The real level of unemployment 2007, C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore, A Green

Tags: unemployment, claimant count, incapacity benefits, incapacity, industrial areas, Incapacity Benefit, government schemes, unemployment figures, ILO, unemployment benefits, Labour, age population, Labour government, robust estimates, unemployment estimates, definition of unemployment, Total Eastern South East London South West West Midlands East Midlands Yorkshire, Eastern South East London South West West Midlands East Midlands Yorkshire, hidden unemployment
Content: THE REAL LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT 2007 Christina Beatty, Steve Fothergill, Tony Gore and Ryan Powell Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University May 2007
2
Key points · This report provides a new assessment of the scale of unemployment across Britain. It considers not only the men and women included in the official `claimant count' but also the very large numbers diverted onto other benefits or out of the benefits system altogether. · An alternative set of `real unemployment' figures is presented for every district. The figures draw on several official sources. The estimates also involve comparisons with what has already been achieved in terms of jobs and benefit numbers in some parts of the country. · For Britain as a whole, in January 2007, the new figures point to 2.6 million unemployed, compared to just over 0.9 million on the claimant count. The difference is attributable to an estimated 1.7 million `hidden unemployed'. · The largest single group of hidden unemployed ­ around 1.0 million ­ are men and women who have been diverted onto incapacity benefits. They account for rather more than a third of the working-age adults on these benefits. · The other major group of hidden unemployed are those who are looking for work and available for work but not claiming either unemployment or incapacity benefits. · Whereas parts of southern England appear to have reached full employment, the real level of unemployment in extensive parts of northern industrial Britain still exceeds 10 per cent of the working age population. · Since 1997 the real level of unemployment is estimated to have fallen by just under 600,000, in contrast to the fall in claimant unemployment of 850,000. Virtually all this reduction in real unemployment occurred between 1997 and 2002. · The biggest reductions in real unemployment have occurred in some of the areas where unemployment was previously highest ­ though unemployment in most of these places still remains well above the national average. · The large fall in claimant unemployment, coupled with the relative invisibility of unemployment on incapacity benefits or off benefits altogether, has created the misleading impression that the unemployment problem is fading away. 3
4
THE REAL LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT 2007 Introduction `Unemployment' in contemporary Britain extends far beyond just the men and women who claim unemployment benefits. The claimant unemployed are just the most visible group. The many thousands who have been diverted away from claimant unemployment onto other benefits, or out of the benefits system altogether, need to be added in order to provide an overall picture. This report assesses the real level of unemployment across Britain's regions and districts. It is the third in a series, following similar studies in 19971 and 20022. Ten years ago, at the time of our first study, unemployment was still a key political issue and so was talk of `hidden unemployment', since virtually no-one placed much weight on the official figures being produced in the last years of the Conservative government. Our first report appeared just before the 1997 general election. The then Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, must have thought it made sense because his office asked if we could circulate it to all Labour candidates. It is particularly appropriate therefore to return to the same subject in 2007, after ten years of Labour government. We have deployed essentially the same methods as in the earlier studies, with a number of modest refinements. The central question however remains the same: what is the real level of unemployment? And how does it vary across the country? We are also able to make comparisons with our previous estimates and examine just how much has really changed under Labour. 1 C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore and A Herrington (1997) The Real Level of Unemployment, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University 2 C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore and A Green (2002) The Real Level of Unemployment 2002, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University 5
Two official measures, and their shortcomings An acute observer of statistics will be aware that there are two official measures of unemployment in the UK. Both have failings. Claimant count The claimant count is the measure of unemployment with the longest history, and the one that continues to be most widely quoted. The claimant count is the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits ­ mainly Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) but also a few who do not qualify for JSA and instead only receive National Insurance credits for unemployment. The claimant count has a number of advantages: it is available monthly, it is very up-to-date (the figures are only four weeks old when they are released) and it provides information for small areas such as districts and wards. No-one argues that the claimant count fails to measure exactly what it sets out to measure ­ the number on unemployment benefits. It is also a complete count, not a sample survey, so the figures are extremely reliable. The trouble is that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits falls well short of the totality of the unemployment problem. One issue is that the claimant count is heavily dependent on social security rules. The tighter the rules (ie the more restrictive the access to benefit) the lower the claimant count, and during the Conservative years in particular the rules governing access to unemployment benefits were tightened considerably. More importantly, Jobseeker's Allowance is only one of the benefits available to support jobless individuals ­ the other main ones are Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. Depending on the detailed rules and payment rates, there is the potential for diversions from claimant unemployment onto both these other benefits. In the UK context, what in practice has happened is that there has been a major diversion from unemployment onto incapacity benefits. 6
The point is that for well over a decade it has been entirely uncontroversial to observe that the claimant count understates the true level of unemployment. The trouble is that this has not stopped many uninformed commentators ­ and quite a few who should know better ­ continuing to quote the claimant count as if it were a reasonably accurate guide to the level of unemployment. ILO unemployment The alternative official measure of unemployment is the International Labour Organisation (ILO) measure. This counts anyone who: · Is out of work · And is available to start work in the next two weeks · And has looked for work in the last four weeks The ILO unemployment figures are derived from the Labour Force Survey, which is a large sample survey of households across the country. ILO unemployment data becomes available more slowly than the claimant count (about three months in arrears). Also, because it is based on a sample survey no figures are available for small areas (such as wards and some whole districts) and even the data that is published for districts is subject to an important Margin of error. This perpetuates reliance on the claimant count at the local level. Since 1997 the government's preferred measure of unemployment has been the ILO measure, despite the fact that in recent years this has generated unemployment figures more than half a million higher than the claimant count. Many of these additional ILO unemployed are ineligible to receive Jobseeker's Allowance because they have insufficient NI credits to entitle them to the `contribution-based' version and because they are disqualified from the means-tested `income-based' version of JSA by virtue of household income or savings. They could in theory still sign on to receive NI credits for unemployment (and thereby still count 7
as claimant unemployed) but they don't bother because there is no immediate financial incentive to do so. Particularly large numbers of women fall into this group of ILO unemployed who are excluded from the claimant count. Although they may be available for work and looking for work, if they have been out of a job for some while (often the case with women with children) and if they have a partner in work, their partner's income will disqualify them from income-based JSA. Likewise, a lone parent who has become available for work and is looking for work will often still be claiming Income Support rather than JSA. In addition, there are men and women who qualify as ILO unemployed who left their last job voluntarily or who were dismissed for misconduct, all of whom are automatically disqualified from JSA for a period. In theory the ILO measure of unemployment is independent of benefit rules, thereby getting around the great failing of the claimant count. It is based on individuals' actual labour market behaviour, not on what benefits they are receiving. In practice however, labour market behaviour and thereby the extent to which individuals meet the ILO criteria is not independent of the benefit system. In particular, if the benefit that an individual claims (such as Incapacity Benefit or Income Support) does not require them to look for work, and if they think there is no suitable work available for them, they will generally give up looking and thereby drop out of the ILO unemployment figures. In these circumstances their unemployment will be recorded by neither of the official measures. If, as DWP officials insist, only those people who meet the ILO criteria should really be counted as `unemployed' there is indeed no need to look any further. However, this ignores what has been happening in the real world. The specific benefits that non-employed men and women claim do affect whether they choose to look for work. A more inclusive view needs to take account of the fact that some unemployed men and women do give up looking for work and do fail to meet the stringent ILO unemployment criteria. A more inclusive view also needs to take account of the fact that some of the more generous benefits for the non-employed, to which some men and women will inevitably gravitate, involve little or no requirement to stay in touch 8
with the labour market. The net effect is that the ILO measure of unemployment badly understates the full extent of the problem. The diversion to incapacity benefits The largest distortion to both official measures of unemployment concerns the diversion of men and women onto incapacity benefits. This is now the subject of substantial academic literature3. Incapacity benefits are paid to non-employed men and women who are deemed too ill or disabled to be required to look for work. This differentiates them from JSA claimants, who all have to demonstrate that they are looking for work. Just over half the total claiming incapacity benefits receive Incapacity Benefit (IB) itself. IB is not means-tested, except in the case of post-2001 claimants with significant income from a personal or company pension. The sick and disabled with insufficient National Insurance (NI) credits to access Incapacity Benefit itself mostly receive means-tested Income Support with a disability premium4. A further group of longer-standing claimants with a high level of disability and poor NI credits receive Severe Disablement Allowance. Incapacity claimants5 are a substantial group but only in the last two or three years, as government attention has finally turned to IB reform, has the scale of the group 3 See in particular: C Beatty and S Fothergill (2005) `The diversion from `unemployment' to `sickness' across British regions and districts' Regional Studies, vol 39, pp 837-854 P Alcock, C Beatty, S Fothergill, R Macmillan and S Yeandle (2003) Work to Welfare: how men become detached from the labour market, CUP, Cambridge B Bell and J Smith (2004) Health, Disability Insurance and Labour Force Participation, Working Paper no. 218, Bank of England, London R MacKay (1999) `Work and nonwork: a more difficult labour market', Environment and Planning A, vol 31, pp 487-502 D Webster (2002) `Unemployment: how official statistics distort analysis and policy, and why' Radical Statistics, vol 79/80, pp 96-127. 4 These are sometimes referred to as `NI credits only' IB claimants 5 `Incapacity claimants' refers to the sum total of working age men and women in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, NI credits for incapacity, or Severe Disablement Allowance. This definition excludes claimants of disability benefits who are in work or above state pension age. 9
