability to solidify the UK’s reputation as a place of increasing inequality and poverty, and more
recent evidence validates this prediction. With economic performance already varying widely at
a regional scale, increased inequality is known to have been an undesired consequence of this
fiscal stance, with cuts to the welfare state, in particular, causing those initially in poverty to see
their impoverishment deteriorate further (Oxfam, 2013).

Life expectancy is considered to be an important indicator of a prosperous economy, frequently

used to assess the progress of developing countries (Marshall et al., 2019). Life expectancy can

6
GEOG3615 201234605

encompass an accumulation of various aspects of society; health, education, general living

standards and deprivation, therefore aiding the assessment of the wider picture of social
inequality and performance across different spatial settings. Regional variations in life
expectancy growth were already a consistent pattern even before the financial crisis (Marshall
et al., 2019), but with reduced welfare spending, the previous trend in life expectancy growth
may be reversed, with extreme variances setting the tone for broader levels of social inequality.

The regional divide between the Northern and Southern regions of Britain has been continually
recognised as a fundamental component of our society for hundreds of years (Martin, 1988),
and is one that is consistently fueled by the notion of socioeconomic inequality between both
regions. The inconsistent geographical distribution of austerity measures is proposed to
contribute further to these inequalities, reducing the ability of local authorities to address these
issues head-on (Gray and Barford, 2018). The rationale behind this project is to establish if the
historical North-South divide, generally depicted to be a deep-rooted issue within British society,
has been exacerbated due to the Government’s fiscal response to the financial crisis. Various
factors can be assessed on a macroeconomic level to form a picture of the extent of regional
austerity impacts, with a change in life expectancy growth being chosen in this case.

1.2 Aims and Objectives:

The main aim of this project is to establish the possible extent to which austerity measures
implemented by the British Government since the 2008 financial crisis have translated into local
government spending power, and consequently how this has influenced the well-established life
expectancy gap within the UK. This study will further aim to prove that the so-called North-South
divide is still apparent today through inequalities such as these and that any changes in the
components of both indicators can be attributed, at least in part, to reduced public expenditure.

Objectives:
1. To assess if changes in the levels of central Government public expenditure per
capita following the financial crisis of 2008 differ significantly between authorities in
the North and the South.
2. To determine how changes in public expenditure can influence life expectancy
estimates within England, and if these changes are more significant in more deprived
authorities.

7
GEOG3615 201234605

3. To establish if any changes in public expenditure and life expectancy differ

depending on geographic location around the UK, contributing to regional inequality.

8
GEOG3615 201234605

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to review the literature surrounding the topic of the historic North-South divide
within Britain, whether the so-called divide is still considered relevant today, and how measures
have been put in place in an attempt to rebalance any regional disparities in the past decade.
Furthermore, with a focus on variations in life expectancy and productivity levels, I will critically
assess the current approach to local government spending within England, and how academics
have perceived the post-2008 austerity levels to have influenced spending and consequent
outcomes.

2.1 The history of the North-South Divide in Britain:

Peet (1975) observes that Marxist theory indicates that inequality is an essential component of a
capitalist society. Regional inequalities and differentials present within Britain, named the so-
called ‘North-South divide’, is a divide deeply rooted within our nation’s history (Gardiner et al.,
2013). Therefore, it seems that there have always been important geographical differences
between the country’s Northern and Southern regions concerning uneven patterns of
development and industrial growth, with the concept of ‘northern consciousness’ being apparent
since records began (Jewell, 1994). Balchin (2021) emphasises the 1930s depression followed
by the long boom of the fifties and sixties to be the main drivers of the modern regional
disparities in unemployment and poverty between the North and South, with the South now
being the epicentre for financial services, as well as Britain’s governmental and international
role. This consequent unequal distribution of employment was additionally driven by the
deindustrialisation of Britain’s major industries (Mounfield 1984). Ultimately, the potential North-
South divide in Britain is a product of its history, encompassing regional and local differentials
that fit a broader pattern of disparity.

2.2 Post-2008 Austerity, Northern Powerhouse and Levelling Up Initiatives:

The 2008 Financial Crisis had profound effects on the British economy, many of which are still
being felt within our society today. Whilst growth stagnated and unemployment excelled, the
British Government turned to austerity as a tool to rebalance the budget deficit and stabilise the
economy (Gardiner et al. 2013). In relation to regional divides, the economic boom of the early
2000s during the New Labour era was previously discussed as being essential in starting to
narrow any regional inequalities between the North and South of Britain (Martin, 2010).

9
GEOG3615 201234605

However, because of the financial crisis that followed this growth, it is understood that any
possible reduction in this gap has been reversed (Martin, 2010).

Moreover, Martin (2010) notes that the origins of the financial crisis, namely the ‘bubbles’ in
house prices and mortgages, stemmed in the capital and the surrounding South-east of
England, but their consequences were most felt within the North of Britain due to pre-existing
disparities in factors such as living standards and health. This is echoed by Stuckler et al.
(2017) and Coe and Jones (2010). Further modern economic literature and analysis
acknowledged that those hardest hit by this reduction in spending were those already
experiencing the effects of historic deprivation in Britain, namely those who did not cause the
crisis themselves (Stuckler et al., 2017). Coe and Jones (2010) argue that those hardest hit by
the crisis are “the usual victims” (p.4) who do not reside in the southeast of England. Ultimately,
the consensus is that the recession and the austerity that followed only deepened inequality
within the country, and that these inequalities must be addressed for the economy to function to
its full potential (Balchin, 2021).

Gray and Barford (2018) and Agrawal and Phillips (2020) suggest that this nationwide austerity
has reduced the ability of local governments to tackle inequality on a local level, causing
inequalities and territorial tensions between these local governments themselves. Government
initiatives such as the vision of the Northern Powerhouse and the ‘levelling up’ agenda are
discussed by Bambra et al. (2018) and Mackinnon (2021) in terms of effectiveness. The initial
proposal of increased investment aimed at boosting productivity in the North was welcomed by
residents and local authorities (SQW, 2016). Despite this, academics such as Lee (2016) and
Gilmore and Walmsley (2016) consider the perception that the initiative is simply a marketing
drive with little prospect of materialising the evening out of the disparities it promised, due to
being undermined by national austerity and also because of a neglect of certain sectors in
society. Lee (2016) proposes that the agenda may be “more like a brand first and a strategy
second” (p.4), with Mackinnon, (2021) criticising the urban versus rural approach of the agenda,
stressing the need for policymakers to consider the development of the ‘left behind’ outer city
regions for it to be most effective.

10
GEOG3615 201234605

2.3 Deprivation and Inequality:

Deprivation is a useful indicator of overall socioeconomic performance on a scale from sub-
regional to national and international levels (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government, 2019b). Deprivation is a concept that encompasses various factors, defined by
McLennan et al. (2019) as a lack of various resources and the consequent unmet needs of a
population. In Britain, we determine levels of deprivation based on factors such as income and
employment, crime, health, education and living conditions (Ministry of Housing, Communities
and Local Government, 2019b). It is important to distinguish between deprivation and poverty,
however, as highlighted by McLennan et al. (2019) and Townsend (1987). Poverty may be
described simply as a lack of income (McLennan et al., 2019), whereas deprivation
encompasses various aspects that are required to meet the basic needs of a participant in
society, as emphasized by Townsend (1987), and later echoed by McLennan et al.
(2019). Deprivation can therefore give a broader assessment of regional performance.

At a regional level, deprivation can be intrinsically linked to population health (Siegel et al.,
2015). Siegel et al. (2015) highlight that persistent individual and community-wide deprivation
has a great negative influence on levels of health, with Walsh et al. (2010) noting the
relationship between patterns of deprivation and patterns of low life expectancy within British
cities, confirming that deprivation is key when discussing early mortality. Moreover, the
multitude of components that combine to assemble an indication of deprivation (Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019b) provide scope for analysis of the
consequent influence of changes in public expenditure. A paper by Stuckler et al. (2017) is one
of many that emphasizes a clear relationship between austerity and inequality: austerity can
exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities and impact those already most vulnerable, and therefore
often also most deprived.

2.4 Life Expectancy in England:

Life expectancy is a key determinant of development and growth within a country, and in
relation to economic development, improvements in health and the life expectancy of a
population will aid growth (Turan, 2020). At a city and regional level, variations in life expectancy
can aid in displaying how various local authorities are performing with regard to public service
provision (White, 2020). Life expectancy is defined by Marshall et al. (2019) as a measure of
how long a person is expected to live, which is majorly influenced by mortality rates, as well as
other factors. Healthy life expectancy is a more refined estimate of the length of time someone

11
GEOG3615 201234605

should live in a “state of good general health” (Marshall et al., 2019, p.15). This measure of life
expectancy will be effective in showing inequalities due to the added element of quality of life
(Marshall et al., 2019).

Within developed countries such as the UK, life expectancy estimates have consistently been
improving, until recently, due to improvements in healthcare, living conditions and a reduction in
the fatalities of certain diseases (Allel et al., 2021). With the consensus of these factors aiding
improvements in life expectancies, it can be assumed that life expectancies may be negatively
affected by any measures of austerity.

Various research has indicated a stark divide between areas of affluence and deprivation within
the UK in terms of life expectancies (Marshall et al., 2019). This, considering a slowdown in the
twentieth-century improvements, is a concern for national and local governments alike. What is
apparent is that there is a correlation between the level of public spending and life expectancy
at the total UK level (Alexiou et al., 2021). Raleigh (2021) echoes Marshall et al. (2019) in that
despite this, minimal research looks at the direct causes of reduced life expectancy in relation to
austerity, as multiple dynamic factors are attributed to global trends.

