PLAIN TEXT - Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge

Published September 2019.

We published a first iteration of the OCSI research earlier this year, inviting comments from academics, researchers, people in government and those living and working in the communities Local Trust is engaged with. This consultation was very valuable. It enable us to refine the methodology and identify additional or better data sources to illustrate area characteristics we were interested in. Thanks to everyone who participated. 

Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge was researched by Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) and published by Local Trust in August 2019.

Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge suggests that places to meet, connectivity – both physical and digital – and an active, engaged community are vital to secure better social and economic outcomes for people living in deprived neighbourhoods.

People in places which lack these features have higher rates of unemployment and child poverty, and their health is also worse than those living in other deprived areas. And the evidence is that they are falling further behind.

This independent research combines multiple national data sources to create a statistically-robust community needs index for the first time, helping policy makers target investment in social infrastructure.

About OCSI: Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) work with public and community organisations to improve services. We turn complex datasets into engaging stories, and make data, information and analysis accessible for communities and decision-makers. A spin-out from Oxford University, we have helped 100s of public and community sector organisations to make their services more efficient and effective. ocsi.co.uk.

Local Trust is a national charity focused on supporting residents in communities to develop their own solutions to local issues and problems. In each of 150 neighbourhoods across England we have committed funding of more than £1.1m, putting it directly in the hands of groups of local residents, giving them a unique opportunity to spend money and take the decisions needed to make their communities better places to live.

This radical and innovative funding programme – Big Local – is developing a body of evidence as to the potential that can be released when local people are trusted with funds and provided with the support they need to come together, build partnerships and tackle issues that have previously seemed intractable.

Big Local was founded in 2012 by a £217m endowment from the National Lottery Community Fund. When the NLCF identified the neighbourhoods that would benefit from the programme, these were, typically, places that – despite suffering from higher than average levels of deprivation – had missed out in the past from both lottery and statutory funding.

As the delivery agent for Big Local, Local Trust has, over the past seven years, gained direct and unique experience of the challenges faced by people trying to make a difference in their communities; the priorities they set for themselves when given choice about where resources should be allocated; and the issues that can prove challenging as they seek to achieve their aspirations.

Factors that have emerged as of particular importance to local residents who are given the freedom to allocate resources and effect change have, typically, included:

• Places to meet: Often within Big Local areas, communities that were not able to easily or affordably access places to meet or organise activities struggled to achieve impact. This does not just include traditional community centres and hubs, but also pubs, clubs and other leisure facilities. In many areas where these sorts of resources have disappeared, local residents have prioritised committing funding to community centres and hubs.
• Connectivity: Many Big Local areas are located in peripheral areas, and some suffer from poor access to local job markets and services such as health and education. This is often because of poor public transport and digital connectivity making it difficult for people to build the partnerships they need to improve the areas in which they live.
• An active and engaged community: When the Big Local programme was launched in communities without significant existing civil society activity and a resource of active and experienced individuals to draw on, many communities took a long time and required considerable support to organise themselves to start to make a difference. Areas where shops and other businesses had withdrawn also seemed to face bigger challenges. For many Big Local areas, building local civil society capacity and/​or supporting the development of local micro-enterprise have been early priorities.

The particular impact of these factors in Big Local areas led us to want to explore them beyond the confines of the programme, across England as a whole. We had two main objectives in mind. First, to gain insight to help us better support Big Local areas in delivering their ambitions. Second, and more general, to consider how these factors might cast light on the challenges deprived areas face as we approach the new decade.

Local Trust approached OCSI – the research and data consultancy who provide support to the UK Government in the development and maintenance of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) – to ask them to find out whether data existed that might allow these factors to be mapped and explored. The results of OCSI’s work are set out in this report. It suggests that multiply deprived areas, when combined with the absence of places to meet, the lack of an engaged community and poor connectivity, fare much worse than other deprived areas.

The research indicates that communities that suffer from a combination of these factors are distinctive and different from those that have traditionally been the focus of debate around deprivation. They fall into a category of place that has been described by some commentators as ​‘left behind’. This report is intended as a contribution to this discussion, and a first step towards initiating a wider debate about how these issues might be addressed, both nationally and locally.

Matt Leach, Chief Executive, Local Trust.

The research described in this report was commissioned by Local Trust from OCSI. It suggests that a lack of places to meet (whether community centres, pubs or village halls); the absence of an engaged and active community; and poor connectivity to the wider economy — physical and digital – make a significant difference to social and economic outcomes for deprived communities. Deprived areas which lack these assets have higher rates of unemployment, ill health and child poverty than other deprived areas. And they appear to be falling further behind them. This adds up to these areas being some of the most ​‘left behind’.

Our mapping shows that there is a concentration of such left-behind areas in post-industrial districts in northern England and in coastal areas in southern England. This was to be expected. What is notable is the extent to which this is also a phenomenon of post-war social housing estates on the peripheries of cities and towns and predominantly white populations. These are not the communities that have traditionally been the focus of debate about deprivation – these have tended to be multicultural and based in city centres.

The deterioration in the prospects of these left-behind areas is doubtless related to austerity and the cuts in public services and welfare benefits it ushered in. The research shows that these areas have suffered disproportionately. For example, despite their higher levels of need, average funding per head for local government services is lower than the average, not just for England but for deprived areas generally.

The analysis shows a strong correlation between a ward voting to leave the EU, and the lack of the three key factors we focus on in this report – places to meet, an engaged community and good connectivity. This might suggest that cultural and social factors – and the extent to which they have been neglected – may contribute significantly to how people feel about wider issues and, in particular, their satisfaction and engagement with the political process.

This report makes three recommendations to government.

• To dedicate the estimated £2bn in dormant assets from stocks, bonds, shares, pension and insurance funds that will soon become available to the proposed Community Wealth Fund to support the development of civic assets, connection and community engagement in the most left-behind neighbourhoods.
• To dedicate an appropriate portion of the £3.6bn Stronger Towns Fund and the proposed Shared Prosperity Fund to support community economic development in these neighbourhoods.
• To establish a joint, cross-government/civil society task force to consider evidence about and develop recommendations for how left-behind areas might be levelled up.

Our aspiration is to use this research as the foundation for a more in-depth programme of research and policy work, to develop more detailed proposals to improve the prospects of left-behind areas. We invite organisations and individuals interested in helping us to develop this programme to contact the policy team at Local Trust.