begun to seep into public consciousness. In all, incapacity claimants account for 2.7m non-employed adults of working age. This is three times more than the number of claimant unemployed. It is also nearly three times more than the number of lone parents claiming Income Support. Across Britain as a whole, incapacity claimants are by some margin the largest group of working-age benefit claimants. Moreover, their numbers are nearly four times greater than a generation ago and it seems impossible to explain the increase in health terms alone, especially at a time when general standards of health have slowly been improving, albeit with the smallest improvements among the most disadvantaged groups. It is not possible to claim incapacity benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time, so anyone out-ofwork on incapacity benefits will automatically be excluded from the claimant unemployment figures. For the jobless who suffer from health problems or disabilities, the differential in benefit payment rates creates an incentive to claim IB rather than JSA. The basic rates of Incapacity Benefit are a few pounds higher than the equivalent for Jobseeker's Allowance, but the principal difference is in the extent of means testing. For all JSA claimants, benefit payments are means tested after six months, and for many claimants it is means tested from day one. In contrast, Incapacity Benefit is not means tested for the majority of claimants, as we noted, and even means-tested Income Support with a disability premium is worth more than Income Support on its own. In addition, being an IB claimant involves a great deal less hassle: you don't have to sign on every fortnight, and you don't have to prove that you are looking for work. IB claimants also don't get drawn into compulsory New Deal programmes. Thus, for example, a long-term unemployed man in his fifties with a wife in work and a small pension from a former employer will not generally be entitled to means-tested JSA. In essence, his wife's earnings and his pension reduce or eliminate his JSA entitlement. But if he has sufficient NI credits to be entitled to Incapacity Benefit (which most men with a work history will have) he will receive a weekly sum irrespective of his wife's earnings or in most circumstances of his pension as well. 10
Of course, not all the unemployed can simply opt to claim incapacity benefits. They have to demonstrate a requisite degree of ill health or disability. The gatekeepers determining access to incapacity benefits are medical practitioners ­ in the first instance the claimant's own GP, but for claims beyond six months doctors working on behalf of the Government Agency Jobcentre Plus. In theory, to qualify for incapacity benefits a person must be unfit for work. In practice, the test applied by Jobcentre Plus, known as the Personal Capability Assessment, assesses ability to undertake certain basic physical tasks rather than an inability to do all kinds of work in all circumstances. Many older unemployed people have picked up injuries over the course of their working life, and there is the effect of simply getting older. On top of this, mental health problems such as stress, depression and drug and alcohol abuse are quite widespread. In practice, therefore, many of the unemployed with health problems or disabilities are able to claim IB rather than JSA. In doing so, they drop out of the claimant unemployment figures. What we are arguing is that the very large numbers claiming incapacity benefits hides unemployment. We are not suggesting that a substantial proportion of incapacity claims are somehow fraudulent. Rather, the point is that ill health or disability is not always an insuperable obstacle to employment, and that at least a proportion of the present-day 2.7m incapacity claimants could reasonably be expected to have been in work in a genuinely fully employed economy. Britain's coalfields provide perhaps the clearest example. In the days when large numbers of mines were still working the coalfields always had above average levels of incapacity, partly reflecting the impact on health of the coal industry itself. However, it was only when the closures began in earnest in the 1980s that the numbers on incapacity benefits really began to take off. In a 1996 study6 we asked why claimant unemployment was no higher in the coalfields than before the closures began. What we found was that the principal labour market adjustment in response to job loss had been a large withdrawal of men into `economic inactivity', which in 6 C Beatty and S Fothergill (1996) `Labour market adjustment in areas of chronic industrial decline: the case of the UK coalfields' Regional Studies, vol 30, pp 637-650. 11
turn reflected a huge surge in incapacity numbers. Repeating the exercise in 20057, we found that the job loss from the coal industry still cast a long shadow. Subsequent job growth in the coalfields had brought claimant unemployment down but the number of incapacity claimants still remained extraordinarily high. Job growth had clearly impacted on those closest to the labour market ­ the JSA unemployed ­ but had largely failed to reach those who had become more detached on incapacity benefits. Given that IB claimants tend to be an older group, with fewer formal qualifications as well as ill health, this was perhaps not surprising. In all, in 2004 a third of a million men and women of working age in the English and Welsh coalfields were out of the labour market on incapacity benefits. The coalfields illustrate a more general process and one that is central to understanding the role of incapacity benefits. IB claimants are not evenly spread around the country, but are disproportionately concentrated in the older industrial areas of the North, Scotland and Wales. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate this point. These maps show the share of working-age adults claiming incapacity benefits in each district in August 2006. The claimant figures are from the Department of Work and Pensions and are based on a 100% count, so they can be relied on as accurate. They show that there are exceptional concentrations of incapacity claimants in places such as South Wales, Merseyside, North East England and Clydeside. In many districts in these parts of the country, incapacity claimants account for more than 10 per cent of the entire population of 1659/64 year olds. What these areas have in common is that they all experienced large-scale job losses in the 1980s and 90s, especially from traditional industries. Conversely, in nearly all of the south and east outside London the proportion claiming incapacity benefits is well below 5 per cent. This pattern is exactly what could be expected as a result of the diversion of men and women onto incapacity benefits in areas where jobs have been harder to find. 7 C Beatty, S Fothergill and R Powell (2005) Twenty Years On: has the economy of the UK coalfields recovered?, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University (and forthcoming in Environment and Planning A). 12
To underline this point, Table 1 lists the top 20 districts in terms of the share of working age adults claiming incapacity benefits. The list is virtually a roll call of older industrial Britain. Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales tops the list, closely followed by Easington in County Durham. Both of these are former coalmining areas. Not a single London borough, and no other district south of a line from the Wash to the Severn, falls within the top 20.
Table 1 : Incapacity claimant rate, top 20 GB districts, August 2006
% of working age
1. Merthyr Tydfil
18.9
2. Easington
18.8
3. Blaenau Gwent
17.9
4. Neath Port Talbot
16.3
5. Rhondda Cynon Taff
15.8
6. Caerphilly
15.5
7. Glasgow
15.2
8. Knowsley
14.2
9. Barrow in Furness
13.6
10. Liverpool
13.5
11. Inverclyde
13.5
12. Bridgend
13.4
13. Hartlepool
13.3
14. Blackpool
13.1
15. Carmarthenshire
13.0
16. Barnsley
12.8
17. Wear Valley
12.8
18. North Lanarkshire
12.7
19. Burnley
12.7
20. Sedgefield
12.7
Sources : DWP, ONS Figures refer to Incapacity Benefit, NI credits for incapacity and Severe Disablement Allowance
13
Figure 1: Incapacity claimants, England and Wales, August 2006 % of working age population 12.5 and over 10 to 12.5 7.5 to 10 5 to 7.5 0 to 5 Data Sources: DWP Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 14
Figure 2: Incapacity claimants, Scotland, August 2006 % of working age population 12.5 and over 10 to 12.5 7.5 to 10 5 to 7.5 0 to 5 Data Sources: DWP Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 15
Measuring `real unemployment' Different measures of unemployment usually try to measure slightly different things, and the accuracy with which they do so varies. Our measure of `real unemployment' is no exception. The Appendix to the report considers the issues affecting our estimates, including potential omissions, overlap between the categories of unemployed and measurement issues. The crucial point is that our measure of real unemployment includes all those who could reasonably be expected to have been in employment in a genuinely fully employed economy. This is wider than either the claimant count (based on solely on benefit receipt) or the ILO measure (which includes only active job seekers). We set out to count all those who could reasonably be considered to be unemployed, regardless of whether they claim unemployment benefits or look for work. In practical terms, we define the `real level of unemployment' as the sum of three elements: · The claimant unemployed · The additional ILO unemployed · The hidden unemployed among incapacity claimants This definition differs a little from the one used in our 1997 and 2002 reports, as the Appendix explains. However, the core remains the same and we have revised the 1997 and 2002 estimates used here to place them on exactly the same basis as the 2007 estimates and thus allow reliable comparisons through time. The first element ­ claimant unemployment ­ is straightforward. Reliable figures for every district are published monthly by the Office for National Statistics from Jobcentre Plus records. The second element ­ the additional ILO unemployed ­ is conceptually straightforward but reliable measurement is complicated by the fact that the data 16
comes from a sample survey. The Office for National Statistics publishes ILO unemployment estimates for districts though not comprehensively, excluding many areas where the sample is particularly small. However, the published district figures are subject to an important margin of error, are prone to erratic fluctuations from year to year and do not always bear much relationship to the more robust (though narrower) claimant count. Our view is therefore that the ILO unemployment figures for individual districts are unreliable and instead we have used regional data in the calculations. Our estimates take account of the additional unemployed by making a flat-rate percentage addition to each district's claimant unemployment figure based on the difference, by sex, between claimant and ILO unemployment rates in each region. This is the same procedure as in the 2002 report. The third element ­ the hidden unemployed among incapacity claimants ­ is unavoidably more difficult to measure. In the 2002 report we used a sophisticated benchmarking approach to measure this element of unemployment and the same method has been deployed in producing the 2007 figures. For each district, a `benchmark' IB claimant rate has been generated that reflects: · The proportion of men and women presently claiming incapacity benefits in fully employed parts of south east England. This is intended to reflect what has already been shown to be achievable in parts of Britain where the demand for labour is very strong. · The underlying deviation in rates of incapacitating ill health between each district and the level in this fully employed part of south east England. Here we use historic figures, before the data became contaminated by the diversion from unemployment. The sum of these components generates a benchmark figure for each district that represents the `full employment IB claimant rate'. Excesses over this benchmark are deemed to be a form of hidden unemployment. The calculation has been carried out separately for men and for women. 17
The precise data sources and methods used in this calculation are explained in the Appendix to the present report. A worked example in Table 2, for men in Sheffield, will help clarify the method. This shows that in August 2006, 15,600 non-employed men of working age were incapacity claimants, representing 9.0 per cent of the male working age population of the city. At the same time, the corresponding rate in the fully-employed parts of south east England was 4.3 per cent. Sheffield has however always had a rather higher level of incapacitating ill health than this fully-employed part of the South. We estimate that this adds a further 1.6 per cent to the city's full employment IB claimant rate, which therefore comes in at 5.9 per cent. The difference between this benchmark and the actual level of IB claims ­ 3.1 per cent, or 5,400 men ­ is our estimate of hidden unemployment among this group of men in Sheffield. In effect, we estimate that just over a third of the city's stock of male incapacity claimants should be regarded as hidden unemployed.
Table 2 : Estimation of hidden unemployment on incapacity benefits : a worked example for men in Sheffield
no.