Life expectancy is consistently linked to health within literature (OECD, 2017). The OECD
(2017) note that the reinforcing social determinants of life expectancy, such as income,
education, and living and working conditions, are all vitally associated with inequality. This
poses possible confirmation of any variations in life expectancy between the North and South of
Britain. Furthermore, it is noted by academics such as Alexiou et al. (2021) and Dorling (2014)
that despite the various influential components of life expectancy, it is difficult to determine the
extent to which each factor has an impact, or indeed, to put a change in life expectancy down to
a single factor.

Miladinov (2020) emphasizes that any improvements in the economic conditions of society will
lead to a reduction in mortality rates, directly improving life expectancies. It is therefore clear
that any changes in the level of spending on health care and associated services will likely have
an impact on the life expectancy of a population, and in Britain, the austerity measures
introduced following the financial crisis are a prime example of this (Alexiou et al., 2021). A
healthy population, supported by sufficient public services, will be more likely to live longer and
contribute to economic and social progression (Marshall et al., 2019). The OECD (2017)

12
GEOG3615 201234605

describe studies in which income per capita, which can be stimulated through public spending,
is determined to improve health outcomes through better choices and better information. This
again provides a plausible link between spending and life expectancy.

2.5 Gap in the Literature and Overall Aim:

My research aims to build a bridge between the post-2008 crisis austerity measures put into
place by the Government and the extent of the impacts on life expectancy estimates in relation
to the North-South divide within England. While much literature notes fundamental systemic
variances within the socio-economic, cultural and geographic make-up of England causing this
divide, dating back hundreds of years, I aim to establish if these issues are translated into the
outcomes and trends of these development factors provided in the modern-day. A focus on a
possible regional variance within life expectancy will be applicable due to an ever-growing need
to understand the impacts of reduced government grants on the delivery of public services, as
they are provided at the local authority level, on levels of deprivation and development across
regions of England. The Northern Powerhouse is an initiative that has been and is still highly
scrutinised, so there is much scope for analysis with regards to its effectiveness and potential, in
relation to life expectancies.

13
GEOG3615 201234605

Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Introduction:
This chapter will outline the research approach and methods taken within this study, detailing
the data sources, data collection and analysis methods. Limitations of these methods and
sources will be presented, in addition the ethical considerations required.

3.2. Research approach and theoretical framework:

This research project uses an empirical framework to fulfil the research aims, following a
quantitative approach using secondary data to analyse the extent of austerity’s role in life
expectancy, in a regional context. A deductive research approach is adopted to form
hypotheses in line with the background theory of socioeconomic deprivation and government
spending. In compliance with deductivism, this research has epistemologically followed the
philosophical lens of positivism. The positivist approach was essential due to the need to
statistically interpret the quantitative data of this study, without bias, and to test the hypotheses
proposed objectively (Bryman, 2008).

3.3. Research design:

The research design encompasses data collection, refinement and analysis, a process allowing
for valid and reliable results. Secondary data was the fundamental source of data used, allowing
for uniform data collection using external, publicly available figures. Secondary data use is
justified in the context of such a multi-dimensional study as it is reliable, and in this case
collected by government departments, contextualized and validated for external use.
Additionally, this data was easily accessible, and the abundance of like datasets enabled simple
interpretation and comparison, at a low cost (Cheng and Phillips, 2014).

3.4. Data collection:

With the focus of the project identified, a review of literature encompassing similar themes to
this project and extensive searches of UK statistic databased aided with sourcing the data
required. The time frame of 2010 to 2018 was chosen for investigation to match the
implementation of austerity policies within the UK. Life expectancy at birth estimates for the time

14
GEOG3615 201234605

frame of 2009-2011 and 2017-2019 were obtained from the Office for National Statistics (2020),
with the mid-year interval used as the year for analysis.
The Place-Based Longitudinal Data Resource website (Alexiou and Barr, 2020) provided the
central Government grants per-capita calculation. The authors originally obtained the data from
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government revenue expenditure and
financing annual publications for local government, to approximate the total central Government
funding per capita, per financial year (Alexiou and Barr, 2020). Population figures integrated into
this dataset were attributed to Public Health England. This data was used due to being readily
available in the correct format needed for this project.

Use of ONS and Government data within this study is justified as it is reliable and can be freely
downloaded for further research. Researchers from such institutions have the resources to
conduct longitudinal studies using a variety of research methods, using large representative
samples, enabling the reliable exploration of temporal and spatial change.

3.5. Sampling:
Each dataset was now refined to select the relevant sample local authorities to fit the North-
South pattern required. The sample chosen within each dataset is based on the Local
Authorities defined by the Local Government Association as authorities responsible for multiple
services for an area’s local population (Local Government Association, no date (b)). Income
Deprivation quintiles were taken from the ONS dataset which mapped Income Deprivation to the
local authority level (Office for National Statistics, 2021), based on the 2019 Indices of Multiple
Deprivation. From each quintile, two sets of five authorities were chosen at random. Each
quintile having a similar score of Income Deprivation allowed this to be the control variable, with
Quintiles 1 to 5 moving from most to least deprived. Authorities were chosen according to
geographical location, defined as ‘North’ or ‘South’, in accordance with the ‘Severn-Walsh’ line
utilised by various academic papers. This line divides Britain in two using a line from the Severn
Estuary in the South-West to the Wash Bay in East Anglia (Burton, 2021). These chosen
authorities were then carried forward when selecting data from the Index, changes in central
Government grants, and Life Expectancy datasets. Focusing on a smaller number of authorities
allowed for a more detailed analysis. This sample may prove to be representative of the larger
population, providing scope for further research.

15
GEOG3615 201234605

3.6. Data analysis:

Analysis of the secondary data has taken a “’research question-driven' approach” (Cheng and
Phillips, 2014, p.373), whereby data was sourced following the formation of hypotheses by the
researcher.

Data was analysed firstly by controlling for the variable of Income Deprivation. This allows for
the comparison of the extent of austerity across Quintiles 1 to 5 of Income Deprivation, as well
as within these groups. Various observational analyses were undertaken to assess the
relationship between austerity and regional setting through the lens of deprivation. This focused
on the average change of both variables, as well as a more detailed analysis of Quintiles 1 and
5. The percentage change in central Government grants of each authority was ranked in
ascending order to allow for comparison.

Austerity level analysis was combined with observed changes in both male and female life
expectancy for each local authority, the outcome variable, again ranked in descending order.
The average and median percentage change of each variable were also calculated. The
relationship between the two ranks is presented visually using a scatter graph.

The Spearman’s Rank statistical test was used to examine the relationship between
Government grants and male and female life expectancy, assessing the strength of any
possible association between the ranks of the two monotonic variables (Walker and Maddan,
2012). A separate Spearman’s Rank test was conducted for male and female life expectancies.
The correlation coefficient, Rs, can range from –1 to +1, with 0 indicating that there is no
relationship between either variable (LeBlanc, 2004). This test displays a calculation of the
correlation at the 5% probability level, where the statistical significance (p) level is set to
0.05. Any value of p less than 0.05 deems the relationship to be significant statistically
(Daniulaityte, 2016), based on a ranking of both datasets (Gauthier, 2001). This test is favoured
here over other tests such as the Pearson correlation coefficient due to the monotonic nature of
the variables, as well as the skewed distribution of the change in life expectancy. This is
supplementary to the visual representation.

The calculation was carried out using an online Spearman’s rank calculator (Socscistatistics, no
date), to enable ease of calculation using the ranked datasets.

16
GEOG3615 201234605

3.7. Limitations:
The reliance on secondary data brings with it the challenge of inaccuracy. This data was not
originally collected to answer this project’s research questions (Cheng and Phillips, 2014), so
collection bias cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, it cannot be confirmed that the initial primary
data obtained by the relevant researchers was collected correctly, using the correct methods to
make the data valid and reliable, no matter the reputation of the researcher. This may translate
into secondary analysis, impacting the results and discussion of this project. Additionally, the
need for qualitative analysis alongside quantitative analysis (Guetterman et al., 2015) should be
recognised.

The local authority sample size may be considered a limiting factor, influencing the validity of
this study. Due to the nature of this undergraduate research project, the choice to analyse five
authorities per region per quintile enabled a potential trend in the longitudinal data to be
established, however, the chosen authorities may not accurately represent overall performance
in both regions. Each authority is defined by unique social, economic and political factors that
will influence the validity of results. With further resources and funds for detailed analysis, the
use of data encompassing the entire population would increase the validity of results and the
trends studied.

Again, due to the inability to control for the multitude of elements that influence life expectancy,
the validity of Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient result cannot be justified, despite control
of the deprivation quintile. It must further be noted that correlation does not equal causation.
Although the interpretation of this coefficient alone is insufficient to justify a causational effect
between the variables (Schober et al., 2018), the outcome will give an indication as to how the
correlation may be applied to a larger more complex context of socioeconomics.

It is also not possible for austerity to be a proven sole cause of changes in any socioeconomic
measures within a society due to its complexity. The possible introduction and reform of other
government policies within the time frame may have also contributed to variances in life
expectancy outcomes, leading to an incomplete analysis when only considering austerity as an
independent variable.

17
GEOG3615 201234605

3.8. Ethical considerations:

This investigation has been conducted fully conforming to ethical research norms. With the sole
use of secondary government and official database data from organisations such as the Office
for National Statistics, there are reduced ethical conditions that need to be considered.