The new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in his speech in Manchester on 27th July, said that the government would start ​‘answering the pleas of some of our left-behind towns’ and put ​‘proper money into the places that need it.’ He was referring to a £3.6bn Stronger Towns Fund which will support an initial 100 towns. Notably, he said this cash would not simply be for ​‘improved transport and improved broadband connectivity’, it would also ​‘help with that vital social and cultural infrastructure, from libraries and art centres to parks and youth services: the institutions that bring communities together, and give places new energy and new life.’

He also referred to the ​‘even more radical shift that we need to make’ which is for ​‘local people [to] have more of a say over their own destinies’ (1). Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, in an interview with Der Spiegel last Autumn said: ​‘I think a lot of people have been totally angered by the way in which their communities have been left behind’ (2). The Labour Party’s strategy for civil society, From Paternalism to Participation, has the tag line ​‘putting civil society at the heart of national renewal’ and contains proposals to increase public participation in decisionmaking. It recognises that communities need places to meet and access to funding, and commits dormant assets to ​‘communities that have seen the highest levels of disinvestment’ (3).

The term ​‘left behind’ is controversial and contentious (see the box). Despite this, it is increasingly used by academics, commentators, journalists, policy-makers and politicians as shorthand to describe areas of the country that are lagging behind economically. Recent literature on left-behind places has strong roots in analysis of the growth of populism. Much has been written since 2016 about the ​‘geography of discontent’, in particular by London School of Economics professor Andrés Rodríguez Pose. He writes that the areas that have ​‘witnessed long periods of decline, migration and brain drain, those that have seen better times and remember them with nostalgia, those that have been repeatedly told that the future lays elsewhere, have used the ballot box as their weapon’ (4).

The gist of the argument is that these areas feel a sense of grievance that they have been ignored by the political process – that no action has been taken in response to their long-term decline – and that votes, such as that in the UK in the 2016 referendum, are a protest. Others have argued that disaffection with the current political settlement has also been driven by austerity which has stripped away valued local services and facilities and resulted in benefit cuts. This implies that political disaffection may not be purely a response to economic factors but is also based on a loss of belief in the ability or willingness of the state to meet basic social needs.

The term ​‘left behind’ is controversial and contentious. It has been argued that it is patronising because, for example, it suggests that the residents of left-behind areas are trapped in rosy nostalgia for past glories (5). Some suggest that a better term would be ​‘held back’ because the policy neglect of these areas has been blatant (6).

A strong objection to the term is that ​‘it ignores the value and potential these areas have… a rich and diverse heritage..[which is] often undervalued, but remains central to people’s identities and local pride’ (7). We do not use it to imply that the areas so described lack people with skills and commitment or a rich heritage. We know from our experience of the Big Local programme that the reverse is generally the case. However, they have tended not to receive a fair share of the investment available and therefore lack the services and facilities that many of us take for granted. It is these services and facilities that help to connect people in a community and bind them together. 

Some research suggests that ​‘left behind’ may actually be a term that at least some of the people living in the areas commonly described as such identify with (8). It is also a term that people seem to instinctively understand, which has political, social and cultural resonance. This is why, despite its difficulties, and in the absence of better, we decided to use it for the research described in this report. We intend, as we develop work on this theme, to consult people living in the areas we are concerned about on the language they would like used to describe their areas.

Although there is a lot of commentary about left-behind areas, there is little in the way of granular analysis of their locations or their characteristics. Local Trust commissioned the research from OCSI described in this report in order to fill this gap.

We wanted to test a hypothesis based on Local Trust’s experience of supporting 150 partnerships of local residents across England to improve their neighbourhoods through the Big Local programme. This experience suggests to us that, while area characteristics that reflect deprivation are obviously important, other factors come into play. And that, if areas both lack places to meet and an engaged community and suffer from a lack of connectivity – physical and digital – they feel and regard themselves as being left behind.

Most of what is written about left-behind areas tends to focus on their economic circumstances within the context of the leave vote. The argument is that areas voted leave in the EU referendum because they are the places that have not received investment to regenerate their regional economy. This is problematic in two main ways.

Firstly, it leaves out consideration of the social and cultural, in addition to the economic, factors that might be associated with political disaffection. This research begins to probe these social and cultural factors as a starting point for considering how trust and engagement might be re-established.

Secondly, the debate is positioned at a level of geography to which most people don’t relate, at least in this context, because it is too large. And this is despite the fact that much discussion of left-behind areas tends to offer a psychological account. It emphasises the collective psyche of communities as having grown pessimistic and sceptical of government (9). This suggested to us the need to focus on the smaller geographical unit of the neighbourhood. This is a geography that is immediately recognisable by and relatable to the people who live there.

The analysis contained in this report is not intended to be definitive – we propose to add more datasets and make it more granular over time. This is therefore an interim report designed to respond to current political and policy interest. Our aspiration is to prompt a wider debate on the issues facing the communities it identifies, and to lay the foundations for a programme of work to develop proposals to improve their future prospects. 

This section provides a summary of the research methodology.

As a starting point we needed to determine the geographical unit we would use for the research. This was the subject of significant debate and prompted much comment from experts in the consultation we held earlier this year. We decided to base the analysis set out in this report on wards. The principal reason for selecting wards as opposed to the smaller Local Super Output Areas (LSOAs) was that wards align more closely with community boundaries and are of sufficient size to cover locally recognised neighbourhoods. The principal disadvantage of this approach is that ward-level data can mask variations in need at the very local level. OCSI has, however, run the analysis at the LSOA level and the results are broadly consistent with the ward-level data presented in this report. We will publish this analysis in due course.

As explained in the preface, we wanted in this research to explore our hypothesis about the features of neighbourhoods that in our experience tended to contribute towards them feeling the most ​‘left behind’. We sense-checked our initial analysis in the consultation with experts earlier this year, and they helped us to refine it into three distinct domains against which areas were assessed:

Civic assets 

Does the area offer access or provide close proximity to key community, civic, educational and cultural assets, including pubs, libraries, green space, community centres, swimming pools etc – facilities that provide things to do often, at no or little cost, which are important to how positive a community feels about its area?

Connectedness

Do residents have access to key services, such as health services, within a reasonable travel distance? Are public transport and digital infrastructure good? And how strong is the local job market?

An engaged community 

Are charities active in the area, and do people appear to be engaged in the broader civic life of their community?