% working age
Male incapacity claimants, August 2006
15,600
9.0
BENCHMARK
(1) Male incapacity claimant rate in fully-employed parts of South
7,400
4.3
(2) Excess incapacitating ill health or
2,800
1.6
disability over fully-employed South
`Full employment IB claimant rate' for Sheffield
10,200
5.9
Hidden unemployment (Actual minus benchmark)
5,400
3.1
Sources : DWP and authors' estimates (see Appendix)
18
Figures 3 and 4 show our estimates of hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants in each district in August 2006. The figures mapped here combine men and women, and are expressed as a percentage of the total working age population (ie 16-59/64 year olds) in each district. There is a substantial part of southern England where the figures suggest there is little or no hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants. Some parts of northern England also fall into this category. But there is a smaller group of districts, mostly in the older industrial areas of the North, Scotland and Wales where the estimated hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants is particularly high. At the extreme, we estimate that 12 per cent of working age adults in Easington in County Durham, and 10 per cent in Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales, fall into this group. As a general rule, the districts where the overall IB claimant rate is highest are also the ones where the estimated hidden unemployment among IB claimants is greatest. This applies even after having taken account of the higher underlying level of incapacitating ill health in these places. Unemployment: the true picture Table 3 shows our estimates of the real level of unemployment in January 2007 for Great Britain as a whole. In January 2007 the claimant count measure of unemployment stood at just below 940,000. Approaching three-quarters of these claimants were men. In contrast, we estimate that the real level of unemployment was 2.6 million ­ nearly three times as much. This represents an unemployment rate, expressed as a proportion of the working age population, of 7.2 per cent8. 8 Important note: The unemployment rates used throughout the present report are expressed as a percentage of the working age (19-59/64) population, whereas the 1997 and 2002 reports used the (substantially smaller) economically active population as the denominator. This change is in line with the new practice of the Office for National Statistics. The effect is to lower all the unemployment rates in the present 2007 report and the unemployment rates quoted here cannot therefore be compared with those in the two earlier reports. 19
Figure 3: Estimated hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants, England and Wales, August 2006 % of working age population 6 and over 4.5 to 6 3 to 4.5 1.5 to 3 0 to 1.5 Data Sources: DWP and authors' estimates Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 20
Figure 4: Estimated hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants, Scotland, August 2006 % of working age population 6 and over 4.5 to 6 3 to 4.5 1.5 to 3 0 to 1.5 Data Sources: DWP and authors' estimates Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 21
Table 3 : The real level of unemployment, Great Britain, January 2007
Male
Female
Total
% of working age
Male Female
Total
Claimant count
691,000
247,000
939,000
3.7
1.4
2.6
Additional ILO unemployed
228,000
422,000
650,000
1.2
2.4
1.8
Hidden unemployed
560,000
450,000 1,010,000
3.0
2.6
2.9
on IB
REAL
1,480,000 1,120,000 2,600,000
7.9
6.4
7.2
UNEMPLOYMENT
Sources : ONS and authors' estimates (see Appendix)
The additional ILO unemployed account for 650,000. Although this represents a large addition to the claimant count it is important to remember that the inclusion of these men and women among the ranks of the unemployed is uncontroversial: as we noted, officially at least the ILO figures are the government's preferred measure of unemployment. Moreover, the scale of the disparity between the claimant and ILO figures has been apparent for some years. Nearly two-thirds of the additional ILO unemployed are women. We estimate that just over 1m more unemployed are hidden on incapacity benefits. Our figures indicate that 560,000 of these are men and 450,000 women. These are huge numbers, and in total this group of unemployed outnumber the claimant unemployed. However, these hidden unemployed actually represent fewer than 40 per cent of the headline total of incapacity claimants. In effect, we estimate that even in the context of full employment across the whole country, 1.7m of the headline total of 2.7m incapacity claimants would remain incapacity claimants. It is worth noting here that our estimate of 1m hidden unemployed on incapacity benefits matches
22
exactly the government's own declared target reduction in the number of incapacity claimants by 20169.
Table 4 : GB districts with the highest and lowest real unemployment January 2007
% of working age
HIGHEST
1. Easington
16.0
2. Blaenau Gwent
15.9
3. Merthyr Tydfil
15.3
4. Knowsley
14.9
5. Liverpool
14.5
6. Hartlepool
14.4
7. Glasgow
14.0
8. Middlesbrough
13.8
9. Neath Port Talbot
13.6
10. Barrow in Furness
13.4
11. Inverclyde
13.0
12. Caerphilly
12.9
13. West Dunbartonshire
12.9
14. Hackney
12.7
15. Blackpool
12.5
16. Great Yarmouth
12.2
17. Stoke on Trent
12.1
18. Birmingham
11.9
19. Halton
11.9
20. South Tyneside
11.9
LOWEST
402. Hart
2.7
403. Cotswold
2.7
404. Eden
2.7
405. Uttlesford
2.7
406. South Cambridgeshire
2.7
407. East Dorset
2.6
408. Kennet
2.5
Source : Authors' estimates (see Appendix)
9 Department for Work and Pensions (2006) A New Deal for Welfare: empowering people to work, DWP, London.
23
Table 4 shows the districts with the highest and lowest estimated real levels of unemployment. Easington in County Durham tops this list at 16 per cent of the working age population, closely followed by Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales. These are all former coalmining areas. Three substantial urban areas ­ Liverpool, Glasgow and Middlesbrough ­ also come within the top ten. In general, the list of districts with the highest unemployment is dominated by older industrial areas in Scotland, Wales, the North and West Midlands. The exceptions are two seaside towns (Blackpool and Great Yarmouth) and a single London borough (Hackney). At the other end of the scale, the districts with the lowest unemployment are nearly all in rural parts of southern England. Table 5 shows the estimated real level of unemployment by region and compares the figures with the claimant count. What is notable here is that the claimant count is low in all regions and that the differences between regions are small ­ less than two percentage points separates the highest and lowest regions (the North East and South East respectively). Shifting to real unemployment not only increases the overall level of unemployment but also substantially widens the gap between regions - on the real unemployment measure, unemployment in the North East is five percentage points higher than in the South East. Figures 5 and 6 map the estimates of real unemployment by district. These illustrate the extent to which continuing high unemployment is predominantly (though not quite exclusively) a characteristic of the older industrial areas of northern and western Britain. Even on the real unemployment measure, there is little to shift the impression that large parts of southern and eastern England outside London are effectively operating at or close to full employment. Some parts of northern England, such as rural North Yorkshire, also fall into this category. Within all regions there are high and low unemployment areas. Nevertheless, in places such as the Welsh Valleys, Clydeside, Merseyside and the industrial North East, the estimates suggest that unemployment remains substantial. 24
Table 5 : Unemployment by region, January 2007
% of working age
Claimant count
Real unemployment
North East North West Wales Scotland West Midlands London Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands Eastern South West South East
3.5
9.6
2.9
8.9
2.5
8.9
2.8
8.4
3.4
8.1
3.2
7.9
2.9
7.4
2.4
7.0
2.0
5.2
1.7
5.2
1.6
4.6
GREAT BRITAIN
2.6
7.2
Sources : ONS and authors' estimates (see Appendix)
25
Figure 5: Estimated real unemployment, England and Wales, January 2007 % of working age population 10 and over 8 to 10 6 to 8 4 to 6 0 to 4 Data Sources: see Appendix Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 26
Figure 6: Estimated real unemployment, Scotland, January 2007 % of working age population 10 and over 8 to 10 6 to 8 4 to 6 0 to 4 Data Sources: see Appendix Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 27
The change in unemployment since 1997
Our first estimates of the real level of unemployment were for January 199710, just four months before the present Labour government was elected. It is therefore particularly interesting to look back over the changes between January 1997 and January 2007 since in many respects this is an assessment of what has happened to unemployment under Labour. Our methods of estimating the real level of unemployment have evolved since 1997 (the Appendix describes the detailed changes) so in order to look back over the last decade we have re-calculated the 1997 estimates, and the intervening 2002 estimates, to place them on exactly the same basis as the new 2007 figures.
Table 6 shows the change in unemployment between January 1997 and January 2007. The first line in this table ­ the reduction in the claimant count ­ is well known. Claimant unemployment across Britain is now some 900,000 lower than in 1997, or approximately half its 1997 level. Around 80 per cent of this reduction has been among men. The 2007 headline figure of less than 1m claimant unemployed contrasts starkly with the 3m reached in the mid 1980s and early 1990s. The Labour government rightly trumpets this reduction in claimant unemployment as one of its more notable achievements. Table 6 : Change in unemployment, Great Britain, 1997-2007
Male
Female
Total
Claimant count Additional ILO unemployed Hidden unemployed on IB
-716,000 +221,000 -90,000
-182,000 +112,000 +80,000
-898,000 +333,000 -10,000
REAL UNEMPLOYMENT
-580,000
+10,000
Sources : ONS and authors' estimates (see Appendix) 10 C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore and A Herrington (1997) op cit.
-570,000
28
But the rest of Table 6 casts a less favourable light on Labour's achievement. The gap between ILO unemployment and the claimant count has grown, adding a further third of a million to any wider measure of unemployment. Although women make up a large share of the additional ILO unemployed, two-thirds of the growth in this group since 1997 has been among men. Likewise, Labour seems to have so far made few in-roads into the stock of hidden unemployed on incapacity benefits. Our estimates of the scale of this form of hidden unemployment reveal barely any change between 1997 and 2007, though there has been a modest shift in the numbers from men to women. To a great extent, this reflects Labour's failure to reduce the headline total of incapacity claimants except by more than a few thousand since 2003.
Overall, we estimate that the real level of unemployment has fallen by just 570,000 between 1997 and 2007, and the whole of this reduction has been among men, with no evidence of any reduction at all among women. This is still a worthwhile achievement, but it actually represents just an 18 per cent reduction in the estimated real level of unemployment compared to 1997.
Furthermore, as Table 7 shows, virtually the whole of the reduction in real unemployment occurred between 1997 and 2002 ­ in other words, in and around Labour's first term. This should come as no surprise to most labour market observers because for most of the present decade the claimant count has become stuck at just below 1m whereas the gap between claimant and ILO unemployment has continued to grow. The positive news for Labour is that we estimate that hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants fell by 140,000 between 2002 and 2007, offsetting the increase during the previous five years.