As the governmental and ONS data is already anonymized when presented online, there was
no information associated that would enable identification of the participants within datasets
used. The availability of such data online implies permission for extended use, as well as the
explicit permission granted within the datasets themselves. The ONS state that their research
provides a public benefit to society and therefore they are committed to providing transparent,
non-identifying administrative data intended for external use (Office for National Statistics, no
date) carried out by professionals in their field. Explicit ownership of the data is acknowledged
and will be kept no longer than necessary to complete the project.

18
GEOG3615 201234605

Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Introduction:
This chapter will present the key findings from the data analysis conducted. The results will be
split into two sections, addressing firstly the relationship between austerity and deprivation, and
secondly the relationship between austerity and life expectancy change, with both sections
encompassing the relevance of these relationships on the North-South divide within the UK.

4.2 Austerity and Deprivation:

The first objective of this research project is to establish any potential relationship between a
change in central Government grants allocated to local authorities, and if this change can be
observed whilst controlling for income deprivation and the potential North-South divide.

The hypothesis is that there is a negative relationship between Quintile of Income Deprivation
and a change in central Government grants to local authorities, and that this relationship is more
noteworthy within the Northern region.

Analysis has firstly been carried out at a national level, before focusing on Quintile 1 and
Quintile 5, the most and least income deprived quintiles accordingly, to allow for deeper
examination.

4.2.1. Change in Central Government Grants to Local Authorities, per capita, between
2010 and 2018
The visualization of data below displays the percentage per-capita change in central
Government grants to selected Local Authorities between 2010 and 2018.

4.2.2. Average change in central Government grants per quintile – National level
The average change in central Government grants per quintile of Income Deprivation is
demonstrated in Table 1. All quintiles experienced reduced Government grants, consistent with
austerity policies devised at a central Government level. The highest average reduction of -
28.74% was seen in the least deprived Quintile 5, and the lowest reduction in Quintile 2 at -
25.14%.

19
GEOG3615 201234605

Change in central Government

Quintile grants
1 -27.14%
2 -25.14%
3 -27.42%
4 -27.85%
5 -28.74%
Table 1. Table showing the average change in central Government grants for Income Deprivation
Quintile. Data source: Alexiou and Barr (2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

4.2.3. Average change in central Government grants per quintile – Regional level.
Figure 1 breaks down the average change in central Government grants further to a regional
level, comparing Northern and Southern local authorities from each quintile. The largest
average decrease in grants was -31.11%, experienced within the Northern region of Quintile 1
(Q1). This is the quintile containing local authorities considered most deprived. Closely followed
by this was a -30.70% average decrease seen within the Southern region of Quintile 3 (Q3), the
middle quintile within this analysis. The lowest average change of -23.08% was seen in the
Southern region of Quintile 2 (Q2).

Within three out of the five quintiles observed, the Northern region experienced a higher
average decrease in central Government grants compared to their Southern counterparts. This
includes Quintiles 1 (Q1) and 5 (Q5), the most and least deprived quintiles.

20
GEOG3615 201234605

Figure 1. Average percentage change in Government grants per capita, North vs. South. Data source:
Alexiou and Barr (2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

4.2.4. Change in central Government grants in Quintile 1

Focus now turns to Quintile 1, the quintile ranked the worst for Income Deprivation. The trend in
central Government grant change across the years 2010 to 2018 is consistent in the North and
the South. Figures 2 and 3 show a downward negative trend of per capita grants for both
regions, therefore, all authorities within the chosen sample experienced a decrease in direct
central Government funding.

Interestingly, in both regions, the local authority with the lowest comparative per capita grant in
2010, Hastings in the South and Kingston-Upon-Hull in the North, remained the authority with
the lowest per capita grant in 2018. For the Northern sample, this is also true for the authority
experiencing the highest level of grants, Knowsley.

21
GEOG3615 201234605

Figure 2. Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 1 – North. Data source: Alexiou and Barr
(2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

Figure 3. Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 1 – South. Data source: Alexiou and Barr
(2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

22
 GEOG3615 201234605

Table 2 represents the change in central Government grants per local authority in ascending
order. This shows that excluding the southern outlier Hastings decreasing -by 32.56%, all
authorities experiencing the largest reduction in Government grants were located in the North.

Local Authority Region Change in central Government Grants

Kingston upon Hull, City of North -36.16%
Hastings South -32.56%
Blackpool North -31.64%
Hartlepool North -31.47%
Middlesborough North -29.05%
Knowsley North -27.25%
Tower Hamlets South -25.68%
Islington South -23.93%
Hackney South -18.83%
Enfield South -14.85%
Table 2. Percentage Change in central Government grants per local authority, Quintile 1. Data source:
Alexiou and Barr (2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

The results show that within Quintile 1, authorities located within the North are suffering the
effects of austerity more significantly than in the South. This is despite the similar downward
trend in Government grants across both regions and all authorities.

4.2.5. Change in central Government grants in Quintile 5.

At the other end of the Income Deprivation index is Quintile 5, the quintile least Income
Deprived. The trend of central Government grant change across the time frame is again
consistent between the North and South, fitting the national pattern of decline. Figures 4 and 5
show a downward negative trend of per capita grants for both regions, therefore, all authorities
within the sample experienced a reduction in direct central Government funding within the time
frame.

For the Northern region, local authority Melton consistently received the lowest Government
grants, with grants of £1,380 per capita in 2010 reduced to £740 in 2018. Melton experienced
the largest drop in central Government grants within Quintile 5, as well as across all Quintiles,
with a reduction of -46.01%. This is shown in Figure 4.

23
GEOG3615 201234605

Central Government Grants per Capita - North

Per Capita Grants (thousand £)

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year

Harrogate York Melton

Warwick Richmondshire

Figure 4. Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 5 – North. Data source: Alexiou and Barr
(2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

Figure 5 displays the Southern region also fitting the broader pattern of a reduction in
Government grants. Tunbridge Wells began with the highest central Government grants per
capita in 2010, with £1,590 and remained the authority with the highest grants of £1,240 in
2018, despite the decrease of -22.18%.

Central Government Grants per Capita - South

Per Capita Grants (thousand £)

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year

Tunbridge Wells Guildford Woking

Brentwood St Albans

24
GEOG3615 201234605

Figure 5. Central Government grants per capita for Quintile 5 – South. Data source: Alexiou and Barr
(2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

The divide between the Northern and Southern regions is less apparent within Table 3, which
shows the change in Government grants per capita for each local authority. Whilst clear that the
authority experiencing the highest reduction, Melton, is located in the North, the regional pattern
is more evenly spread in terms of the largest cuts.

Local Authority Region Change in central Government Grants

Melton North -46.01%
Brentwood South -37.79%
York North -30.45%
St Albans South -27.72%
Harrogate North -27.38%
Warwick North -26.51%
Guidlford South -24.21%
Richmondshire North -23.96%
Tunbridge Wells South -22.18%
Woking South -21.19%
Table 3. Percentage Change in central Government grants per local authority, Quintile 5. Data source:
Alexiou and Barr (2020); Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

4.3 Life Expectancy and Austerity

To demonstrate the impacts of austerity on local population health, the second objective of this
project explores the socioeconomic indicator of life expectancy. This objective is fulfilled using
female and male life expectancy estimates at birth between 2010 and 2018 from the Office for
National Statistics, hypothesising that there will be an inverse relationship between life
expectancy estimates and figures of austerity. The regional divide aspect will also be explored,
using the regional divisions derived from the Income Deprivation Quintiles to assess if any
changes in life expectancy are more apparent in the North or South.

4.3.1 Average Change in Life Expectancy per Deprivation Quintile - Regional Level.
The average percentage change in life expectancy per quintile is visualized by Figures 6 and 7,
enabling comparison between the Northern and Southern regions of England. Furthermore, life

25
GEOG3615 201234605

expectancy change is broken down to focus on those authorities with falling life expectancies
over the time period, to determine their geographic location and status of deprivation.

4.3.2 Average change in female life expectancy per quintile at regional level, 2010 -
2018.
Utilising Figure 6, the average change in female life expectancy per quintile is generally positive
in both the Northern and Southern regions, with the largest gains being made in the Southern
region of Quintile 1, with a change of 1.71%. Despite this, life expectancy is in fact stalling for
Quintile 1’s Northern region. The largest comparative gains across Quintiles 2, 3 and 5 were
located in the North, with average changes of 0.55%, 0.81% and 0.70% respectively.

Figure 6. Average percentage change in female life expectancy per quintile. Data source: ONS.

26
GEOG3615 201234605

4.3.3. Average change in male life expectancy per quintile at regional level, 2010 -
2018.
Figure 7 shows all quintiles experiencing a gain in average male life expectancy, within both the
North and South. The pattern is slightly different to the female averages, in the fact that within
Quintiles 1, 2 and 3 the largest average change is located within the South, with average
changes of 2.93%, 1.12% and 1.03% respectively. The largest average increase is again in the
Southern region of Quintile 1, with a change of 2.93%. This is a stark contrast to Quintile 1’s
Northern average rise of only 0.31%.

Figure 7. Average percentage change in male life expectancy per quintile. Data source: ONS.

4.3.4 Change in Life Expectancy – Quintile 1

Figure 8 shows the change in life expectancy for both females and males within the sample
local authorities of Quintile 1, the most Income Deprived quintile. The chart clearly shows that
Southern authorities have made significantly larger gains than Northern authorities, for both
females and males. Tower Hamlets experienced the largest male life expectancy improvement
of 4.91%, also seeing a 2.42% rise in female expectancies.