Local Trust worked with OCSI to identify datasets that could capture civic assets, connectivity to other areas with more opportunities and an engaged community (see annex 1 which provides information about the data incorporated).

Data on these three domains was used by OCSI to develop a new community-needs index.

In developing the index, OCSI sought to ensure that the data used did not overlap with or double count factors that were present in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Having created the new index, we also sought to ensure that it did not simply replicate the IMD, despite its use of different data sources.

The research shows a positive correlation between a community’s place on the community-needs index and its position on the IMD. However, there are a large number of areas with high levels of community need which have low levels of deprivation, and vice versa. We are therefore content that the community-needs index is measuring and mapping factors that were distinctive from and additional to the IMD.

One very interesting finding is the strong association between a community’s position on the community needs index and the leave vote. The correlation is much stronger than between deprivation and the leave vote. This suggests that civic assets, connectedness and an engaged community are key building blocks to unite communities, and may reinforce the stake people feel they have in the country’s political and economic future.

Alongside this short report, we are publishing the OCSI slide pack on the research. This includes location maps for left-behind areas and graphs and charts of all the key data.

Having created a community-needs index, we were particularly interested in exploring the interaction between deprivation and community need. We therefore sought to explore the characteristics of areas that were ranked in the worst ten per cent in both the community needs index and the IMD.

This was intended to explore whether there were particular characteristics of areas that were both lacking in (or had lost) places to meet, an active and engaged community and adequate connectivity, but that also suffered from significant levels of economic and social deprivation based on existing accepted definitions.

If it could be argued that these places had been left behind in multiple ways, what did these areas look like, and what common challenges (if any) defined them and made them different from other communities and places to live?

This section describes the left-behind areas identified in the research, based on these demographic and socio-economic characteristics and compares them with other multiply deprived areas and the population of England as a whole.

Left-behind areas have a more youthful population compared to England as a whole (22.5% as against 19.1% of under 16s). They have experienced a smaller population increase than other areas. The average increase was approximately 5% between 2001 and 2017, compared with more than 17% in other deprived areas and 12% across England as a whole.

These areas are, typically, much more likely to be made up of White British residents. The proportion of people in left-behind areas identifying as White British is 88%; this is higher than the average across England (80%) and significantly higher than the average for areas that are similarly deprived in the IMD (61%).

They are also characterised as having higher levels of one-person households, cohabiting households and lone-parent family households compared with the national average. Some 38% of households with dependent children are headed by a lone parent (compared with 34% in other deprived areas and 25% across England as a whole).

Less than 49% of people in these areas own their own home, compared with more than 64% across England as a whole. 36.1% of people in them are living in social rented housing, slightly above the proportion in other deprived areas (33.3%) and nearly double the proportion for England as a whole (17.7%). This reflects the number of these areas which are peripheral housing estates. 

Before 2008, the unemployment rate in these areas was below that of other deprived areas. However, unemployment rose more sharply following the 2008 financial crisis and has remained higher than in other deprived areas ever since. It is more than double the national average and the gap has been growing in recent years.

Comparing left-behind areas with other deprived areas, jobs density (the number of jobs as a ratio of the working age population) is much lower. There are just over 50 jobs in these areas per 100 workingage adults, compared with more than 88 per 100 in other deprived areas.

The fact that there are fewer job opportunities locally means people need to travel further for employment. This is a particular challenge as car ownership is relatively low, and journey times on public transport to employment centres are longer than the average for other deprived areas.

The people living in these left-behind areas have lower skill levels than people in other areas. Our research found that 36% have no formal qualifications (compared with 31% of the population of other deprived areas and 22% across England), and only 12% of the adults are educated to degree level, compared with 18.4% in other deprived areas and 27% across England. A much smaller proportion of young people from the areas we classify as ​‘left behind’ (19.9%) are entering further education compared with other deprived areas (27.6%) and across England (37.5%). And there has been an increase in the attainment gap between pupils in leftbehind areas and their peers in recent years.

For those in work, pay is lower than across other deprived areas and a higher proportion of people are engaged in low-skilled occupations. 

The research shows that household income in left-behind areas is more than £7,000 lower on average than across England as a whole. The pattern when compared to other deprived areas is complicated, however, with a lower average household income in left-behind areas before housing costs are taken into account, and higher average incomes after they are taken into account. This is because these areas tend not to be located in places where housing is expensive.

Just under one in three working-age adults in left-behind areas is in receipt of at least one welfare benefit – higher than across other deprived areas and nearly double the benefit-claimant rate across England as a whole. Left-behind areas also differ from other deprived areas in that they contain a relatively high proportions of people receiving benefits due to illness and caring responsibilities. 

Just under one in three children in left-behind areas is living in poverty, higher than across other deprived areas and nearly double the national average. Left-behind areas are also falling behind other deprived areas in terms of achieving reductions in levels of child poverty. 

Left-behind areas have poorer health outcomes. Just under one in four (24%) of people in left-behind areas have a long-term illness, higher than across other deprived areas (20%) and England as a whole (18%).

These areas have a considerably higher incidence of lung cancer, more than 60% above the national average. Prevalence of coronary heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and kidney disease is also more marked. This is likely to be linked to higher levels of smoking and drinking and lower levels of healthy eating.

The research also shows that people living in left-behind areas are more likely to experience mental health issues.

What this research suggests is that civic assets, community engagement and connectivity, make a significant difference to social and economic outcomes for people and communities. Neighbourhoods which lack these features face a range of complex and related socio-economic challenges, and there is some evidence to suggest that they are falling further behind other deprived areas.

This deterioration is doubtless related to austerity and the cuts in public services and welfare benefits it ushered in. Both the spending allocation for local government and the welfare budget have reduced significantly. This is bound to have had an impact.

The research suggests that the areas we identify as left behind are suffering more than others. Despite the higher levels of need in these areas, average levels of funding per head for local government services are lower than the average, not just for England but for deprived areas generally. 

The research shows that there are 206 left-behind wards in England with a total population of 2,193,000. It maps these wards by region, illustrating their geographical spread.

Left-behind areas in the north-east are concentrated in former mining communities and fringe areas in Teesside and Tyne and Wear.

There are 45 wards in the north-east which fall into our category of ​‘left behind’. This represents 13.3% of the wards in the northeast (the highest percentage of any region). 