Table 7 : Change in total unemployment by period, Great Britain
1997-2002
2002-07
Claimant count Additional ILO unemployed Hidden unemployed on IB
-854,000 +155,000 +130,000
-44,000 +178,000 -140,000
REAL UNEMPLOYMENT
-560,000
-10,000
Sources : ONS and authors' estimates (see Appendix)
29
Figure 7: Change in real unemployment, England and Wales, 1997-2007 % of working age population Increase 0 to -1.5 -1.5 to -3 -3 to -4.5 -4.5 or more Data Sources: see Appendix Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 30
Figure 8: Change in real unemployment, Scotland, 1997-2007 % of working age population Increase 0 to -1.5 -1.5 to -3 -3 to -4.5 -4.5 or more Data Sources: see Appendix Digital Boundary Source: Geoplan 31
Figures 7 and 8 show the change in estimated real unemployment by district. The pattern is complex, reflecting local as well as national trends. As a general rule, however, the largest reductions have occurred in some of the districts where real unemployment was highest back in 1997, particularly the older industrial districts of the North, Scotland and Wales. Real unemployment still remains high in most of these places, but the changes since 1997 suggest that the gaps between the `best' and `worst' parts of the country are narrowing. Labour can therefore take pride in this aspect of its record. However, even in 1997 large parts of southern England were already close to full employment so there was little realistic prospect that unemployment would be reduced much further in many of these places. It was perhaps inevitable that if national unemployment was to fall after 1997, the largest reductions would have to occur in the places where unemployment was highest. Unemployment in a booming economy? In 1997, after two severe recessions during the Conservative years, it was not difficult for Labour politicians and economic commentators to believe that the real level of unemployment was far in excess of the official figures. Yet replicating essentially the same calculations in 2007 comes up with two apparently startling observations: · The real level of unemployment in 2007 is actually around 2.6 million · The real level of unemployment has only fallen by around a fifth since 1997 Neither of these observations sits easily alongside the popular perception of the contemporary UK labour market, which is that the economy is not far from full employment, that labour shortages are widespread, and that migrants from other countries have been needed to plug the gaps. Is there really still large-scale unemployment in an apparently booming economy? 32
The long period of economic growth that the UK economy has enjoyed since emerging from the recession of the early 1990s is real enough. The number of men and women of working age in employment is up by around 2 million since 1997. Unemployment, in contrast, has fallen by only 0.9m on the claimant count and 0.6m on our wider measure of real unemployment. The difference is accounted for by additional labour supply from other sources. Rising labour force participation by women ­ a long-established trend ­ and especially by women with young children, is part of the explanation, and the trend towards earlier retirement seems for the moment to have been reversed. International in-migration, especially since EU enlargement in 2004, also accounts for part of the gap. The economy has therefore been able to expand without mopping up most of the unemployed. The surge in migrants from the EU, especially Poland, appears to have occurred not so much because there are no unemployed to fill job vacancies but rather because the migrants are better able or more willing to fill the jobs that are available. To a great extent this is because after two decades in which there was widespread slack in the UK labour market, unemployment (on JSA or IB) has mostly come to rest with the groups least able to compete for jobs ­ the poorly qualified, the least healthy, and those approaching pension age. In contrast, in-migrants are often young, fit, well motivated, have more qualifications than the job requires, and are willing to take work at low rates of pay since this is more than they would earn at home. Unsurprisingly, it is therefore the migrants who are best placed to fill job vacancies. Moreover, although reliable figures are hard to come by, it is the parts of Britain where the labour market is tightest (such as London and the South East) that seem to have been the greatest magnet for migrants. The particular nature of Incapacity Benefit has added a further twist. As we explained, there are powerful incentives for the unemployed to claim Incapacity Benefit rather than Jobseeker's Allowance, provided of course that they can demonstrate the requisite degree of ill health or disability. However, claiming incapacity benefits is often a one-way ticket. Once on IB there is no requirement to look for work and most people do not do so. There are even fears that to look for work would bring into question the validity of an incapacity claim by demonstrating an 33
ability to work. As the duration on IB grows, the attractiveness to potential employers declines. So even though job loss may have been the initial cause of an Incapacity Benefit claim, job creation does not automatically trigger a move back into work. It is not surprising, therefore, that more than a decade of economic growth has brought down the numbers of JSA unemployed (who are required to stay in touch with the labour market) but largely failed to dent the numbers on incapacity benefits. Claimant unemployment has always been the most visible and most politically sensitive form of unemployment. These are the men and women who are not only out of work but also in receipt of benefit specifically because of their unemployment. These days, they are also under considerable pressure from jobcentres to look for work. In contrast, the additional ILO unemployed are often off benefit altogether, supported financially by other household members. The hidden unemployed on incapacity benefits are the least visible of all, since they are not even conventionally labelled as unemployed. As claimant unemployment has fallen much faster than other forms of unemployment, the impression has therefore inevitably taken root that the unemployment problem is fading away. The impression of falling unemployment has been reinforced by three other factors. One is that Labour' record is often compared not with the level of claimant unemployment it actually inherited ­ 1.6m in May 1997 ­ but with the much higher level of claimant unemployment, around 3m, that characterised many of the preceding Conservative years. A second factor is that the biggest reductions in unemployment have been among men. Men account for more than three-quarters of the fall in the claimant count since 1997, and indeed for all the estimated reduction in real unemployment. The out-ofwork male, in search of a full-time job and a `family wage', often still remains the stereotypical image of an unemployed person. Young unemployed males, too, are frequently seen as the prime source of crime and social disorder. By contrast, women's unemployment has traditionally been less visible, hidden away in the home and often off benefit. That the biggest reductions in unemployment among men have also occurred in the parts of the North, Scotland and Wales where male joblessness 34
was so endemic before 1997 has only added to the impression that the unemployment problem is on the wane. A third factor reinforcing the impression of falling unemployment is the new, more benign role of government schemes. In the 1980s and early 1990s they were widely seen as just a way of hiding unemployment. They are now a normal entry point to the labour market for many young people, with stronger elements of real training and job prospects rather than just make-work. The modest fall in real unemployment since 1997 therefore to some extent understates the true scale of Labour's achievement. Joblessness has fallen, and it has fallen most in some of the places where it was once highest. Above all, perhaps, there has been no return to unemployment on the scale of the Conservative years. Nevertheless, the surge in incapacity numbers still remains the principal way in which the labour markets of older industrial Britain have adapted to the major job losses of the 1980s and 90s. In these places, labour supply came into balance with lower labour demand not by out-migration or by the creation of conventional unemployment on a vast scale but by the withdrawal of enormous numbers of men and women from the labour market onto incapacity benefits. It is hard to dispute that at the time this increase occurred it was anything other than a form of hidden unemployment. Economic recovery has brought claimant unemployment in these places down but so far left incapacity numbers largely untouched. That there has been a sustained period of job growth, and that so many on incapacity benefits have given up looking for work, does not make the hidden unemployment among these claimants any less real. In a genuinely fully-employed economy, like that in parts of southern England, the incapacity numbers in Britain's older industrial areas would unquestionably be far lower. 35