27
GEOG3615 201234605

Northern authorities have made small gains, however, there are also various reductions in life
expectancy. Kingston-Upon-Hull has seen -0.16% and -0.08% reductions for female and male
expectancies respectively. Other authorities experiencing falling life expectancies include
Knowsley (-0.14%) and Blackpool (-0.40%) for females, and Middlesbrough (-0.46%) for males.
This indicates that within the most Income Deprived quintile, there is a regional variance in
terms of life expectancy change, with the North experiencing worse negative outcomes.

Change in Life Expectancy, %

6.00%
4.91%
5.00%
% Change in Life Expectancy, 2010 - 2018

4.00%
3.33%
2.92%
3.00% 2.56% 2.42%
1.87%
2.00% 1.61%
1.36% 1.25%
0.48% 0.96%
0.71% 0.92%
1.00% 0.40%
0.29%
0.00%
-N -N l-
N
l-
N -N s-
S
y-
S
s-
S -S -S
-1.00% ley g h o o of g e t on l d
s ou po po ity tin kn le gt fie
w
o-0.14% s br a ck r tle , C-0.16% as Hac Ham s lin En
Kn e l
B -0.40%Ha l l H
-0.08% I
dl Hu er
id on ow
M T
-0.46% Up
o n
st
ng
Ki

Local Authority

% Change in LE - Female % Change in LE - Male

Figure 8. Graph to show change in female and male life expectancy per local authority within Quintile 1,
2010 – 2018. Data source: ONS.

4.3.6 Change in Life Expectancy – Quintile 5.

Figure 9 shows that for female life expectancy in Quintile 5, the changes seem to be even
between regions. Both regions saw improvements in life expectancy, with the Northern authority
Harrogate seeing the highest rise of 1.70%, followed by Southern authority St Albans, seeing a
1.39% improvement. The lowest female increase occurred in the Northern region Melton, with
0.11%. For male life expectancies, the highest improvement was seen in Southern authority

28
GEOG3615 201234605

Woking, at 3.12%, followed by Northern authority Richmondshire, with a 2.68% improvement. In

the South, Tunbridge Wells saw the smallest improvement, 0.17%, and Brentwood was the only
authority across both regions within the sample to achieve a -0.71% reduction in life
expectancies.

Change in Life Expectancy, %

3.50%
3.12%
% Change in Life Expectancy, 2010 - 2018

3.00% 2.68%
2.50%
2.00% 1.70%
1.50% 1.33% 1.20% 1.39% 1.25%
1.12% 1.19% 1.16% 1.13%0.97%
1.00% 0.87% 0.81% 0.76%
0.50% 0.33% 0.31%
0.11% 0.17%
0.00%
N - N -N - N -N -S -S -S -S s-
S
-0.50% e- rk n ick ire ls rd g d
at Yo lto el fo in oo an
g e ar
w sh W ld ok tw l b
-1.00%rro M d
ge
i W en
A
a W on Gu Br St
H m rid
ich nb
R Tu

Local Authority -0.71%

% Change in LE - Female % Change in LE - Male

Figure 9. Graph to show change in female and male life expectancy per local authority within Quintile 5,
2010 – 2018. Data source: ONS.

4.3.8 Relationship between a change in life expectancy and a change in

Government grants – National level.

A Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient calculation was utilised to assess a relationship

between changes in male and female life expectancies and central Government grants, using
the ranked ascending order of change of both variables between 2010 and 2018, to determine
Rs. A p-value was also calculated, with a required result of below 0.05 (5% probability level)
necessary to determine t statistically significant results. Using a calculator available online
(Socscistatistics, no date), the Spearman’s Rank calculation derived the results as shown in
Tables 4 and 5, as divided into female and male life expectancies.

29
GEOG3615 201234605

4.3.9 Relationship between female life expectancies and Government grants.

4.3.10 Statistical analysis - Spearman’s Rank Calculation.

Calculation Outcome Value

Coefficient (Rs) 0.08956
p value (2-tailed) 0.53626
Table 4. Spearman’s Rank calculation outcome for female life expectancies, derived using
Socscistatistics online calculation.

The correlation coefficient (Rs) for female life expectancies is 0.08956. This value is weakly
positive, meaning that there is a small positive relationship between life expectancy and
austerity.

The calculation of the p-value to be 0.53626 means that the outcome cannot be deemed to be
statistically insignificant. Therefore, despite a positive Rs value, there is not a significant
relationship between austerity and female life expectancy for this sample.

4.3.11 Visual analysis - Scatter Diagram.

Figure 10 provides a visual representation of the relationship between the two variables on a
percentage change scale. It remains clear that a skewed distribution is present, meaning there
is no strong direct linear relationship between the two variables. Despite this, the linear trendline
represents the weak positive relationship, as confirmed by the Rs value calculated.

Outliers to the skewed distribution include Northern authority Broxtowe, facing a -0.48%
reduction in life expectancy coupled with a -36.19% reduction in Government grants. Northern
authority Blackpool experienced a similar pattern, with a -0.40% decrease in life expectancy and
a -31.64% decrease in Government grants.

Portsmouth, in the South, experienced the largest life expectancy decrease across the sample,
with a -0.82% reduction being paired with a -17.51% reduction in Government grants.
These selected examples indicate a relationship between the variables in specific cases.

30
GEOG3615 201234605

Change in Life Expectancy vs. Government Grants - Female

3.00%

Hackney Lambeth
Tower Hamlets 2.50%
% Change in Life Expectancy, 2010 - 2018

Harrogate 2.00%
Oxford

Newcastle-under-Lyme
Lichfield 1.50%
North Somerset Carlisle
St AlbansIslington
Dartford
Richmondshire Enfield
Guildford
Milton Keynes
Hastings ScarboroughEast Riding of Yorkshire 1.00%
Bassetlaw York
Exeter
Brentwood Wakefield Warwick Stockport
North
RotherWarwickshire
Middlesbrough Sheffield Tunbridge Wells Fylde 0.50%
Hartlepool Bristol
Chelmsford Leeds
Plymouth Woking
Stevenage
Melton Dudley West Devon
Watford 0.00%
-50.00% -45.00% -40.00% -35.00% -30.00% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00%
Knowsley
Kingston upon Hull, City of Southampton
Broxtowe Blackpool North East Derbyshire -0.50%

Portsmouth
-1.00%

Change in Government Grants, %

Figure 10. Scatter diagram showing the relationship between a change in Government grants and a
change in female life expectancies, %. Data sources: Alexiou and Barr (2020); ONS.

4.3.12 Relationship between male life expectancies and Government grants.

4.3.13 Statistical analysis - Spearman’s Rank Calculation.

Calculation Outcome Value

Coefficient (Rs) 0.086
p value (2-tailed) 0.55261
Table 5. Spearman’s Rank calculation outcome for male life expectancies, derived using Socscistatistics
online calculation.

The correlation coefficient (Rs) for male life expectancies is 0.086. This value is also positive,
therefore there is a small positive relationship between life expectancy and austerity, but it is
weak, and weaker than the relationship for female life expectancies.

The calculation of the p-value for male life expectancies is 0.55261. This result fits a similar
pattern to female life expectancies, meaning that the outcome of the test cannot be interpreted

31
GEOG3615 201234605

as statistically significant. The higher p-value compared to female life expectancies means that
there is a higher possibility that the small positive correlation observed by Rs is due to chance.

4.3.14 Visual analysis - Scatter Diagram.

Figure 11 provides a visual representation of the relationship between a change in male life
expectancy and Government grants. In line with the female sample, a skewed distribution is
present, therefore no strong direct linear relationship between the two variables is apparent. The
linear trendline once again represents the weak positive relationship, weaker than within the
female sample, confirmed by the Rs value calculated.

Southern authority Brentwood is a clear outlier here, with a -0.71% change in life expectancy
and a -37.79% change in Government grants experienced. Furthermore, Southern authority
Exeter felt a -0.48% change in life expectancy and a -29.24% reduction in Government grants.
Despite geographical region, the experiences of these example authorities fit the notion of a
relationship between the two variables.

Change in Life Expectancy vs. Government Grants - Male

6.00%

5.00%
% Change in Life Expectancy, 2010 - 2018

Tower Hamlets

4.00%
Islington
Woking
Dudley Hackney 3.00%
Hastings Richmondshire Lambeth
Oxford Milton Keynes
Sheffield
Warwick East Riding of Yorkshire Enfield 2.00%
North Somerset Rother
Chelmsford St Albans
Plymouth Lichfield Guildford Fylde
Melton Broxtowe York Harrogate
Dartford
Bassetlaw North Portsmouth Stockport1.00%
Warwickshire
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Bristol
Wakefield Carlisle Leeds
West Devon
BlackpoolKnowsley Scarborough North East Derbyshire
Kingston upon Hull, City of Tunbridge Wells
Hartlepool Stevenage
Watford 0.00%
-50.00% -45.00% -40.00% -35.00% -30.00% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00%
Southampton
Brentwood
ExeterMiddlesbrough -1.00%

Change in Government Grants, %

32
GEOG3615 201234605

Figure 11. Scatter diagram showing the relationship between a change in Government grants and a
change in male life expectancies, %. Data sources: Alexiou and Barr (2020); ONS.