The highest concentrations are found in former mining communities around County Durham and the Northumberland Coast – Easington, Peterlee, Shildon, Stanley Ashington, Blyth and Newton Aycliffe, and around the periphery of larger towns in the region, including peripheral housing estates in Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar and Hartlepool.

Left-behind areas in the north-west are concentrated in the outlying areas of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, with additional concentrations in the fringes of Lancashire mill towns and the Cumbrian coast.

There are 52 wards in the north-west classified as ​‘left behind’ (the greatest number of any region), representing 5.6% of the wards in the north-west. 

The highest concentrations are found in and around the two largest conurbations in the region – Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

In Greater Manchester, the left-behind areas are clustered in outlying housing estates surrounding the city and its satellite towns including Harpurhey, Newton Heath, Leigh, Little Hulton and Moses Gate. There are also concentrations around Liverpool in neighbourhoods including Speke and Norris Green, as well as concentrations in smaller towns in the metropolitan areas of Runcorn, Kirkby, St Helens, Widnes, Skelmersdale and Wigan. There are also concentrations in coastal areas of Cumbria – Barrow, Workington and Whitehaven.

Left-behind areas in Yorkshire and the Humber are concentrated in outlying estates in the larger cities and towns.

There are 26 wards in Yorkshire and the Humber region classified as ​‘left behind’, representing 5.6% of the wards in Yorkshire and the Humber. 

The highest concentrations are found in the metropolitan local authorities of South and West Yorkshire including around Doncaster, Barnsley, Knottingley, Castleford, Maltby and the outlying estates of the larger cities, Holme Wood (Bradford), Belle Isle (Leeds) and Bransholme and Marfleet (Hull).

Map of ​‘left-behind’ areas in England

Map shows England with ​‘left-behind’ areas highlighted with red dots.

Left-behind areas in the east Midlands are concentrated away from the cities, in some of the larger towns throughout the region.

There are 17 wards in the east Midlands classified as ​‘left behind’, representing 2.0% of the wards in the region. 

There are no strong geographic concentrations of left-behind areas, with wards found in each of the counties. However, there are no left-behind areas in any of the four cities in the region (Nottingham, Leicester, Derby and Lincoln). By contrast, the highest concentrations are found in the major towns in the coalfield areas of Derbyshire (Chesterfield, Shirebrook) and Nottinghamshire (Mansfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield; the peripheral housing estates in the largest towns in Northamptonshire (Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough); and isolated pockets in small towns in Lincolnshire (Boston, Gainsborough).

Left-behind areas in the west Midlands are concentrated in the peripheral housing estates in the largest towns and cities (Birmingham, Coventry, Stoke, the Black Country, Telford and Worcester). 

There are 30 wards in the west Midlands classified as ​‘left behind’, representing 4.0% of the wards in the region.

In contrast to the east Midlands, the majority of left-behind areas in the west Midlands are located in the largest urban areas in the region, with the highest numbers to be found in and around Birmingham. The highest concentrations in the area are in East Birmingham (Lea Hall/​Shard end) and around south-west Birmingham (Longbridge). Left-behind areas are also found in the other large urban areas in the region: Coventry, Stokeon-Trent, Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Telford and Worcester. By contrast, there are no leftbehind areas in small towns or rural areas in the region.

Left-behind areas in the east of England are concentrated in seaside towns and around the Thames Gateway.

There are 16 wards in the east classified as ​‘left-behind’, representing 1.5% of the wards in the region. 

Left-behind areas are concentrated along the east coast – in the seaside resorts of Great Yarmouth, Jaywick, Walton-on-the Naze and Clacton; and in the towns of Basildon, Ipswich, and Wisbech.

Left-behind areas in the south-east region are concentrated in the north Kent coast and around the fringes of Portsmouth.

There are 15 wards in the south-east classified as left behind, representing 0.9% of the wards in the south-east. 

Left-behind areas in the region are concentrated around the Kent coast (Isle of Sheppey, Margate and Ramsgate, Dover and Folkestone) and around the fringes of Portsmouth and Southampton (North Havant, Paulsgrove) and Gosport (Rowner, Thronhill).

London and the south-west regions have only a small number of areas identified as left behind.

The left-behind areas are located in Gooshays on the outskirts of Romford, in the borough of Havering, and in Fieldway ward in New Addington (to the south of Croydon).

There are three wards in the south-west region identified as left behind – Littlemoor, on the outskirts of Weymouth; Hartcliffe and Withywood, on the edge of Bristol; and Boscombe West in Bournemouth.

Annex 2 provides an alphabetical list of wards which this research identifies as some of the most left behind.

The mapping shows that there is a concentration of left-behind areas in postindustrial areas in northern England and in coastal areas in southern England. This was to be expected. What is notable is the extent to which this is also a phenomenon of post-war social housing estates on the peripheries of cities and towns. 

The research shows that most people in left-behind areas live in urban locations – 47% in major conurbations and 43% in minor conurbations. However, predictably perhaps, London and inland areas of southern England encompass very few such areas.

The data analysis conducted by OCSI suggests that a lack of places to meet (whether community centres, pubs or village halls); the absence of an engaged and active community; and poor connectivity to the wider civic economy — physical and digital — are associated with particular deprived areas having notably worse outcomes than others. We would therefore describe these areas as some of the most left behind.

The research also suggests that many of the communities that suffer from this combination of factors are distinctive from those that have traditionally been the focus of debate around deprivation. They are not based in city centres, instead many live in social housing estates on the peripheries of towns and cities; neither do they tend to be communities that are multicultural.

The research shows a strong correlation between a ward voting leave and the lack of the three key factors we focus on in this report – places to meet, an engaged community and good connectivity. This might suggest that cultural and social factors – and the extent to which they have been neglected – may contribute significantly to how people feel about wider issues and, in particular, their satisfaction and engagement with the political process.

This research has significant implications for government at a national and local level.

First, we have to ensure that left-behind areas have the basic assets and conditions needed to promote their health and vitality. These include good public transport and broadband connectivity, but also vital civic assets such as libraries, pubs and community centres. Places to meet are important; so too is small scale funding to support the activities that bring people together and provide social glue, including walking clubs, knitting circles and befriending groups. For a small number of brave people, attending a community activity or event is the first step to community leadership – a leadership that can enable communities to address decades of under- investment.