Acknowledgements This report is the result of independent academic research, drawing on insights and findings from previous and on-going projects by the authors, in particular a number of projects over the last decade and a half funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The authors would like to thank Mike Foden and Carol Goodale for their practical help with the present report. All National Statistics and DWP data is Crown copyright material and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. 36
APPENDIX statistical methods and sources WORKING AGE POPULATION In the present report all unemployment rates are expressed as a percentage of the working age population. The previous reports in 1997 and 2002 used the economically active population of working age as the denominator. The change is consistent with the new practice adopted by the Office for National Statistics and typically has the effect of lowering the quoted unemployment rates by around a quarter. The working age population is also required at several intermediate steps in the calculations. Data specification and sources: (1) Mid-year population estimates by sex by district for 2005 (most recent available at the time of writing), National Statistics from Nomis website: www.nomisweb.co.uk (2) Population by age and sex, by district for 2001, from the Census of Population, National Statistics (from Nomis website) The mid-year population estimates are available for 15-64 (men) and 15-59 (women). These are adjusted to 16-64 and 16-59 on the basis of the proportion of 15 year olds in each district in 2001. CLAIMANT COUNT Data specification and source: (1) Claimant unemployment numbers by sex by district for January 2007, National Statistics (from Nomis website) ADDITIONAL ILO UNEMPLOYED Data specification and sources: (1) ILO unemployment rates by sex for each region for Nov 2006 ­ Jan 2007, from ONS, from the Labour Force Survey, National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk 37
The claimant unemployment rate for the region is deducted from the ILO rate to identify additional ILO unemployment. This flat-rate percentage figure, by sex, is converted into absolute numbers for each district using the population of working age. HIDDEN UNEMPLOYED ON INCAPACITY BENEFITS Data specification and sources: (1) Number of IB and SDA claimants of working age (including NI credits-only claimants) by sex by district, August 2006, DWP Information Directorate: Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS). The figures are a 100 per cent count of claimants. (2) `Permanently sick' aged 16+, by sex by district, from the 1981 Census of Population, ONS (3) Working age population by sex by district 1981, from the Census of Population, ONS DWP incapacity claimant numbers are converted into rates using the 2005 working age population as denominator. The 1981 sickness figures are also converted into rates using 1981 working age population. For each district the `full employment' benchmark comprises two elements: · The 2006 sickness claimant rate in seven counties in southern England where the economy is at or close to full employment. The counties are Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire (minus Portsmouth and Southampton), Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex. · The percentage point deviation in the rate of permanent sickness in each district in 1981 from the average rate of permanent sickness in these seven counties in 1981. The hidden unemployment rate is the difference between this benchmark and the incapacity claimant rate in each district in August 2006. Negative values are treated as zero. The rate is converted into absolute numbers using the 2005 working age population figures. In a small number of mainly rural districts the data on permanent sickness in 1981 is inflated by the location of large psychiatric institutions, which have virtually all subsequently closed. To adjust for this distortion, in the districts where according to the 1981 Census of Population the proportion of the working age population (men or women) living in such institutions exceeded one percent, the excess is deducted from the 1981 permanent sickness data for the district. 38
BOUNDARY CHANGES There were important changes to district boundaries in 1996, especially in Scotland and Wales, and in a few cases in 1997 and 1998. All the figures presented in this report are based on the new boundaries. Where 1981 data is unavailable on the new boundaries the figures used are population-weighted averages of constituent districts or part-districts. 1997 and 2002 ESTIMATES OF REAL UNEMPLOYMENT To provide comparability, the previous estimates of real unemployment for January 1997 and January 2002 have been re-calculated on exactly the same basis as the January 2007 figures. Reliability of the estimates Competing sets of unemployment figures do not all try to measure the same thing. The definition of real unemployment used here counts those who might reasonably be expected to have been in work in a fully-employed economy. They are counted whether or not they happen to be active job seekers or claimants of unemploymentrelated benefits. The figures presented in the present report are estimates. They are based on a particular definition of unemployment and on specific methods and data sources. Revised definition The definition of `real unemployment' in the present report is slightly narrower than the one used in the 1997 and 2002 reports. On this occasion, two groups have been excluded: · Men and women on government schemes · Hidden unemployed among early retirees In the 1997 report we took the view that everyone on government schemes should be counted among the unemployed. This was reasonable at a time when such schemes were widely regarded as just a diversion from recorded unemployment. The effect was to add 400,000 to the 1997 estimates of real unemployment. By 2002 the role of government schemes had changed, with many now acting as a normal, trainingbased route into employment. We therefore included only those on government schemes who did not have a contract of employment. This added 80,000 to the 2002 estimates. Since 2002 the role of government schemes has further evolved, and we have therefore chosen to omit the whole of this group from the present estimates. 39
In 1997 and 2002 we took the view that some of the `early retired' should be included with the unemployed, in that they would probably have been in work in a fully employed economy. This added 100,000 to the estimates of real unemployment in 1997 and 120,000 in 2002. However, the size of this group is very difficult to estimate and there are potential overlaps with Incapacity Benefit claimants. Other potential omissions The real unemployment figures do not include all those who might in the long run be drawn into employment. In particular, the figures exclude many women looking after children or home on a full-time basis. Whilst the active jobseekers among women in this position are included in the estimates, there is a further group among these women who might like to work but do not think there are appropriate opportunities available, especially jobs that fit around their domestic responsibilities. The experience of the UK economy over recent decades has been that it is possible to bring many of this group into employment. Their inclusion would further inflate the estimates of real unemployment. Overlap between categories Under social security rules, it is not possible to claim unemployment benefits and incapacity benefits at the same time. These elements of our real unemployment estimates are therefore mutually exclusive. There is however a modest overlap between the `additional ILO unemployed' and the `hidden unemployed on incapacity benefits'. Labour Force Survey (LFS) data shows that just under 3 per cent of incapacity claimants meet the ILO unemployment criteria (looking for work, available for work etc). This is equivalent to around 80,000 men and women across Britain as a whole. Their exclusion would reduce estimated real unemployment by 0.2 per cent. Conversely, there are significant numbers of claimant unemployed who fail to meet the ILO criteria. The LFS data for 2006 suggests that only 490,000 of the ILO unemployed claim unemployment-related benefits, whereas claimant unemployment is nearly twice that figure. On the other hand, the LFS is known to under-record benefit claimants. In the real unemployment estimates, all the claimant unemployed are deducted in calculating the `additional ILO unemployed'. In theory, the claimant unemployed who fail to meet the ILO criteria could be added to the estimates. Measurement issues There is a margin of error in all the estimates of real unemployment. One complication is that not all the base data is for January 2007. Another is that the 40