4.2.15 Comparison of Local Authorities with Falling Life Expectancies and their Level of
Change in Government Grants, 2010 – 2018.
Assessing average changes in life expectancy alone does not tell an accurate story. Table 7
displays the comparison of changes in life expectancy and changes in central Government
grants for the twelve authorities in the sample achieving a reduction in life expectancy. Seven
out of twelve (58%) are Northern authorities. Five of these are within the most deprived Quintile
1, and three are within Quintile 2. Firstly, we can see that those experiencing falling life
expectancies are more likely to be those authorities classed as most deprived. Furthermore,
the table shows us that there is not a straightforward linear relationship between austerity and
life expectancy, for example, Portsmouth with the largest change in life expectancy of -0.82%
experienced the lowest reduction in Government grants, -17.51%. Despite this, a correlation can
be seen in certain local authorities. Brentwood achieved the second-largest reduction in life
expectancy of -0.71% while also facing the highest reduction in Government grants, -37.79%.
Broxtowe achieved the third-largest reduction in life expectancy, -0.48%, and the second
greatest reduction in central Government grants, -36.19%.

% Change in % Change in
Life Government
Quintile Region Area name Sex
Expectancy, Grants, 2010 -
2010 - 2018 2018
2 South Portsmouth Female -0.82% -17.51%
5 South Brentwood Male -0.71% -37.79%
4 North Broxtowe Female -0.48% -36.19%
4 South Exeter Male -0.48% -29.24%
3 North North East Derbyshire Female -0.47% -20.56%
1 North Middlesbrough Male -0.46% -29.05%
1 North Blackpool Female -0.40% -31.64%
2 South Southampton Female -0.22% -21.93%
1 North Kingston Upon Hull, City Female -0.16% -36.16%

33
GEOG3615 201234605

of
1 North Knowsley Female -0.14% -27.25%
Kingston Upon Hull, City
-0.08%
1 North of Male -36.16%
2 South Southampton Male -0.06% -21.93%
Table 6. Negative percentage change of life expectancy across all quintiles, compared with the change in
Government grants, 2010 - 2018. Data sources: Alexiou and Barr (2020); ONS.

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1. Introduction
The quantitative findings of this study, as shown in chapter 4, provide scope for discussion
surrounding the themes of austerity, deprivation and life expectancy. The statistical analysis of a
relationship between austerity and life expectancy failed to prove significant, however, there is
still room for discussion in the wider socioeconomic context of inequality within the UK.

In summary, the results of this project indicate that austerity has impacted all authorities
throughout the country. There are regional variances in terms of the allocation of central
government funding to local governments, with averages indicating larger cuts have been felt
within the North. Moreover, considering scores of Income Deprivation, the results show that
Northern authorities considered more deprived have experienced more austerity than their
Southern counterparts.

34
GEOG3615 201234605

The results additionally show that life expectancy has increased for 76% of the authorities within
the sample. Moreover, average changes in life expectancy are even across both regions, with
no distinct regional divide apparent. The relationship between austerity and life expectancy is
not determined to be statistically significant for this sample, but nevertheless remains slightly
positive, alluding to the findings of Alexiou et al. (2021) that local government spending has a
detrimental impact on health inequalities within this country.

This chapter will both examine the results of the data analysis and critically assess them in finer
detail, with reference to existing literature and theory, in order to meet the research objectives.

5.2 Relationship between Austerity and Deprivation

The first section of the results chapter supplements the discussion surrounding a change in
public expenditure and its impacts on areas facing high levels of deprivation. Analysis of related
literature highlights the influence of public service spending on various socioeconomic
outcomes, and the changes in the way local governments have been funded in recent years
have forced a streamlining of services and operations, directly impacting the populations they
serve (Local Government Association, no date (a)).

With Amin Smith and Phillips (2019) highlighting that local authority service spending has fallen
by 21% since 2009, the question is raised on who is feeling these cuts the hardest. Table 1 and
Figure 1 depict the average change in central Government grants for local authorities at the
national level, and by quintile, presenting all authorities within the sample to be bearing the
burden of austerity through significantly reduced central Government grants. This is supportive
of the consensus that the scale of austerity through the medium of local government is large
(Local Government Association, no date), with some quintiles in the sample experiencing cuts of
almost a third.

With the results empirically suggesting that all Income Deprivation Quintiles are experiencing
reductions in central funding, it appears initially that austerity does not discriminate based on
pre-existing inequalities of deprivation. Table 1 supports this, whereby the least deprived
quintile, Quintile 5, faced the largest average reduction in central grants. Despite similar
average cuts across all quintiles, the consensus of the wider literature remains that those
already in poverty or more vulnerable to deprivation are likely to suffer harsher consequences of
any similar spending restraints (Oxfam, 2013), and this cannot be disregarded. Less-deprived

35
GEOG3615 201234605

local authorities may be able to mitigate similar cuts to central Government funding than those
more deprived, by increasing their income generation through the medium of Business Rates
and Council tax, passing the burden on to their better-off populations. More deprived local
authorities may lack the power to follow suit, consistently unable to generate wealth from within
their own communities (Oxfam, 2013), as the use of regressive taxes will only further deepen
inequalities further (Bentley and Bettany, 2021).

It is when analysing the results with a geographical lens that differences in Income Deprivation
become most apparent. Consistent with discussion by Boseley (2020), local authorities most
deprived, and additionally located in the North, within this sample have experienced the highest
average cuts in Government grants, with Quintile 1 facing a -31.11% cut in grants, unmatched
by any other Northern region (see Figure 1). Furthermore, for the two most Income Deprived
Quintiles 1 and 2, larger reductions in Government grants are experienced in the North
compared to the South. In fact, Northern authorities faced higher average cuts in grants
compared to their Southern counterparts at both ends of the Income Deprivation scale (See
Figures 2 – 5), further alluding to the exacerbation of the North-South divide through
disproportionate austerity measures (Boseley, 2020). These findings support the need for policy
initiatives such as the Northern Powerhouse ‘levelling up’ introduced by the UK government in
order to address regional inequalities made worse by the post-2008 recovery policies of
austerity (MacKinnon, 2020).

5.3. Relationship between Life Expectancy, Austerity and Deprivation

Regional health inequalities within Britain are a cause for concern for those working to align
socioeconomic outcomes, with the blame consistently placed upon the government and their
perceived neglect of the most vulnerable and deprived parts of our nation (Reid, 2022). On top
of this, Marshall et al. (2019) stress the consensus that life expectancy inequalities between the
richest and poorest in Britain have widened in the past ten years. The government has
previously blamed stalling life expectancies on harsh winters and the flu virus (Boseley, 2020
and Dorling, 2014), we hypothesise there to be more to the story. Concerning the second and
third objectives of this project, this notion incentivised the exploration of the changes in life
expectancies between different Quintiles of Deprivation and regions for this project, making
space for analysis regarding the influence of austerity on these inequalities.

36
GEOG3615 201234605

Average life expectancies throughout this research sample tended to rise for both female and
male estimates, regardless of region or Income Deprivation Quintile. These results firstly are in
line with the fact that life expectancies are still rising, but their growth is slow in comparison to
gains made before 2011 (Marshall et al., 2019). Life expectancy improvements are typically
attributed to improved healthcare, reduced incidence of disease and better lifestyle choices in a
population (Brown, 2015). Slower gains, or in some cases, stalling life expectancies, as seen by
the data within this project, can be attributed to, at least in part, the pressures faced by social
and health care services (Raleigh, 2021), which may in turn be accredited to austerity, as well
as issues such as the vulnerability of the elderly to disease (Dorling, 2014). What is clear here,
is that whilst positive average changes in life expectancy within the sample appear to be
optimistic at first, the reduction in growth rate over time presents an issue for society. Whilst
beyond the realms of this study, this extra analysis should be considered for further exploration.

The closer analysis of individual quintiles justifies the inclusion of deprivation within this study,
as three local authorities within the most deprived Quintile 1 experienced a fall in their female
life expectancy estimates over the time frame. Two authorities within Quintile 1 also
experienced a fall in male life expectancy, both being located in the North-East. This supports
data presented by Marshall et al. (2019), whereby females residing in the most deprived areas
of Britain face decreasing improvements in life expectancies, and work from the likes of the
Office for National Statistics, which states that reductions in life expectancy are statistically
significant amongst those living in the most deprived regions (Office for National Statistics,
2019b). The geographic location of these local authorities appears to be mostly in line with an
evaluation by White (2020), highlighting the North-East to be the location with the lowest life
expectancies.

Ultimately, the data proves that the sample Northern local authorities within Quintile 1, the most
Income Deprived, have performed worst in terms of gains in life expectancy. This is in favour of
the hypothesis that the level of deprivation coupled with regional location will negatively
influence life expectancy. When experiencing the highest level of deprivation, life expectancy
growth appears to be more likely to stall or slow when a local authority is in the North, based on
this sample. The historical aspects of the so-called North-South divide have a role here,
whereby deindustrialisation of the Thatcher era has been detrimental to the widening of
geographical inequalities within Britain (Martin, 1988). Moreover, the stalling of male life
expectancies within certain authorities fits the theory of many analysts in that the reduced ability

37
GEOG3615 201234605

for people to live a healthy life due to austerity measures is adversely impacting projected years
of living (Boseley, 2020).