The Big Local programme which operates in 150 neighbourhoods across England provides a model of what is possible. It shows that, with appropriate support, residents can develop and deliver the activities, services and facilities needed to improve their areas. And, with a relatively small annual spend, they can, over time, develop their confidence and capacity to raise additional investment to improve their area. This often includes investment to improve its economic prospects through, for example, community-owned affordable housing, renewable-energy schemes or initiatives to support micro-enterprises.

We believe that a significant, new, permanently-endowed fund – a Community Wealth Fund – is needed to support communities in left-behind areas to take control of their own futures, enabling them to develop civic assets and connectivity and to support community engagement. We are calling for this fund as one member of a broad-based alliance of more than 150 civil-society and some private-sector organisations.

The Community Wealth Fund Alliance has proposed that the fund should be independent from government, to enable it to operate long term without being prey to political fashion and in order for it to be flexible and patient. It should allow communities to go at their own pace and support them through setbacks – something that government or the public sector, or perhaps even independent funders who arguably have more scope, often feel uncomfortable with.

The alliance is asking government to dedicate the estimated £2bn in dormant (or unclaimed) assets from stocks, shares, pension and insurance policies to the Community Wealth Fund. And it is asking FTSE 350 companies to match this investment by donating a fractional percentage of their share capital.

Second, specific funding and capacity building are needed for left-behind areas to support them in developing and implementing community economic development plans. Such projects might include, as mentioned above, community housing or renewable-energy schemes or innovation hubs or co-working spaces. 

Often they will require a level of targeted investment and technical support beyond the scope of the Community Wealth Fund.

The government is making £3.6bn available for a Stronger Towns Fund. As yet little is known about the fund; a prospectus has not yet been published. The government has also said that it will consult on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – the UK replacement for European investment and structural funds — assuming we are leaving the EU. We hope that an appropriate proportion of this investment will reach the left-behind areas identified in this report that need it most.

We hope that distribution of these government funds will be based on the principles that leading economic geographers are now advocating. They are challenging the old orthodoxies that interventions designed to reduce inequalities between geographies would be inefficient, and that place and people- based interventions have to be traded off. They argue for ​‘place sensitive’ policies, that is, policies which take into account the particular opportunities, potential and constraints of each place; and that development should be ​‘distributed’, enabling ​‘as many actors and regions as possible to participate productively in the economy in a way that their capacities can expand’ regardless of the level of development or economic trajectory of the place’ (10). The suggestion is also that communities should be given more control over the decisions that affect them (11).

Third, the patterns revealed here should inform future policy across government departments and local government in order to level up areas that are left behind. 

We recommend that as a first step, the government works with civil society to set up a task force to pursue this agenda. One early collaborative project might be to build on this report by working to improve data on, and analysis of, areas that tend to be characterised and characterise themselves as ​‘left behind’.

Traditional approaches are regarded as inadequate to the challenge of the times. To give the last word to Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, we need to develop new approaches: ‘ ..[not] trying will only make things worse, bypass economic development opportunities, and lead to a world in which the revenge of the places that don’t matter will be fully justified as continued economic, social, and territorial conflict continues to erode the economic, social, and political foundations on which current and future well-being is based’ (12).

Indicator: Density of community-space assets 

• Details: This is conceptualised as the number of community and civic assets inside the community boundary or within 1km of it, divided by the number of people living in the community.. The following assets are included: public/​village hall/​other community facility, youth recreational/​social club, church hall/​religious meeting place/​hall, community service centre/​office, place of worship.
• Source: AddressBase.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Point Location.
• Notes: Details are not available on the how accessible the assets are to the community. It is also not possible to determine whether the asset is in use or vacant.

Indicator: Density of educational assets

• Details: This is conceptualised as the number of educational assets inside the community boundary or within 1km of it, divided by the number of people living in the community. The following assets are included: further education college, higher education college, children’s nursery/​crèche, first school, infant school, junior school, middle school, primary school, secondary/​high school, non-state secondary school, university, special needs establishment, other educational establishment.
• Source: AddressBase.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Point Location.
• Notes: Details are not available on the size of the educational assets, or how accessible they are to the community. It is also not possible to determine whether the asset is in use or vacant.

Indicator: Density of sport and leisure assets

• Details: This is conceptualised as the number of sports and leisure facilities inside the community boundary or within 1km of it, divided by the number of people living in the community. The following assets are included: public house/​bar/​nightclub, activity/​leisure/​sports centre, skateboarding facility, recreational/​social club.
• Source: AddressBase.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Point Location.
• Notes: Details are not available on the size of the assets or or how accessible they are to the community. Some of the facilities identified will have a cost associated with access, which could potentially exclude those on lower incomes in the community. It is not possible to determine whether the asset is in use or vacant.

Indicator: Density of cultural assets

• Details: This is conceptualised as the number of cultural assets inside the community boundary or within 1km of it, divided by the number of people living in the community. The following assets are included: library, reading room, museum/​gallery.
• Source: AddressBase.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Point Location.
• Notes: Details are not available on how accessible the assets are to the community. Some of the museums will not be free to enter, which will exclude some sections of the community. Some of the libraries and reading rooms will not have open access. It is not possible to determine whether the asset is in use or vacant.

Indicator: Green assets: a) density of green assets

• Details: This is conceptualised as the number of green assets inside the community boundary or within 1km of it, divided by the number of people living in the community. The following assets are included: public park/​garden, public open space /​nature reserve, playground, play area, paddling pool, picnic/​barbeque site, allotment, playing field, recreation ground.
• Source: AddressBase.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Point Location.
• Notes: This indicator is one of three components of the green assets indicator. Details are not available on the accessibility of the asset form within the community. Some assets are not open- access to the whole community, e.g. allotments and some of the play areas/​paddling pools. It is not possible to distinguish between these (though private parkland has been excluded). There is no information regarding the size or quality of the green space. It is not possible to determine whether the asset is in use or vacant. 

Indicator: Green assets: b) area of public green space

• Details: The percentage of an area that is covered by public parks and gardens. This is intended to complement the density of green assets indicator by providing additional information on the sizes of those assets which are not available from the density measure.
• Source: Ordnance Survey.
• Date: 2017.
• Granularity: Shapefile.
• Notes: This indicator is one of three components of the green assets indicator. Internal validation has revealed that some green spaces have been excluded from the ordnance survey data. 