unreliability of LFS data at the district scale requires the use of regional figures to calculate additional ILO unemployment. The most significant issue concerns the reliability of the benchmarking procedure for estimating hidden unemployment among incapacity claimants. The benchmark is relatively sophisticated: for each district it attempts to reflect not only what has been shown to be possible in fully-employed parts of the country but also underlying local variations in incapacitating ill health. The resulting estimates (for previous years) have also been cross-checked against estimates derived by alternative methods, including comparisons with survey data. These comparisons are reported in full elsewhere11. The conclusion is that the benchmarking procedure generates estimates for Britain as a whole that are broadly comparable with those derived by other methods. In particular, the 2002 report compared the estimated number of hidden unemployed on incapacity benefits (for GB as a whole) with the number of economically inactive adults of working age who had a work-limiting health problem or disability but said they would like a job, from the Labour Force Survey. The two figures were 1.15m and 1.13m respectively. Repeating the same exercise using LFS data for July-September 2006 (to correspond to the August 2006 incapacity benefits data) generates a figure of 0.91m, compared to the hidden unemployment estimate of 1.01m. The benchmarking method followed here is the approach most likely to generate robust estimates at the district scale. The adjustment for underlying differences in the extent of incapacitating ill health is based on data from the early 1980s, before the figures became badly contaminated by the diversion from unemployment, but on many socio-economic indicators the pattern of inequality across Britain has changed only modestly in the intervening years. Comparison with other estimates The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) publishes two alternative estimates of unemployment in their journal Working Brief12, though not for districts. The first, `broad unemployment', includes the ILO unemployed plus the economically inactive who want to work and are available to start. This points to a UK figure of 2.3m for the three months to January 2007. The second, `labour market slack', includes the ILO unemployed, those on government schemes, the economically inactive who want to work and the full-time equivalent of under-employment by those who are working part-time because they cannot get a full-time job. This points to a UK figure of 4.3m for the three months to January 2007. Both estimates are based on Labour Force Survey data. Both CESI measures differ in concept from `real unemployment' as defined in the present report. `Labour market slack', in particular, is in principle a much wider measure. The real unemployment estimate for Great Britain in January 2007 is 2.6m. 11 C Beatty and S Fothergill (2005) op cit 12 Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (monthly) Working Brief, CESI, London. 41
Alternative measures of unemployment by region, January 2007
Eastern South East London South West West Midlands East Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber North West North East Wales Scotland Great Britain
Claimant Count
Male Female
Total
49,515 59,239 112,280 36,699 83,907 46,811 68,020 91,598 41,997 34,116 67,005
19,525 22,476 47,524 14,264 28,910 17,483 22,372 29,260 12,703 11,303 21,618
69,040 81,715 159,804 50,963 112,817 64,294 90,392 120,858 54,700 45,419 88,623
691,187 247,438 938,625
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
Eastern South East London South West West Midlands East Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber North West North East Wales Scotland
94,000 140,000 224,000 88,000 158,000 98,000 140,000 215,000 90,000 84,000 149,000
82,000 89,000 176,000 70,000 108,000 88,000 92,000 162,000 63,000 75,000 119,000
176,000 229,000 400,000 158,000 266,000 186,000 232,000 377,000 152,000 159,000 268,000
Great Britain
1,480,000 1,124,000 2,603,000
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
2.8
1.2
2.0
2.3
0.9
1.6
4.3
2.0
3.2
2.3
1.0
1.7
4.9
1.8
3.4
3.4
1.4
2.4
4.2
1.5
2.9
4.2
1.4
2.9
5.1
1.7
3.5
3.7
1.3
2.5
4.1
1.4
2.8
3.7
1.4
2.6
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
5.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
3.7
4.6
8.6
7.2
7.9
5.5
4.8
5.2
9.2
6.9
8.1
7.1
6.9
7.0
8.6
6.1
7.4
9.9
7.9
8.9
11.0
8.2
9.6
9.1
8.7
8.9
9.1
7.7
8.4
7.9
6.4
7.2
Unemployment rates are expressed as a percentage of working age population
42
43
Alternative measures of unemployment by district, January 2007
SOUTH EAST Berkshire Bracknell Forest Reading Slough West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Wokingham Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale Chiltern Milton Keynes South Buckinghamshire Wycombe East Sussex Brighton and Hove Eastbourne Hastings Lewes Rother Wealden
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
1.5
0.6
1.0
3.1
1.2
2.2
3.9
1.8
2.9
1.5
0.6
1.1
1.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.7
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.7
0.5
1.1
3.1
1.3
2.3
1.2
0.6
0.9
2.2
0.8
1.5
4.2
1.8
3.0
4.2
1.5
2.9
5.7
2.1
4.0
2.4
1.0
1.7
2.7
1.2
2.0
1.3
0.6
0.9
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
4.1
2.8
3.4
6.1
4.2
5.2
8.4
6.0
7.3
3.5
2.6
3.1
3.8
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.4
2.8
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.9
2.6
3.3
6.5
5.7
6.1
3.2
2.7
3.0
4.5
3.0
3.8
9.4
4.9
7.2
9.5
5.2
7.4
14.6
7.9 11.3
5.8
3.6
4.8
6.5
4.4
5.5
3.3
2.6
3.0
Real Unemployment Male Female Total
1,500 3,200 3,400 1,700 1,700 1,600
1,000 1,900 2,200 1,100 1,100 1,100
2,500 5,100 5,600 2,800 2,800 2,700
1,900 1,100 4,900 600 2,300
1,300 700 3,800 500 1,500
3,200 1,700 8,800 1,100 3,700
8,300 2,500 3,800 1,600 1,500 1,300
4,000 1,300 1,900 900 900 1,000
12,300 3,800 5,700 2,500 2,400 2,300
44
Hampshire Basingstoke and Deane East Hampshire Eastleigh Fareham Gosport Hart Havant New Forest Portsmouth Rushmoor Southampton Test Valley Winchester Isle of Wight Kent Ashford Canterbury Dartford Dover Gravesham Maidstone Medway Towns Sevenoaks Shepway Swale Thanet Tonbridge and Malling Tunbridge Wells
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.6
1.0
1.7
0.8
1.3
1.7
0.7
1.2
2.3
0.9
1.7
0.9
0.4
0.7
3.3
1.3
2.3
1.4
0.7
1.0
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.9
0.8
1.4
3.3
1.2
2.3
1.2
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.5
1.0
4.1
1.9
3.1
2.1
0.9
1.5
2.4
1.0
1.7
2.6
1.2
1.9
4.0
1.4
2.8
3.6
1.8
2.7
2.0
0.9
1.5
3.8
1.6
2.8
1.5
0.7
1.1
4.6
1.7
3.2
3.6
1.7
2.7
5.4
1.8
3.6
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.5
0.5
1.0
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
3.7
3.1
3.4
3.3
2.6
3.0
4.1
3.5
3.8
3.7
2.8
3.2
6.1
4.6
5.4
2.9
2.5
2.7
8.0
5.5
6.8
3.6
3.2
3.4
7.3
4.6
6.0
4.3
3.6
4.0
7.7
5.1
6.5
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.5
2.6
3.0
9.6
5.9
7.8
5.1
3.9
4.5
4.7
3.0
3.9
5.9
3.6
4.8
9.1
5.4
7.3
8.1
5.9
7.0
4.4
3.1
3.8
7.7
5.4
6.6
3.9
3.1
3.5
10.7
5.6
8.2
8.8
5.9
7.4
12.2
6.4
9.3
4.7
3.4
4.1
4.1
2.7
3.4
Real Unemployment Male Female Total
1,900 1,200 1,500 1,300 1,500 900 2,700 1,800 4,800 1,300 6,200 1,100 1,300 4,000
1,500 900 1,200 900 1,000 600 1,800 1,500 2,700 1,000 3,500 1,000 800 2,200
3,400 2,000 2,800 2,100 2,500 1,500 4,500 3,300 7,500 2,300 9,700 2,100 2,100 6,300
1,700 2,100 1,700 2,900 2,400 2,000 6,300 1,300 3,200 3,600 4,500 1,700 1,400
1,200 1,300 900 1,600 1,600 1,300 4,200 1,000 1,600 2,200 2,300 1,100 800
3,000 3,400 2,600 4,500 4,100 3,300 10,500 2,300 4,800 5,700 6,700 2,800 2,200
45
Oxfordshire Cherwell Oxford South Oxfordshire Vale of White Horse West Oxfordshire Surrey Elmbridge Epsom and Ewell Guildford Mole Valley Reigate and Banstead Runnymede Spelthorne Surrey Heath Tandridge Waverley Woking West Sussex Adur Arun Chichester Crawley Horsham Mid Sussex Worthing
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
1.6
0.7
1.2
2.2
0.8
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.7
1.3
0.6
1.0
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.1
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.9
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.9
0.7
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.7
1.6
0.6
1.1
2.1
0.9
1.6
2.4
1.1
1.8
1.9
0.8
1.3
2.2
0.9
1.6
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.8
2.2
0.8
1.5
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.4
2.8
3.7
3.3
2.5
2.9
3.1
2.5
2.8
3.0
2.4
2.8
3.0
2.4
2.8
4.0
3.3
3.7
3.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
2.5
2.8
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.9
2.8
3.4
3.2
2.6
2.9
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.1
2.4
2.8
3.6
2.6
3.1
5.7
4.6
5.2
6.3
4.1
5.3
3.9
2.8
3.4
5.9
5.1
5.5
3.5
2.7
3.1
3.2
2.5
2.9
6.6
3.4
5.1
Real Unemployment Male Female Total
1,700 2,500 1,300 1,200 900
1,500 1,500 900 800 700
3,200 3,900 2,300 2,000 1,600
1,300 900 1,500 800 1,400 900 1,100 800 800 1,100 1,100
1,000 700 1,000 600 1,100 600 700 600 600 800 700
2,200 1,500 2,600 1,300 2,500 1,500 1,800 1,500 1,400 1,900 1,800
1,000 2,600 1,200 1,900 1,300 1,300 1,900
700 1,500 800 1,500 1,000 900 900
1,700 4,100 2,100 3,400 2,300 2,200 2,800
46
EASTERN Bedfordshire Luton Mid Bedfordshire Bedford South Bedfordshire Essex Basildon Braintree Brentwood Castle Point Chelmsford Colchester Epping Forest Harlow Maldon Rochford Southend on Sea Tendring Thurrock Uttlesford Hertfordshire Broxbourne Dacorum East Hertfordshire Hertsmere North Hertfordshire
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
4.7
2.1
3.5
1.4
0.7
1.1
3.5
1.4
2.5
2.2
1.1
1.7
3.3
1.3
2.3
2.2
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.6