The statistical analysis conducted to investigate a relationship between a change in both male
and female life expectancies, across all Income Deprivation quintiles, and the change in central
Government grants, resulted in statistic insignificance. Despite this, visual exploration of Figures
12 and 13, supplemented by both the correlation Coefficient’s (Rs) calculated, demonstrates a
slight positive relationship for both sexes. The insignificant results were again initially
unexpected, misaligning with the political and academic discourse around the negative linear
correlation between public spending and life expectancy outcomes (Boseley, 2020). Despite
this, and following critical evaluation, it is apparent that the limitations of the study’s sample size,
selection of the sample itself and the lack of control variables may have influenced this result.
Whilst being statistically insignificant, this is important within the context of this study, alluding to
the fact that with increased control for the external factors that assert influence on both
variables, it may be possible that the strength of this relationship may increase. It can therefore
be concluded that a small positive correlation does support discourse surrounding public
spending on health and social care, as well as the ability of the population to simply heat their
homes (Dorling, 2014), and what this means for life expectancies.

This research project and the surrounding literature remain clear; there is no single driver of life
expectancy change, but rather an accumulation of societal influences. There is additionally no
confirmed consensus amongst experts on the answer to the stalling and falling life expectancies
Britain is now faced with, which can again be attributed to the variety of complex factors that
come into play when assessing the composition of a population’s health and socioeconomic
wellbeing (Marshall et al., 2019). Despite this, the analysis of outcomes explored throughout this
project proposes an association between public spending and life expectancy change, allowing
room for further research to confirm this.

5.4. The North-South divide

The results of this project prove inconclusive regarding an overall regional variance within the
UK. However, despite the tested relationship between central Government austerity and life
expectancy being statistically insignificant, the theme of regional inequalities is seen throughout
the datasets, alluding to the discussion of a North-South divide and its prevalence within our
country.

38
GEOG3615 201234605

For the two most Income-Deprived Quintiles within this sample, the average change in central
Government grants proved to be higher for local authorities in the North compared to the South.
Within the time frame, the Northern local authorities within Quintile 1 saw the highest average
reduction in Government grants, -31.33%. This proposes the fact that when the factors of
deprivation and regional location are combined, the most deprived within the North are suffering
the most from changes to grants.

Regardless of deprivation level, the North suffered more from larger overall central cuts to their
funding, as seen in Figure 1. This is expressed by Boseley (2020) and Bounds and Tighe
(2018), with a report by the think-tank Institute for Public Policy North finding that austerity
caused total public spending in the North to fall by £6.3 billion in real terms since 2009, in
comparison to total spending rising by £3.2 billion in the South-west and South-east (Raikes et
al., 2018). This is once again supported by the results in Figure 1. This alludes to the fact that
public spending at a total level, rather than analysis of specific central Government grants, will
be essential to explore this regional divide further.

The literature also discusses the so-called life expectancy gap between the North and South of
the UK in abundance, with areas in the Northern region consistently falling short of Southern
standards (Dalingwater, 2020). Despite this investigation’s insignificant results of an austerity-
life expectancy relationship at a national level, in some cases, the North massively under-
performs in comparison to the South in terms of estimated years of living. This is emphasised by
Bambra et al. (2018) and is evident further in findings by Woods et al. (2005), where their
findings undoubtedly show a North-South gradient of life expectancies within the UK. Examples
within the sample investigated fitting this narrative include the rise in both male and female life
expectancy within Deprivation Quintile 1, whereby across both male and female expectancies,
there were five incidences of a reduction in life expectancies. This is opposed to zero cases of
reduction occurring in Southern authorities.

With England having some of the worst health inequalities in Europe (Bounds and Tighe, 2018),
this variance in health has implications within a wider socioeconomic context. Healthier people
will perform better at work, enabling higher income per capita within an area and improving
living standards. Conversely, poor levels of health within a population will prevent an area from
making improvements in other areas of society such as education and general welfare, alluding

39
GEOG3615 201234605

to the cyclical spiral of inequality that runs deep through our society, that is notoriously hard to
escape.

When combining all the elements explored in this study; the level of deprivation, regional
location and estimates of life expectancy, some of the most deprived local authorities in the
North experienced the worst level of both austerity and change in life expectancy comparatively.
Woods et al. (2005) determine that geographical patterns of life expectancy occur as a direct
result of income deprivation, and we may further understand this through the historical lens of
the regional variations in deprivation and economic prosperity that were widened following the
deindustrialisation of the North (Balchin, 2021). Evidence from the sample investigated supports
this.

The apparent North-South divide that can be seen throughout this project continues to deepen
in reality, despite the government’s repeated rhetoric to ‘level up’ Northern parts of the UK. The
levelling up and Northern Powerhouse agenda, pursued by the Conservative government since
2014, is consistently portrayed as an agenda full of empty promises and one that is chronically
underfunded, which can be attributed to imbalanced measures of austerity (Coman, 2022). With
the neglect of investment in transport and infrastructure in the North, it is no wonder that there is
a stark disparity in outcomes resulting from the nationwide austerity policies that we have all
faced (Webb et al., 2021). Ultimately, this levelling up agenda must critically address health
inequalities as a matter of urgency, as this is the levelling up of most importance (Boseley,
2020), and is not listed as one of the main elements of policy (MacKinnon, 2020). Additionally,
the overall disparities in public and private investment also require transformation to achieve
geographic rebalance in the economy and within society.

40
GEOG3615 201234605

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Further Research

6.1 Conclusions
With local governments being a vital component of national performance (Local Government
Association, no date), sufficient sustained funding and support from the central government are
essential for development and prosperity to be translated onto a national scale.

Austerity following the 2008 financial crisis has further exposed a complex socioeconomic
pattern of unevenness within Britain (Montgomerie, 2016 and MacKinnon, 2020). The steps
taken to tighten public budgets and solve the debt crisis were stressed as necessary time and
time again by the Government and further afield. However, what was initially downplayed was
the severe social and economic burdens and imbalance placed upon society as a direct result of
the constraints. Unequal austerity measures have exacerbated levels of inequality within the
nation, with regional variances of income, health, education and life expectancy outcomes
suffering significantly (Lord Sainsbury of Turville, 2021).

41
GEOG3615 201234605

This study has explored the impact of this central government austerity on local authority-
provided public services, with a specific reference to the macroeconomic indicator of life
expectancy. This exploration found that whilst no significant statistical relationship between life
expectancy and austerity was found, there remains a positive relationship between them,
indicating life expectancy to be yet another area of public life that has not escaped the cuts.
Furthermore, a bridge has been built to display how these impacts differ depending on
geographical location and deprivation level, alluding to the ever-deepening regional inequalities
present within our society, with those most deprived within the Northern region facing deeper
funding cuts. With life expectancy trends representative of the general trend in health
inequalities within the UK, we can conclude that the UK is more divided than ever (Webb et al.,
2022), and that while the government has said it is working to reduce health inequalities, it must
work harder.

The results of this study can be assumed to underestimate the true extent of regional patterns,
however, provide a notable contribution to the discussion surrounding regional inequalities
within Britain. With this study displaying inequality to be apparent both between and within
regions, the government must work to address inequality from all viewpoints, rather than from a
strict North-South perspective.
Finally, as austerity policies are inherently controversial, they frequently act as the catalyst for
realising the need for societal change. With the consequences of austerity measures often
compelling great emotion amongst those hardest hit, adaptations through the combination of
central policy reforms and bottom-up fiscal control will be the essential driving force of change.
This change is obligatory to fix the inequalities present in both life expectancy and other
socioeconomic indicators, inequalities now more prevalent following the recent reductions in
public spending. If effective, this will prevent the profound negative effects suffered by our
nations’ most vulnerable from reoccurring, as the richest and most powerful prosper at their
expense. The chance of prosperity should be equal for all in a society, not dependent on which
part of the country one calls home.

6.2 Limitations and Future Research

There were various limitations to this research project, namely through the inability to control for
the vast number of variables which assert influence on both the estimates of life expectancy and
the level of austerity and local government spending within the British economy. Consequently,
methods of statistical analysis were limited in availability, discrediting the validity of the results

42
GEOG3615 201234605

presented. Furthermore, the time frame spanning eight years was small, and may not have
encompassed all impacts of the change in government policies, due to the time lag associated
with this.

Scope for further research on the themes present throughout this project is therefore very
apparent: to gain a true understanding of the real impacts of a cut in central funds on local
outcomes for people and governments, multiple complementary studies of high complexity and
large sample size must be carried out at a national scale. This must involve the control of
external variables. Research carried out in this way will allow government policymakers to
generate and adapt policies to mitigate the effects of tightening their fiscal stance when once
again deemed necessary in the future.

References
Agrawal, S. and Phillips, D. 2020. Catching up or falling behind? Geographical inequalities in
the UK and how they have changed in recent years. The IFS Deaton Review. [Online]. Institute
for Fiscal Studies. [Accessed 15 November 2021]. Available from:
https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/Geographical-inequalities-in-the-UK-how-they-have-changed.pdf

Alexiou, A. and Barr, B. 2020. Local Authority Finance: Central Government Funding
(FIN_07_50L). Place-based Longitudinal Data Resource. [Online]. [Accessed 29 December
2021]. Available from: https://pldr.org/dataset/

Alexiou, A., Fahy, K., Mason, K., Bennett, D., Brown, H., Bambra, C., Taylor-Robinson, D. and
Barr, B. 2021. Local government funding and life expectancy in England: a longitudinal
ecological study. The Lancet Public Health. 6(9), pp.641-647.

Allel, K., Salustri, F., Haghparast-Bidgoli, H. and Kiadaliri, A. 2021. The contributions of public
health policies and healthcare quality to the gender gap and country differences in life
expectancy in the UK. Population Health Metrics. 19(40), pp.1-11.