Indicator: Green assets: c) parks and open space/​landscape and natural- heritage assets

• Details: A composite measure combining the following open-space indicators: number of parks and gardens (Grades I, II & 3) per 10,000 population, traditional orchards per 10,000 population, Green Flag parks (Heritage Award) per 10,000 population, national park/​heritage coast (square km per head), country parks (hectares per head), National Trust land (always open to public) (hectares per head), Blue Flag beaches per 10,000 population, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (hectares per head), Special Areas of Conservation/​Special Protection Areas/​Special Sites of Scientific Interest/​local nature reserves/​national nature reserves/​Ramsar Wetlands/​ancient woodlands (hectares per head), Wildlife Trust Reserves/​UNESCO Geoparks per 10,000 population, Ancient trees per 10,000 population.
• Source: Historic England/​Natural England/​Environment Agency/​Keep Britain Tidy/​Blue Flag/​The Wildlife Trust/​UNESCO/​Woodland Trust
• Date: 2016.
• Granularity: LA.
• Notes: This indicator is one of three components of the green assets indicator. Indicators will be standardised before being combined.

Indicator: Jobs density in the travel-to-work area

• Details: The number of jobs located in the area as a percentage of the working-age population in that area – this is to be used as a measure of economic opportunities locally. Data are taken from the Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) of approximately 80,000 businesses, weighted to represent all sectors of the UK economy. The BRES definition of an employee is anyone aged 16 years or over at the time of the survey, whom the employer pays directly from its payroll(s) in return for carrying out a full-time or part-time job or for being on a training scheme. This indicator will be calculated at travel-to-work-area (TTWA) level rather than at community- geography level, to reflect the fact that people typically commute outside of their local ward to work. TTWAs are a geography created to approximate labour-market areas. In other words, they are designed to reflect selfcontained areas in which most people both live and work. The current criteria for defining TTWAs are that at least 75% of the area’s resident workforce work in the area, and at least 75% of people who work in the area also live in the area. The area must also have an economically active population of at least 3,500.
• Source: BRES.
• Date: 2017.
• Granularity: TTWA. 
• Notes: This measure does not take into account the quality of the jobs, whether they are full- or part-time, on temporary or permanent contracts, or how easily accessible the core of the travel-to- work area is from the geography of the community.

Indicator: Travel time to key services by public transport/​walking

• Details: Travel times in minutes to key services by public transport/​walking/​cycling. The following services are included: primary schools, employment centres (Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) with more than 500 jobs), further education institutions, GPs, hospital, secondary schools, supermarkets. town centres. These statistics are derived from the analysis of spatial data on public transport timetables; road, cycle and footpath networks; population; and key local services.
• Source: Department for Transport (DfT).
• Date: 2016.
• Granularity: LSOA.
• Notes: Although the statistics are calculated to a high level of geographical detail, some assumptions and simplifications are necessary in the modelling (for example assigning the start point of journeys to a single point in each output area, road speeds, and interchange times for public transport). 

Indicator: Households with no car

• Details: The proportion of households who do not have a car or van. Figures are based on responses to the 2011 Census car ownership question, which asks for information on the number of cars or vans owned or available for use by one or more members of a household. It includes company cars and vans available for private use. This is included to supplement the accessibility and labourmarket indicators in this domain, to take account of the additional challenges in accessing services for those without access to private transport.
• Source: Census 2011. 
• Date: 2011.
• Granularity: Ward. 
• Notes: The count of cars or vans in an area is based on details for private households only. Cars or vans used by residents of communal establishments are not counted.

Indicator: Broadband speeds

• Details: A composite indicator of the average broadband download linespeed (Mbit/​s) for connections in the area, and the percentage of broadband connections in the area that receive low download speeds (less than 2 Mbit/​s).
• Source: OfCom.
• Date: 2017.
• Granularity: Postcode. 
• Notes: Due to variations in broadband performance over time, these data should not be regarded as a definitive view of the UK’s fixed broadband infrastructure. However, the information provided here may be useful in identifying variations in broadband performance.

Indicator: People living alone

• Details: Shows the proportion of households that comprise one person living alone (as a proportion of all households). Figures are self-reported and taken from the household composition questions in the 2011 census. This is included as a proxy measure of social isolation.
• Source: Census 2011.
• Date: 2011.
• Granularity: Ward.

Indicator: Voter turnout at local elections

• Details: Valid votes turnout (%) at the most recent local council elections.
• Source: Electoral Commission.
• Date: 2016, 2017, 2018.
• Granularity: Ward.
• Notes: There is some local variation in the frequency and dates of local elections, with different parts of the country going to the polls at different times and at different intervals. Caution is therefore advised when drawing direct comparisons between local areas, as the sociopolitical context varies from year to year with associated impacts on turnout rates. Another factor affecting turnout is whether the local election is concurrent with other elections (for example, turnout is generally higher when general elections coincide with local ones. We have included suggested steps to mitigate against this in the ​‘Approach to developing the indicator’ section. Frequency can also have an impact on turnout, with a risk of electoral fatigue in areas required to re-elect councillors annually.

Indicator: Registered charities per head

• Details: Registered charities in England by postcode.
• Source: Charities Commission.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Postcode. 
• Notes: This is based on the location of charities rather than on their area of operations (some will have a global focus). We plan to exclude large charities from this measure. This indicator is included in this theme to capture the level of thirdsector activity in the local area.

Indicator: Big Lottery funding per head

• Details: Combined total of grants made to local projects and organisations by the Big Lottery Fund between 2004 and 2015 per head of population (£). Figures are taken from data on grants made to projects and organisations in local areas in the UK by the Big Lottery Fund, from ward-grants data published by Big Lottery in conjunction with the 360Giving initiative. Big Lottery used the 360Giving standard to produce a file of all the grants made in 2004–2017.
• Source: Big Lottery (through 360 Giving).
• Date: 2004–2017.
• Granularity: Ward level.
• Notes: This is indicator is included in this theme to capture the level of third-sector activity in the local area.

Indicator: Grant funding per head from major grant funders

• Details: Combined grant funding from grant-giving organisations whose data has to be subject to the 360giving standard.
• Source: 360 Giving GrantNav data.
• Date: Various.
• Granularity: Postcode level.
• Notes: Data are based on the location of grant recipients rather than the location of their beneficiaries. This is indicator is included in this theme to capture the level of third-sector activity in the local area.