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.3
1.1
1.7
2.3
1.3
1.8
4.3
1.9
3.1
2.1
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.7
1.2
4.9
1.8
3.4
4.1
1.7
2.9
3.6
1.6
2.6
1.3
0.5
0.9
2.4
1.2
1.8
2.6
1.2
1.9
1.3
0.7
1.0
2.2
1.0
1.6
1.9
0.9
1.4
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
9.2
7.0
8.2
2.6
3.3
2.9
6.1
5.4
5.8
4.5
4.6
4.6
7.3
6.6
7.0
3.7
4.9
4.3
2.5
3.1
2.8
4.4
5.2
4.8
3.2
3.5
3.3
4.2
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.6
4.4
8.1
7.1
7.6
4.1
4.7
4.4
3.6
3.9
3.7
9.5
6.7
8.1
9.3
7.0
8.2
5.6
5.0
5.3
2.4
3.0
2.7
4.9
5.5
5.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
2.5
3.2
2.8
4.8
5.0
4.9
3.5
3.6
3.5
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
5,600 1,100 3,100 1,700
3,900 1,300 2,400 1,600
9,500 2,400 5,500 3,300
3,800 1,700 500 1,200 1,700 2,300 1,600 2,000 800 900 4,600 3,600 2,700 600
3,300 2,000 600 1,300 1,700 2,200 1,700 1,700 800 900 3,000 2,500 2,300 600
7,200 3,700 1,200 2,500 3,400 4,500 3,300 3,700 1,600 1,700 7,700 6,100 4,900 1,200
1,300 1,900 1,100 1,400 1,300
1,400 1,800 1,300 1,400 1,300
2,800 3,700 2,300 2,800 2,600
47
Hertfordshire (cont'd) St Albans Stevenage Three Rivers Watford Welwyn Hatfield Cambridgeshire Cambridge East Cambridgeshire Fenland Huntingdonshire Peterborough South Cambridgeshire Norfolk Breckland Broadland Great Yarmouth King's Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk Norwich South Norfolk
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
1.4
0.6
1.0
3.4
1.3
2.4
1.6
0.6
1.1
2.7
1.1
1.9
2.4
1.0
1.7
2.2
0.9
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.3
3.2
1.7
2.5
1.9
0.9
1.4
4.6
1.8
3.2
1.2
0.5
0.9
2.7
1.3
2.0
1.9
0.7
1.3
7.5
3.2
5.4
3.0
1.4
2.2
3.1
1.4
2.3
5.3
1.7
3.6
2.1
0.9
1.5
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
2.5
3.1
2.8
6.7
5.5
6.1
2.8
3.1
3.0
5.3
4.6
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.7
3.4
3.4
3.4
2.9
3.8
3.4
7.1
8.1
7.6
3.4
4.3
3.8
8.9
7.7
8.3
2.4
3.0
2.7
5.0
5.3
5.1
3.6
4.2
3.9
13.8
10.4 12.2
7.6
7.0
7.3
7.2
6.0
6.6
10.3
7.5
9.0
3.7
3.9
3.8
Real Unemployment Male Female Total
1,100 1,700 700 1,400 1,500
1,200 1,300 800 1,100 1,400
2,300 3,000 1,500 2,600 2,900
1,600 700 1,900 1,800 4,600 1,100
1,400 900 2,000 2,100 3,700 1,200
3,100 1,600 3,800 3,900 8,300 2,300
2,000 1,300 3,900 3,200 2,100 4,600 1,300
1,800 1,400 2,700 2,700 1,500 3,000 1,300
3,800 2,800 6,600 5,900 3,600 7,600 2,600
48
Suffolk Babergh Forest Heath Ipswich Mid Suffolk St Edmundsbury Suffolk Coastal Waveney LONDON Inner London Camden Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Islington Kensington and Chelsea Lambeth Lewisham Newham Southwark Tower Hamlets Wandsworth Westminster
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
1.9
0.8
1.4
1.3
0.8
1.1
5.0
1.8
3.4
1.6
0.8
1.2
2.2
1.0
1.6
1.9
0.8
1.3
5.5
2.2
3.9
4.0
1.8
3.0
7.9
3.3
5.6
4.1
1.9
3.0
7.0
3.1
5.1
5.8
2.8
4.3
2.3
1.2
1.8
6.2
2.9
4.6
5.9
2.5
4.2
6.8
2.8
4.9
5.9
2.7
4.4
8.0
3.1
5.7
3.3
1.4
2.3
2.7
1.4
2.1
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
3.1
3.4
3.2
2.5
3.7
3.0
9.0
6.9
8.0
2.7
3.9
3.3
3.3
4.2
3.7
3.0
3.3
3.1
9.9
8.0
9.0
9.3
7.2
8.3
15.4
10.1 12.7
8.3
6.9
7.6
13.1
10.1 11.6
13.1
10.4 11.8
5.4
5.2
5.3
11.4
8.8 10.2
10.9
8.6
9.7
12.6
9.5 11.1
11.1
8.9 10.1
13.3
8.4 11.0
5.4
5.0
5.2
6.8
6.0
6.4
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
800 600 3,400 800 1,100 1,100 3,300
800 700 2,400 1,000 1,200 1,100 2,500
1,600 1,200 5,800 1,800 2,300 2,100 5,800
7,900 10,700 5,600 10,600 8,800 3,900 11,700 9,400 10,700 10,500 10,400 5,500 6,400
5,800 7,000 4,300 7,500 6,800 3,600 7,900 6,900 7,300 7,600 5,900 5,100 5,300
13,700 17,700 9,900 18,100 15,500 7,500 19,600 16,300 18,000 18,100 16,200 10,700 11,800
49
Outer London Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames Merton Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Sutton Waltham Forest Avon Bath and North East Somerset Bristol North Somerset South Gloucestershire
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
5.3
2.3
3.8
3.2
1.5
2.4
2.9
1.4
2.2
5.6
2.6
4.2
2.6
1.1
1.9
3.7
1.7
2.7
3.8
1.9
2.9
4.9
2.3
3.6
5.0
2.3
3.7
2.9
1.5
2.2
2.6
1.2
1.9
2.9
1.4
2.2
3.0
1.7
2.4
1.7
0.8
1.3
2.9
1.4
2.2
3.8
1.8
2.9
1.6
0.7
1.2
2.5
1.2
1.9
6.1
2.5
4.3
1.5
0.6
1.1
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.7
0.7
1.3
1.4
0.7
1.1
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
11.3
9.0 10.2
6.1
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.2
6.2
11.2
8.5
9.9
5.6
5.3
5.4
7.5
6.0
6.7
8.3
7.3
7.8
10.1
8.7
9.4
10.5
8.9
9.7
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
7.5
7.6
7.5
3.6
4.4
4.0
4.8
5.0
4.9
7.0
6.6
6.8
3.4
4.4
3.9
5.4
5.4
5.4
10.9
7.9
9.5
3.8
3.2
3.5
8.4
6.0
7.2
5.7
4.6
5.2
2.8
3.5
3.1
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
5,800 6,600 4,200 10,700 5,300 8,400 9,000 9,300 8,100 4,400 4,500 5,200 5,600 1,900 3,300 5,800 2,200 3,100 8,400
4,500 5,800 4,100 7,400 4,800 6,500 6,900 7,500 6,600 4,200 4,400 5,000 5,100 2,200 3,100 5,100 2,600 2,900 5,700
10,300 12,400 8,300 18,100 10,100 15,000 15,900 16,800 14,600 8,700 8,900 10,200 10,700 4,100 6,400 10,900 4,800 6,000 14,000
2,200 11,600 3,400 2,200
1,700 7,500 2,500 2,500
3,800 19,100 5,900 4,800
50
Cornwall Caradon Carrick Kerrier North Cornwall Penwith Restormel Devon East Devon Exeter Mid Devon North Devon Plymouth South Hams Teignbridge Torbay Torridge West Devon Dorset Bournemouth Christchurch East Dorset North Dorset Poole Purbeck West Dorset Weymouth and Portland
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
2.2
1.1
1.7
2.6
1.2
1.9
2.6
1.2
1.9
2.5
1.5
2.0
4.2
1.8
3.1
3.5
1.7
2.7
1.5
0.7
1.1
2.2
0.9
1.6
1.9
0.8
1.4
2.8
1.2
2.0
3.5
1.3
2.4
1.5
0.8
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.5
4.4
1.6
3.1
3.0
1.7
2.4
1.6
0.9
1.3
2.9
1.0
2.0
1.8
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.8
1.8
0.7
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.9
1.5
0.7
1.1
3.3
1.3
2.4
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
4.7
5.7
5.2
5.4
4.9
5.1
7.4
6.3
6.9
6.4
7.2
6.8
9.4
7.6
8.6
8.6
6.2
7.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
5.3
4.0
4.7
4.8
4.1
4.4
6.5
5.5
6.0
9.0
7.6
8.3
3.4
3.7
3.5
4.8
4.5
4.6
11.0
7.8
9.4
6.4
6.1
6.2
4.1
4.8
4.4
8.5
4.9
6.8
4.0
4.1
4.1
2.3
3.0
2.6
2.4
3.4
2.8
4.5
4.3
4.4
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.9
3.7
9.3
7.0
8.2
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
1,200 1,500 2,200 1,600 1,800 2,700
1,300 1,200 1,700 1,600 1,300 1,800
2,500 2,700 3,900 3,300 3,200 4,400
1,200 2,200 1,100 1,800 7,300 800 1,800 4,300 1,200 600
1,100 1,500 800 1,400 5,600 800 1,500 2,800 1,000 600
2,200 3,700 1,900 3,100 13,000 1,700 3,300 7,100 2,200 1,300
4,500 500 500 500 1,900 400 900 1,900
2,400 500 700 600 1,700 400 1,000 1,200
6,900 900 1,200 1,100 3,600 800 1,900 3,200
51
Gloucestershire Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Dean Gloucester Stroud Tewkesbury Somerset Mendip Sedgemoor South Somerset Taunton Deane West Somerset Wiltshire Kennet North Wiltshire Salisbury Swindon West Wiltshire Herefordshire Shropshire Bridgnorth North Shropshire Oswestry Shrewsbury and Atcham South Shropshire Telford and Wrekin
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
3.3
1.0
2.2
1.3
0.7
1.0
2.4
1.2
1.8
3.4
1.2
2.3
1.7
0.7
1.2
1.9
0.8
1.4
1.7
0.8
1.3
2.4
1.0
1.7
1.7
0.6
1.2
1.8
0.8
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.8
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.7
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.9
2.6
1.4
2.1
1.7
0.9
1.3
2.1
1.0
1.6
2.0
1.1
1.6
2.2
1.1
1.7
2.8
1.2
2.0
2.2
0.9
1.6
1.6
0.8
1.2
3.4
1.4
2.5
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
5.8
4.2
5.0
2.5
2.8
2.7
5.1
5.6
5.3
7.7
5.4
6.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.7
4.0
3.8
6.3
5.3
5.8
4.5
4.2
4.3
5.0
4.2
4.6
6.8
5.4
6.1
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.0
5.0
5.3
5.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.9
4.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.7
4.3
4.5
3.5
3.8
3.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
2,100 700 1,300 2,700 1,300 900
1,400 700 1,300 1,800 1,200 700
3,500 1,300 2,600 4,500 2,400 1,600
1,200 2,100 2,100 1,600 700
1,200 1,600 1,800 1,300 500
2,500 3,800 3,900 2,900 1,200
600 1,100 1,000 3,100 1,500 2,400
600 1,200 1,000 2,900 1,500 2,200
1,200 2,300 2,100 6,000 3,000 4,600
700 800 700 1,400 400 4,000
700 800 700 1,200 400 3,700
1,400 1,600 1,400 2,600 900 7,700
52
Staffordshire Cannock Chase East Staffordshire Lichfield Newcastle under Lyme South Staffordshire Stafford Staffordshire Moorlands Stoke on Trent Tamworth Warwickshire North Warwickshire Nuneaton and Bedworth Rugby Stratford on Avon Warwick West Midlands Birmingham Coventry Dudley Sandwell Solihull Walsall Wolverhampton
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
3.3
1.4
2.4
2.4
1.1
1.8
1.9
0.9
1.4
2.5
1.0
1.8
2.6
1.0
1.9
2.7
1.0
1.9
1.7
0.9
1.3
4.9
1.9
3.5
3.1
1.3
2.3
2.4
1.2
1.9
4.2
1.6
3.0
2.6
1.1
1.9
1.9
0.7
1.3
2.4
0.9
1.7
8.8
2.9
6.0
6.0
2.1
4.2
5.2
2.0
3.7
7.6
2.7
5.2
3.3
1.3
2.4
6.8
2.6
4.8
7.4
2.9
5.2
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
7.7
6.9
7.4
5.6
5.0
5.3
4.1
4.2
4.1
6.7
6.6
6.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.6
4.9
5.4
5.2
13.4
10.7 12.1
7.0
6.6
6.8
4.6
5.0
4.8
8.9
7.2
8.1
5.0
4.7
4.9