43
GEOG3615 201234605

Amin Smith, N. and Phillips, D. 2019. English council funding: what’s happened and what’s
next? [Online]. Institute for Fiscal Studies. [Accessed 10 January 2022]. Available from:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14133

Arriaga, E. E. 1984. Measuring and Explaining the Change in Life Expectancies. Demography.
21(1), pp. 83–96.

Balchin, P. N. 2021. Regional Policy in Britain: The North South Divide. Routledge Library ed.
Routledge.

Bambra, C.L., Munford, L., Brown, H., Wilding, A., Robinson, T., Holland, P., Barr, B., Hill, H.,
Regan, M., Rice, M. and Sutton, M. 2018. Health for Wealth : Building a Healthier Northern
Powerhouse for UK Productivity. [Online]. Newcastle: Northern Health Sciences Alliance.
[Accessed 25 October 2021]. Available from: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/146595/

Bentley, R. and Bettany, V. 2021. Raising Council Tax won’t fix local government. [Online].
[Accessed 5 April 2022]. Available from: https://cles.org.uk/

Boseley, S. 2020. Austerity blamed for life expectancy stalling for first time in century. [Online].
[Accessed 12 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020

Bounds, A. and Tighe, C. 2018. North-south divide opens up in England’s public spending.
[Online]. [Accessed 1 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/eb73fe92-f7d7-
11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c

Brown, G. C. 2015. Living too long: the current focus of medical research on increasing the
quantity, rather than the quality, of life is damaging our health and harming the economy. EMBO
Reports.16(2), pp.137-141.

Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burton, K. 2021. A country divided: Why England’s North-South divide is getting worse. [Online].
[Accessed 17 November 2021]. Available from: https://geographical.co.uk/uk/item/

Cheng, H. G. and Phillips, M. R. 2014. Secondary analysis of existing data: opportunities and
implementation. Shanghai archives of psychiatry. 26(6), pp.371–375.

Coe, N. and Jones, A. 2010. The Economic Geography of the UK. London: SAGE, pp.1-280.

Coman, J. 2022. England’s north-south divide is deepening, says new report. [Online].
[Accessed 2 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/

44
GEOG3615 201234605

Dalingwater, L. 2020. ‘Towards a New Health Deal for the North of England?’ in Bailoni, M. and
Nativel, C. 2020. Revisiting the UK’s North-South Divide: The Changing Face of the North.
French Journal of British Studies. 25(2), pp.1-167.

Daniulaityte, N. 2016. ICT tools usage in Virtual teams. Analysis of the correlation between the
ICT Tools capabilities & Virtual teams challenges. Masters thesis, Linnæus University.

Dorling, D. 2014. Why are the old dying before their time? How austerity has affected mortality
rates. [Online]. [Accessed 10 February 2022]. Available from:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics

Gardiner, B., Martin, R., Sunley, P. and Tyler, P. 2013. Spatially unbalanced growth in the
British economy. Journal of Economic Geography. 13(6), pp.889–928.

Gauthier, T. D. 2001. Detecting Trends Using Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient.

Environmental Forensics. 2, pp.359-362.

Gilmore, A., and Walmsley, B. 2016. The Implications of England’s Northern Powerhouse for
Cultural Democracy and Regional Cultural Policymaking. Seoul, Korea, Republic of:
International Conference of Cultural Policy Research. [Online]. [Accessed 16 December 2021].
Available from: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/

Gray, M. and Barford, A. 2018. The depths of the cuts: the uneven geography of local
government austerity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 11(3), pp.541-563.

Guetterman, T.C., Fetters, M.D. and Creswell, J. W. 2015. Integrating Quantitative and
Qualitative Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays. Annals
of Family Medicine. 13(6), pp.554-561.

Hunt, E. H. 1973. Regional wage variations in Britain, 1850-1914 Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jewell, H. M. 1994. The North-south divide: The Origins of Northern Consciousness in England.
Illustrated. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

LeBlanc, D. C. 2004. Statistics: Concepts and Applications for Science. Toronto: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers.

Lee, N. 2016. Powerhouse of cards? Understanding the “Northern Powerhouse”. Regional

Studies. pp.1-36.

45
GEOG3615 201234605

Local Government Association. No date(a). Local government funding, Moving the conversation
on. [Online]. [Accessed 10 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/

Local Government Association. No date(b). What is local government? [Online]. [Accessed 13

March 2022]. Available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/about/what-local-government

Lord Sainsbury of Turville. 2021. Levelling up the UK’s regional economies. [Online]. [Accessed
15 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.centreforcities.org/

MacKinnon, D. 2020. ‘Making Sense of the Northern Powerhouse’ in Bailoni, M. and Nativel, C.
2020. Revisiting the UK’s North-South Divide: The Changing Face of the North. French Journal
of British Studies. 25(2), pp.1-167.

Mackinnon, D. 2021. Governing uneven development: the Northern Powerhouse as a ‘state

spatial strategy’. Territory, Politics, Governance. 9(5), pp.613-635.

Marshall, L., Finch, D., Cairncross, L. and Bibby, J. 2019. Mortality and life expectancy trends in
the UK: stalling progress. Health Foundation. pp.1-41.

Martin, R. 1988. The Political Economy of Britain’s North-South Divide. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers. 13(4), pp.389-418.

Martin, R. 2008. National growth versus spatial equality? A cautionary note on the new ‘trade-
off’ thinking in regional policy discourse. Regional Science Policy & Practice. 1, pp.3-13.

Martin, R. 2010. Uneven regional growth: the geographies of boom and bust under New Labour.
In: Coe, N. and Jones, A. eds. The Economic Geography of the UK. London: SAGE, pp.1-280.

Massey, D. 1979. In what sense a regional problem. 13, pp.233-243.

McLennan, D., Noble, S., Noble, M., Plunkett, E., Wright, G. and Gutacker, N. 2019. The
English Indices of Deprivation 2019. Technical report. [Online]. [Accessed 21 April 2022].
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/

Miladinov, G. 2020. Socioeconomic development and life expectancy relationship: evidence

from the EU accession candidate countries. Genus. 76(2), pp.1-20.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2019a. Local authority revenue
expenditure and financing England: 2018 to 2019 individual local authority data – outturn.
[Online]. [Accesses 20 November 2021]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/

46
GEOG3615 201234605

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2019b. The English Indices of
Deprivation 2019 (IoD2019). [Online]. [Accessed 20 April 2022]. Available from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2020. Indices of Deprivation 2019:
income and employment domains combined for England and Wales - guidance note. [Online].
[Accessed 15 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/

Montgomerie, J. 2016. Austerity and the household: The politics of economic storytelling. British
Politics. 11, pp.418–437.

Mounfield, P. R. 1984. The Deindustrialisation and Reindustrialisation of the UK. Geography.

69(2), pp. 141–146.

OECD. [No date]. Inequality. [Online]. [Accessed 12 December 2021]. Available from:
https://www.oecd.org/social/

OECD. 2017. What have driven life expectancy gains in recent decades? A cross-country
analysis of OECD member states. [Online]. [Accessed 12 March 2022]. Available from:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/

Office for National Statistics. 2019a. Guide to calculating national life tables. [Online]. [Accessed
10 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/

Office for National Statistics. 2019b. Health state life expectancies by national deprivation
deciles, England and Wales: 2015 to 2017. [Online]. [Accessed 5 March 2022]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/

Office for National Statistics. 2020. Life Expectancy by Local Authority. Office for National
Statistics. [Online]. [Accessed 10 January 2022]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/

Office for National Statistics. 2021. Mapping income deprivation at local authority level. Office
for National Statistics. [Online]. [Accessed 5 March 2022]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/

Office for National Statistics. No date. ONS Research and Data Access Policy. [Online].
[Accessed 1 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/

47
GEOG3615 201234605

Oxfam. 2013. The True Cost of Austerity and Inequality, UK Case Study. [Online]. [Accessed 20
January 2022]. Available from: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/

Peet, R. 1975. Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers. 65(4), pp. 564–571.

Public Health England. 2017. Health profile for England: 2017. [Online]. [Accessed 10 February
2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/

Raikes, L., Millward, L. and Longlands, S. 2018. State of the North 2018: Reprioritising the
Northern Powerhouse. [Online]. 1st ed. Institute for Public Policy North. [Accessed 25 April
2022]. Available from: https://www.ippr.org/publications/state-of-the-north-2018

Raleigh, V. 2021. What is happening to life expectancy in England? [Online]. [Accessed 15

February 2022]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/

Reid, A. 2022. Life expectancy is falling in England’s most deprived areas. [Online]. [Accessed
30 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.bigissue.com/news/

Rowthorn, R. 2010. Combined and Uneven Development: Reflections on the North–South

Divide. Spatial Economic Analysis. 5(4), pp.363-388.

Schober, P., Boer, C., and Schwarte, L. A. 2018. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and
Interpretation, Anesthesia & Analgesia: 126(5), pp.1763-1768.

Siegel, M., Mielck, A. and Maier, W. 2015. Individual Income, Area Deprivation, and Health: Do
Income-Related Health Inequalities Vary by Small Area Deprivation? Health Economics. 24,
pp.1523-1530.

Socscistatistics. No date. Spearman's Rho Calculator. [Online]. [Accessed 1 May 2022].

Available from: https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/spearman/

SQW. 2016. Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review. [Online]. [Accessed 15

December 2021]. Available from: https://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/

Stuckler, D., Reeves, A., Loopstra, R., Karanikolos, M. and McKee, M. 2017. Austerity and
health: the impact in the UK and Europe. European Journal of Public Health. 27(4), pp. 18–21.