Indicator: SME lending by banks

• Details: Total value of lending to Small-Medium Enterprise (SME) businesses from key financial lenders (Barclays, CYBG, Lloyds Banking Group, HSBC, Nationwide Building Society, Royal Bank of Scotland and Santander UK in Great Britain).
• Source: UK Finance.
• Date: 2017/18.
• Granularity: Postcode sector.
• Notes: This is included in the active/​engaged community theme to capture the level of community business activity in the local area.

Indicator: Arts Council funding

• Details: The arts council publishes data on a range of its funding streams. There are geographic data available showing where all the 828 National Portfolio Organisations are located and how much each organisation receives in funding. There are also geographic data on where their grants are being spent.
• Source: Arts Council.
• Date: 2018.
• Granularity: Local authority. 

Indicator: Self-reported measures of community and civic participation

• Details: As part of the National Indicator Set programme, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) collected a series of indicators relating to community and civic participation. NI 3: civic participation in the local area (the proportion of the adult population who say they have, in the last 12 months, participated in a group which makes decisions that affect their local area); NI 6: percentage who have given unpaid help at least once a month over the last 12 months; NI 110 — young people’s participation in positive activities (the proportion of young people in school year 10 reporting participation in any group activity led by an adult outside school lessons (such as sports, arts, music or youth group) in the previous four weeks).
• Source: Place Survey (NI 3, NI 6) TellUs Survey.
• Date: 2008, 2009.
• Granularity: Local Authority.
• Notes: Data are constructed from surveys with a small sample size. Because of the small sample size, it is not possible to publish data at smaller geographies than localauthority level. Data are increasingly out of date, with no nationwide measure for each of these indicators published in the last 10 years.

Indicator: Leisure and culture participation a) culture and heritage participation

• Details: A combined indicator derived from responses to the Taking Part survey to produce the following indicators: % of local authority population visiting a heritage site at least three times in the past 12 months; % of local authoritypopulation visiting a museum or gallery at least once in the past 12 months; % of local authoritypopulation visiting an archive at least once in the past 12 months.
• Source: Taking Part survey.
• Date: 2011–2013.
• Granularity: LA.
• Notes: Data are constructed from surveys with a small sample size. Because of the small sample size, it is not possible to publish data at smaller geographies than local-authority level. These data will be standardised and combined with the participation in sport indicator (see row below)to produce an overall leisure and culture participation indicator.

Indicator: Leisure and culture participation b) participation in sport

• Details: These data show the modelled estimated percentage of adults (aged 16+) who are classed as ​‘active’. People are described as being active if they have done at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity equivalent (MIE) physical activity (excluding gardening) in the previous week. Activity is counted in moderate-intensity- equivalent minutes. whereby each ​‘moderate’ minute counts as one minute and each ​‘vigorous’ minute counts as two minutes. Moderate activity is defined as activity where you raise your breathing rate; whereas vigorous activity is defined as one in which you are out of breath or sweating (you may not be able to say more than a few words without pausing for breath).
• Source: Sport England (Active Lives Adult Survey).
• Granularity: MSOA.
• Notes: Data are derived from survey data with a small sample size, which have been modelled down to small-area level, based on local characteristics. Sport England has modelled its ​‘active lives activity’ estimates to produce smallarea estimates at MSOA level. More information about the data modelling process can be found in Sport England’s SAE technical document: sportengland. org/ourwork/partnering-localgovernment/small-areaestimates/.

Indicator: Strength of local social relationships

• Details: This is calculated by combining responses to the following questions: ​“To what extent would you agree or disagree that people in this neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood?” (Community Life Survey); ​“The friendships and associations I have with other people in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me.” (Understanding Society Survey); ​“I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours.” (Understanding Society Survey); ​“I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood.” (Understanding Society Survey); ​“I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my neighbourhood.” (Understanding Society Survey); ​“If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighbourhood.” (Understanding Society Survey).
• Source: Social life (constructed from responses to the Community Life Survey and Understanding Society Survey).
• Date: 2014–2015.
• Granularity: Output area.
• Notes: Data are modelled from the Community Life Survey and Understanding Society Survey (based on the sociodemographic characteristics of the local area). Caution should be applied when interpreting these results at small-area level because of the small sample size of the survey.

Ward, Local Authority:

• Abbey Hulton and Townsend, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Adwick le Street & Carcroft, Doncaster.
• Airedale and Ferry Fryston, Wakefield.
• Alton Park, Tendring.
• Appleton, Halton.
• Avondale Grange, Kettering.
• Aycliffe West, County Durham.
• Balderstone and Kirkholt, Rochdale.
• Barrow Island, Barrow-in-Furness.
• Bartley Green, Birmingham.
• Bede, South Tyneside.
• Belle Vale, Liverpool.
• Bentilee and Ubberley, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Berwick Hills & Pallister, Middlesbrough.
• Bestwood, Nottingham.
• Biddick and All Saints, South Tyneside.
• Bidston and St James, Wirral.
• Bilston East, Wolverhampton.
• Binley and Willenhall, Coventry.
• Bitterne, Southampton.
• Bloomfield, Blackpool.
• Blurton West and Newstead, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Bondfields, Havant.
• Boscombe, West Bournemout.
• Brambles & Thorntree, Middlesbrough.
• Bransholme East, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Bransholme West, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Breightmet, Bolton.
• Bridge, Ipswich.
• Brookside, Telford and Wrekin.
• Brunshaw, Burnley.
• Byker, Newcastle upon Tyne.
• Camp Hill, Nuneaton and Bedworth.
• Central & New Cross, Ashfield.
• Charlestown, Manchester.
• Cherryfield, Knowsley.
• Clarkson, Fenland.
• Cleadon, Park South Tyneside.
• Clifton South, Nottingham.
• Cliftonville West, Thanet.
• Clover Hill, Pendle.
• College, Northumberland.
• Coundon, County Durham.
• Cowpen, Northumberland.
• Craghead and South Moor, County Durham.
• Crewe St Barnabas, Cheshire East.
• Dane Valley, Thanet.
• Darlaston South, Walsall.
• De Bruce, Hartlepool.
• Dearne North, Barnsley.
• Dearne South, Barnsley.
• Deneside, County Durham.
• East Park, Wolverhampton.
• Eastcliff, Thanet.
• Eston, Redcar and Cleveland.
• Farnworth, Bolton.
• Fenside, Boston.
• Fieldway, Croydon.
• Folkestone Central, Shepway.
• Gainsborough East, West Lindsey.
• Gamesley, High Peak.
• Gawthorpe, Burnley.
• Goldenhill and Sandyford, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Golf Green, Tendring.
• Gooshays, Havering.
• Gorse Hill, Worcester.
• Grange, Halton.
• Grange, Gosport.
• Grangetown, Redcar and Cleveland.
• Greenhill, North West Leicestershire.
• Halewood South, Knowsley.
• Halton Brook, Halton.
• Halton Castle, Halton.
• Halton Lea, Halton.
• Hardwick and Salters Lane, Stockton-on-Tees.
• Harper Green, Bolton.
• Harpurhey, Manchester.
• Hartcliffe and Withywood, Bristol, City of.
• Harwich East, Tendring.
• Hateley Heath, Sandwell.
• Headland and Harbour, Hartlepool.
• Hemlington, Middlesbrough.
• Hemsworth, Wakefield.
• Hendon, Sunderland.
• Henley, Coventry.
• Hetton, Sunderland.
• Hodge Hill, Birmingham.
• Horden, County Durham.
• Hough Green, Halton.
• Hyde Godley, Tameside.
• Isabella, Northumberland.
• Jesmond, Hartlepool.
• Kings Heath, Northampton.
• Kings Norton, Birmingham.
• Kingshurst and Fordbridge, Solihull.
• Kingstanding, Birmingham.
• Kingswood & Hazel Leys, Corby.
• Kirkleatham, Redcar and Cleveland.
• Knottingley, Wakefield.
• Lee Chapel North, Basildon.
• Leigh West, Wigan.
• Little Hulton, Salford.
• Littlemoor, Weymouth and Portland.
• Longbridge, Birmingham.
• Longford, Coventry.
• Longhill, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Loundsley Green, Chesterfield.
• Maltby, Rotherham.
• Mandale and Victoria, Stockton-on-Tees.
• Manor House, Hartlepool.
• Marfleet, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Meir North, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Meir South, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Mersey, Halton.
• Mexborough, Doncaster.
• Middleton Park, Leeds.
• Miles Platting and Newton Heath, Manchester.
• Monk Bretton, Barnsley.
• Moorclose, Allerdale.
• Moorside, West Lancashire.
• Moss Bay, Allerdale.
• Nelson, Great Yarmouth.
• Newbiggin Central and East, Northumberland.
• Newgate, Mansfield.
• Newington, Thanet.
• Norris Green, Liverpool.
• North Ormesby, Middlesbrough.
• Northwood, Thanet.
• Northwood, Knowsley.
• Norton South, Halton.
• Oak Tree, Mansfield.
• Orchard Park and Greenwood, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Page Moss, Knowsley.
• Park End & Beckfield, Middlesbrough.
• Parr, St. Helens.
• Paulsgrove, Portsmouth.
• Pemberton, Wigan.
• Peterlee East, County Durham.
• Pier, Tendring.
• Pitsea North West, Basildon.
• Poplars and Hulme, Warrington.
• Princes End, Sandwell.
• Queensway, Wellingborough.
• Redhill, Sunderland.
• Rock Ferry, Wirral.
• Roseworth, Stockton-on-Tees.
• Rother, Chesterfield.
• Rush Green, Tendring.
• Sandhill, Sunderland.
• Sandwith, Copeland.
• Seacombe, Wirral.
• Shard End, Birmingham.
• Sheerness, Swale.
• Sheppey East, Swale.
• Shevington, Knowsley.
• Shildon and Dene Valley, County Durham.
• Shirebrook North West, Bolsover.
• Shotton and South Hetton, County Durham.
• Sidley, Rother.
• Simonside and Rekendyke, South Tyneside.
• Smallbridge and Firgrove, Rochdale.
• Smith’s Wood, Solihull.
• South Elmsall and South Kirkby, Wakefield.
• Southcoates East, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Southcoates West, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• Southey, Sheffield.
• Southwick, Sunderland.
• Speke-Garston, Liverpool.
• St Andrew’s, Kingston upon Hull, City of.
• St Anne’s, Sunderland.
• St Helens, Barnsley.
• St Marys, Tendring.
• St Michaels, Knowsley.
• St Oswald, Sefton.
• St Osyth and Point Clear, Tendring.
• Stacksteads, Rossendale.
• Stainforth & Barnby Dun, Doncaster.
• Staithe, Fenland.
• Stanley, County Durham.
• Stechford and Yardley North, Birmingham.
• Stockbridge, Knowsley.
• Stockland Green, Birmingham.
• Stockton Town Centre, Stockton-on-Tees.
• Talavera, Northampton.
• Tong, Bradford.
• Town and Pier, Dover.
• Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.
• Valley, Rotherham.
• Vange, Basildon.
• Wakefield East, Wakefield.
• Walker, Newcastle upon Tyne.
• Walton, Tendring.
• Warndon, Worcester.
• Warren Park, Havant.
• Washington North, Sunderland.
• Waterlees Village, Fenland.
• Weoley, Birmingham.
• West Heywood, Rochdale.
• West Middleton, Rochdale.
• Whiteleas, South Tyneside.
• Wingfield, Rotherham.
• Winton, Salford.
• Woodhouse Close, County Durham.
• Woodhouse Park, Manchester.
• Woolsington, Newcastle upon Tyne.
• Yew Tree, Liverpool.

1. gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-at– manchester-science-and-industry-museum. Accessed on 15th August 2019.
2. spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-labour-leader-corbyn-we-can-t-stopbrexit-a-1237594.html. Accessed on 15th August 2019.
3. labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Labour-Civil-Society-Strategy-June-2019.pdf. Accessed on 15th August 2019.
4. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés (2017) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11 (1).
5. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/17/britains-insecure-towns-left-behind. Accessed 15th August 2019.
6. citymetric.com/business/these-towns-and-regions-are-not-left-behind-they-are-held-back-3801. Accessed 15th August 2019.
7. The Royal Society of Arts, online article. No longer available.
8. ft.com/content/89bff8c8-95dd-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36. Accessed 15th August 2019.
9. For example, Watson, Matthew (2018), Brexit, the left behind and the let down: the political abstraction of ​‘the economy’ and the UK’s EU referendum. British Politics 13:17.
10. Iammarino, Rodríguez-Pose, and Storper, ​“Regional Inequality in Europe.” Quoted in The Brookings Institution (2018) Countering the geography of discontent — Strategies for left behind places.
11. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés (2017) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11 (1).
12. See note 11.