Tetlow, G. 2017. Productivity gap deepens UK’s north-south divide. [Online]. [Accessed 20
February 2022]. Available from: https://www.ft.com/

48
GEOG3615 201234605

Tily, G. 2015. There’s no productivity puzzle: it’s the consequence of austerity. [Online].
[Accessed 20 February 2022]. Available from: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/

Townsend, P. 1987. Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy. 16(2), pp.125-146.

Turan, B. 2020. Life expectancy and economic development: Evidence from microdata. Review
of Development Economics. 24(3), pp.949-972.

Walker, J. T. and Maddan, S. 2012. Statistics in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Analysis and
Interpretation. 5th ed. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Walsh, D., Bendel, N., Jones, R. and Hanlon, P. 2010. It’s not ‘just deprivation’: Why do equally
deprived UK cities experience different health outcomes? Public Health. 124(9), pp.487-495.

Webb, J., Johns, M., Roscoe, E., Giovannini, A., Qureshi, A. and Baldini, R. 2022. State of the
North 2021/22: Powering Northern Excellence. [Online]. 1st ed. Institute for Public Policy North.
[Accessed 20 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/state-of-
the-north-2021-22-powering-northern-excellence

Webster, D. 2005. Long-term unemployment, the invention of ‘hystersis’ and the misdiagnosis of
the UK’s problem of structural unemployment. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 29(6), pp.975-
995.

White, C. 2020. Life expectancy for local areas of the UK: between 2001 to 2003 and 2017 to
2019. Office for National Statistics.

Woods, L., Rachet, B., Riga, M., Stone, N., Shah, A. and Coleman, M. P. 2005. Geographical
variation in life expectancy at birth in England and Wales is largely explained by deprivation.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 59(2), pp.115-120.

49
GEOG3615 201234605

Appendices
Appendix A: Geographical split of Local Authorities per Quintile.

Quintile 1 Region
Knowsley North
Middlesborough North
Blackpool North

50
GEOG3615 201234605

Hartlepool North
Kingston upon Hull, City
of North
Hastings South
Hackney South
Tower Hamlets South
Islington South
Enfield South

Quintile 2 Region
Sheffield North
Dudley North
Wakefield North
Leeds North
Scarborough North
Bristol South
Lambeth South
Plymouth South
Portsmouth South
Southampton South

Quintile 3 Region
Stockport North
Carslile North
North East Derbyshire North
Newcastle-under-Lyme North
Bassetlaw North
Stevenage South
Rother South
Milton Keynes South
North Somerset South
West Devon South

Quintile 4 Region
East Riding of Yorkshire North
Broxtowe North
Lichfield North
North Warwickshire North
Fylde North
Dartford South
Exeter South

51
GEOG3615 201234605

Watford South
Chelmsford South
Oxford South

Quintile 5 Region
Harrogate North
York North
Melton North
Warwick North
Richmondshire North
Tunbridge Wells South
Guidlford South
Woking South
Brentwood South
St Albans South

Appendix B: Rankings of Life Expectancy change and Government grant change, Female and Male.

Female:

Rank of
% Change Change in Rank of
in Gov Gov % Change Change in
LA Quintile Region Grants Grants in LE LE
Portsmouth 2 South -17.51% 5 -0.82% 50
Broxtowe 4 North -36.19% 47 -0.48% 49
North East 3 North -20.56% 8 -0.47% 48

52
GEOG3615 201234605

Derbyshire
Blackpool 1 North -31.64% 38 -0.40% 47
Southampton 2 South -21.93% 11 -0.22% 46
Kingston upon
-36.16% 46 -0.16% 45
Hull, City of 1 North
Knowsley 1 North -27.25% 26 -0.14% 44
Watford 4 South -25.71% 20 0.00% 43
West Devon 3 South -26.58% 23 0.10% 42
Dudley 2 North -30.28% 34 0.10% 41
Melton 5 North -46.01% 50 0.11% 40
Stevenage 3 South -26.97% 24 0.23% 39
Plymouth 2 South -36.14% 44 0.23% 38
Middlesboroug
-29.05% 31 0.29% 37
h 1 North
Woking 5 South -21.19% 10 0.31% 36
Tunbridge
-22.18% 13 0.33% 35
Wells 5 South
Leeds 2 North -20.19% 7 0.34% 34
Chelmsford 4 South -32.52% 40 0.34% 33
Hartlepool 1 North -31.47% 37 0.40% 32
Bristol 2 South -25.66% 18 0.40% 31
Sheffield 2 North -27.24% 25 0.55% 30
Fylde 4 North -11.08% 1 0.60% 29
Rother 3 South -28.54% 29 0.65% 28
Stockport 3 North -11.97% 2 0.66% 27
North
-28.80% 30 0.69% 26
Warwickshire 4 North
Brentwood 5 South -37.79% 48 0.76% 25
Wakefield 2 North -32.51% 39 0.76% 24
Bassetlaw 3 North -36.15% 45 0.81% 23
Warwick 5 North -26.51% 22 0.81% 22
Exeter 4 South -29.24% 33 0.83% 21
York 5 North -30.45% 35 0.87% 20
Hastings 1 South -32.56% 41 0.96% 19
Scarborough 2 North -25.76% 21 1.00% 18
Milton Keynes 3 South -29.23% 32 1.12% 17
Guildford 5 South -24.21% 16 1.13% 16
East Riding of
-21.97% 12 1.20% 15
Yorkshire 4 North
Richmondshire 5 North -23.96% 15 1.20% 14
Enfield 1 South -14.85% 4 1.25% 13
Dartford 4 South -24.59% 17 1.29% 12

53
GEOG3615 201234605

Islington 1 South -23.93% 14 1.36% 11

St Albans 5 South -27.72% 28 1.39% 10
North
-42.17% 49 1.40% 9
Somerset 3 South
Carlisle 3 North -21.12% 9 1.41% 8
Lichfield 4 North -32.90% 42 1.50% 7
Newcastle-
-30.93% 36 1.62% 6
under-Lyme 3 North
Harrogate 5 North -27.38% 27 1.70% 5
Oxford 4 South -35.48% 43 1.97% 4
Tower Hamlets 1 South -25.68% 19 2.42% 3
Hackney 1 South -18.83% 6 2.56% 2
Lambeth 2 South -14.14% 3 2.63% 1

Male:

Rank of
Change in Change in Rank of
Gov Gov % Change Change in
LA Quintile Region Grants Grants in LE LE
Brentwood 5 South -37.79% 48 -0.71% 50
Exeter 4 South -29.24% 33 -0.48% 49
Middlesboroug
h 1 North -29.05% 31 -0.46% 48
Kingston upon
Hull, City of 1 North -36.16% 46 -0.08% 47
Southampton 2 South -21.93% 11 -0.06% 46
Stevenage 3 South -26.97% 24 0.10% 45
Tunbridge
Wells 5 South -22.18% 13 0.17% 44
Watford 4 South -25.71% 20 0.20% 43
Scarborough 2 North -25.76% 21 0.32% 42
North East
Derbyshire 3 North -20.56% 8 0.35% 41
Carlisle 3 North -21.12% 9 0.38% 40
Leeds 2 North -20.19% 7 0.45% 39
Hartlepool 1 North -31.47% 37 0.48% 38
West Devon 3 South -26.58% 23 0.57% 37
Knowsley 1 North -27.25% 26 0.71% 36
Bristol 2 South -25.66% 18 0.72% 35
Wakefield 2 North -32.51% 39 0.79% 34

54
GEOG3615 201234605

Bassetlaw 3 North -36.15% 45 0.87% 33

Stockport 3 North -11.97% 2 0.90% 32
Blackpool 1 North -31.64% 38 0.92% 31
Guildford 5 South -24.21% 16 0.97% 30
Dudley 2 North -30.28% 34 0.99% 29
Newcastle-
under-Lyme 3 North -30.93% 36 0.99% 28
Portsmouth 2 South -17.51% 5 1.01% 27
Dartford 4 South -24.59% 17 1.01% 26
Chelmsford 4 South -32.52% 40 1.04% 25
Broxtowe 4 North -36.19% 47 1.04% 24
Rother 3 South -28.54% 29 1.09% 23
Harrogate 5 North -27.38% 27 1.12% 22
North
Warwickshire 4 North -28.80% 30 1.14% 21
Melton 5 North -46.01% 50 1.16% 20
York 5 North -30.45% 35 1.19% 19
Sheffield 2 North -27.24% 25 1.21% 18
St Albans 5 South -27.72% 28 1.25% 17
Plymouth 2 South -36.14% 44 1.32% 16
Fylde 4 North -11.08% 1 1.33% 15
Warwick 5 North -26.51% 22 1.33% 14
East Riding of
Yorkshire 4 North -21.97% 12 1.34% 13
Lichfield 4 North -32.90% 42 1.37% 12
Milton Keynes 3 South -29.23% 32 1.58% 11
Enfield 1 South -14.85% 4 1.61% 10
North
Somerset 3 South -42.17% 49 1.78% 9
Hastings 1 South -32.56% 41 1.87% 8
Oxford 4 South -35.48% 43 2.24% 7
Lambeth 2 South -14.14% 3 2.62% 6
Richmondshire 5 North -23.96% 15 2.68% 5
Hackney 1 South -18.83% 6 2.92% 4
Woking 5 South -21.19% 10 3.12% 3
Islington 1 South -23.93% 14 3.33% 2
Tower Hamlets 1 South -25.68% 19 4.91% 1

55