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.5
3.3
3.4
15.0
8.6 11.9
10.9
8.1
9.6
9.9
6.9
8.5
13.9
9.0 11.5
6.6
5.7
6.2
11.8
8.1 10.1
13.6
9.4 11.6
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
2,400 1,900 1,300 2,700 1,600 1,900 1,500 10,300 1,700
1,900 1,600 1,100 2,400 1,400 1,600 1,500 7,600 1,500
4,300 3,500 2,400 5,100 2,900 3,500 2,900 18,000 3,200
900 3,500 1,500 1,100 1,700
900 2,600 1,200 1,100 1,400
1,900 6,000 2,700 2,200 3,100
47,300 11,200 9,600 12,500 4,100 9,200 10,400
26,100 7,200 6,100 7,500 3,300 5,800 6,500
73,300 18,400 15,600 19,900 7,400 15,000 17,000
53
Worcestershire Bromsgrove Malvern Hills Redditch Worcester Wychavon Wyre Forest EAST MIDLANDS Derbyshire Amber Valley Bolsover Chesterfield Derby Derbyshire Dales Erewash High Peak North East Derbyshire South Derbyshire Leicestershire Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley and Bosworth Leicester Melton North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
2.9
1.1
2.0
1.8
0.9
1.3
3.3
1.4
2.4
3.6
1.5
2.6
2.0
1.1
1.6
2.9
1.4
2.2
2.8
1.3
2.1
4.0
1.6
2.9
4.8
1.8
3.4
4.6
1.7
3.3
1.6
0.7
1.2
3.4
1.4
2.5
2.4
1.0
1.8
3.1
1.3
2.2
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
0.9
1.2
2.1
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.9
2.1
1.1
1.6
6.6
2.6
4.7
1.8
0.8
1.3
2.2
1.1
1.7
2.5
1.1
1.8
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.6
4.2
7.2
6.5
6.9
6.3
5.1
5.7
3.6
4.2
3.9
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.9
6.7
12.6
9.9 11.3
12.1
8.7 10.4
9.6
8.0
8.8
3.1
4.9
3.9
6.4
6.7
6.5
5.2
5.9
5.5
7.9
7.1
7.5
5.0
6.7
5.8
2.7
4.2
3.4
3.4
5.2
4.3
2.4
3.7
3.0
3.6
5.4
4.4
11.4
9.4 10.4
3.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
6.6
5.7
4.0
5.7
4.8
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
1,200 900 1,900 1,900 1,300 2,000
1,000 900 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,700
2,100 1,800 3,500 3,400 2,700 3,700
2,500 2,900 3,800 7,200 700 2,200 1,500 2,400 1,400
2,400 2,100 2,500 5,500 900 2,200 1,600 2,000 1,800
4,900 5,000 6,300 12,700 1,600 4,400 3,100 4,400 3,200
800 1,900 600 1,200 10,800 500 1,400 700
1,100 2,500 900 1,600 8,500 600 1,700 900
1,900 4,400 1,500 2,800 19,300 1,000 3,100 1,600
54
Lincolnshire Boston East Lindsey Lincoln North Kesteven South Holland South Kesteven West Lindsey Northamptonshire Corby Daventry East Northamptonshire Kettering Northampton South Northamptonshire Wellingborough Nottinghamshire Ashfield Bassetlaw Broxtowe Gedling Mansfield Newark and Sherwood Nottingham Rushcliffe Rutland
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
3.3
1.5
2.5
3.9
1.8
2.9
5.0
1.5
3.3
1.8
0.8
1.3
2.7
1.4
2.1
2.0
1.0
1.5
3.4
1.6
2.5
4.1
1.7
3.0
1.9
1.0
1.5
2.2
1.1
1.7
3.1
1.3
2.2
3.8
1.4
2.6
1.2
0.5
0.9
3.6
1.5
2.6
3.5
1.5
2.5
3.0
1.3
2.2
2.5
1.1
1.8
2.7
1.0
1.9
3.9
1.3
2.6
2.5
1.1
1.8
6.2
2.1
4.3
1.6
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.7
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
8.3
8.3
8.3
10.1
8.9
9.5
9.8
7.3
8.6
2.9
4.6
3.7
4.6
6.8
5.6
3.6
5.2
4.4
7.2
6.3
6.8
9.9
9.7
9.8
3.1
5.3
4.1
3.7
5.3
4.5
5.8
6.4
6.1
6.7
6.1
6.4
2.4
3.8
3.1
6.5
6.5
6.5
9.5
9.1
9.3
10.2
9.0
9.7
5.6
6.6
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.3
12.2
10.0 11.2
7.1
7.3
7.2
11.5
8.9 10.3
2.8
3.9
3.3
2.0
3.7
2.8
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
1,500 4,100 2,800 900 1,100 1,500 1,900
1,300 3,200 2,000 1,300 1,500 1,900 1,500
2,800 7,400 4,800 2,200 2,600 3,400 3,400
1,700 800 1,000 1,600 4,300 700 1,500
1,500 1,200 1,300 1,600 3,700 1,000 1,400
3,200 2,000 2,200 3,200 8,000 1,600 2,900
3,500 3,700 2,000 2,200 3,800 2,500 11,400 1,000 300
3,100 2,900 2,100 2,200 2,900 2,300 7,800 1,200 400
6,500 6,500 4,200 4,300 6,800 4,800 19,300 2,200 600
55
YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER Humberside East Riding of Yorkshire Kingston upon Hull North East Lincolnshire North Lincolnshire North Yorkshire Craven Hambleton Harrogate Richmondshire Ryedale Scarborough Selby York South Yorkshire Barnsley Doncaster Rotherham Sheffield West Yorkshire Bradford Calderdale Kirklees Leeds Wakefield
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
3.0
1.3
2.2
8.5
2.8
5.8
5.7
2.1
4.0
4.0
1.5
2.8
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.7
0.8
1.3
1.5
0.7
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.4
5.0
1.9
3.5
2.5
1.2
1.9
2.5
0.9
1.7
3.9
1.5
2.8
4.7
1.6
3.3
4.0
1.4
2.8
4.2
1.4
2.9
5.0
1.7
3.4
4.4
1.6
3.0
3.9
1.4
2.7
4.5
1.5
3.0
3.8
1.4
2.6
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
5.3
4.1
4.7
13.9
8.7 11.4
10.7
6.7
8.8
8.1
6.3
7.2
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.2
2.7
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.1
10.5
7.3
8.9
4.7
3.8
4.2
4.0
2.8
3.5
12.9
10.3 11.6
10.7
8.1
9.5
10.5
7.5
9.0
8.9
5.9
7.5
10.4
6.8
8.7
8.6
6.3
7.5
8.5
6.1
7.3
7.6
5.1
6.4
10.1
7.7
9.0
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
5,400 11,600 5,200 4,000
3,800 6,500 3,100 2,800
9,200 18,100 8,300 6,800
500 900 1,500 500 500 3,300 1,200 2,500
400 600 1,200 400 400 2,200 900 1,700
900 1,500 2,700 900 900 5,500 2,000 4,100
9,100 9,900 8,400 15,300
6,800 6,800 5,600 9,300
15,900 16,700 14,000 24,600
15,900 5,300 10,600 17,800 10,500
9,700 3,700 7,200 11,600 7,400
25,600 9,000 17,800 29,500 17,900
56
NORTH WEST Cheshire Chester Congleton Crewe and Nantwich Ellesmere Port and Neston Halton Macclesfield Vale Royal Warrington Greater Manchester Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Tameside Trafford Wigan
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
2.4
0.9
1.6
2.0
0.8
1.4
3.0
1.1
2.1
3.6
1.0
2.3
5.4
1.8
3.6
1.5
0.6
1.1
2.9
1.2
2.1
2.9
1.0
2.0
4.1
1.4
2.8
3.1
1.1
2.1
5.9
1.8
4.0
4.5
1.5
3.1
4.7
1.6
3.2
4.6
1.5
3.1
2.6
0.9
1.8
3.8
1.4
2.6
2.9
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
2.8
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
5.8
4.6
5.2
2.7
3.5
3.1
5.4
5.4
5.4
8.1
6.8
7.5
13.2
10.6 11.9
2.7
3.7
3.2
4.9
5.6
5.2
5.5
5.4
5.4
10.3
8.2
9.3
7.8
6.6
7.3
13.5
9.1 11.4
11.2
8.7 10.0
12.6
9.7 11.2
12.1
8.6 10.5
6.1
5.6
5.9
10.9
8.8
9.9
6.8
6.1
6.4
9.4
9.5
9.4
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
2,100 800 1,900 2,000 5,000 1,300 2,000 3,500
1,700 900 1,800 1,600 3,900 1,600 2,000 3,100
3,800 1,700 3,700 3,600 8,900 2,900 4,000 6,600
8,700 4,600 20,900 7,600 8,200 8,700 5,400 7,500 4,600 9,400
6,500 3,600 12,900 5,600 6,000 5,500 4,600 5,700 3,900 8,600
15,200 8,200 33,800 13,200 14,200 14,200 10,100 13,100 8,400 18,100
57
Lancashire Blackburn with Darwen Blackpool Burnley Chorley Fylde Hyndburn Lancaster Pendle Preston Ribble Valley Rossendale South Ribble West Lancashire Wyre Merseyside Knowsley Liverpool St Helens Sefton Wirral Cumbria Allerdale Barrow in Furness Carlisle Copeland Eden South Lakeland
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
4.7
1.4
3.1
6.1
2.0
4.1
3.9
1.4
2.6
2.4
1.0
1.7
1.7
0.7
1.3
3.2
1.1
2.2
3.8
1.1
2.5
3.2
1.4
2.4
4.0
1.3
2.7
1.1
0.5
0.8
2.5
0.9
1.8
2.1
0.8
1.5
3.9
1.5
2.8
2.3
0.8
1.6
7.0
2.3
4.6
8.3
2.8
5.6
4.5
1.6
3.1
4.7
1.6
3.2
6.0
1.9
4.0
3.1
1.1
2.2
4.5
1.3
3.0
3.2
1.1
2.2
3.9
1.3
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.9
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
12.2
8.4 10.4
14.8
10.0 12.5
12.0
9.6 10.8
4.7
5.5
5.1
4.3
5.2
4.7
11.0
9.0 10.0
8.4
6.2
7.3
9.8
8.7
9.3
8.2
6.7
7.5
3.2
4.1
3.7
8.4
7.4
7.9
4.6
5.7
5.1
7.8
6.5
7.2
5.1
5.6
5.4
16.7
13.1 14.9
17.3
11.7 14.5
11.5
9.8 10.7
11.0
8.5
9.8
13.2
9.0 11.1
7.3
6.2
6.8
15.6
11.1 13.4
6.0
6.2
6.1
9.7
8.2
9.0
2.1
3.4
2.7
3.1
3.7
3.4
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
5,400 6,600 3,200 1,700 1,000 2,800 3,700 2,800 3,500 600 1,800 1,600 2,600 1,700
3,400 4,000 2,500 1,700 1,100 2,100 2,600 2,300 2,700 700 1,500 1,800 2,100 1,700
8,800 10,600 5,800 3,400 2,100 4,900 6,300 5,000 6,200 1,200 3,200 3,400 4,800 3,300
7,500 25,500 6,400 9,200 12,300
6,000 16,800 5,100 6,900 8,300
13,500 42,300 11,500 16,100 20,600
2,200 3,400 2,000 2,300 400 1,000
1,700 2,200 1,900 1,700 500 1,000
3,900 5,600 3,900 4,000 900 2,000
58
NORTH EAST Cleveland Hartlepool Middlesbrough Redcar and Cleveland Stockton on Tees Durham Chester le Street Darlington Derwentside Durham Easington Sedgefield Teesdale Wear Valley Northumberland Alnwick Berwick upon Tweed Blyth Valley Castle Morpeth Tynedale Wansbeck
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
7.5
2.2
4.9
8.2
2.3
5.3
6.3
1.9
4.1
5.3
1.7
3.6
3.2
0.9
2.1
4.9
1.5
3.2
3.8
1.2
2.6
2.3
0.9
1.6
4.0
1.5
2.7
4.0
1.5
2.8
2.2
0.9
1.6
5.1
1.7
3.4
3.6
1.6
2.6
4.0
2.1
3.1
4.9
1.7
3.3
2.9
1.2
2.1
2.0
0.8
1.4
6.1
2.2
4.3
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
16.6
12.0 14.4
16.4
11.0 13.8
12.6
9.1 10.9
9.2
7.3
8.3
7.7
7.3
7.5
9.7
6.2
8.0
9.5
7.6
8.6
4.2
4.6
4.3
17.2
14.8 16.0
11.5
9.9 10.7
5.4
5.4
5.4
11.5
9.3 10.4
5.6
3.5
4.6
8.3
6.1
7.3
11.5
8.6 10.1
5.5
4.8
5.2
2.7
3.2
2.9
13.2
9.6 11.5
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
4,600 7,200 5,300 5,500
3,200 4,500 3,700 4,100
7,800 11,700 9,000 9,600
1,300 3,000 2,600 1,400 4,900 3,200 400 2,200
1,200 1,800 1,900 1,400 4,000 2,600 400 1,700
2,500 4,800 4,500 2,700 9,000 5,700 800 3,900
600 700 3,000 900 500 2,600
300 400 2,100 700 500 1,700
900 1,100 5,100 1,500 1,100 4,300
59
Tyne and Wear Gateshead Newcastle upon Tyne North Tyneside South Tyneside Sunderland WALES Anglesey Blaenau Gwent Bridgend Caerphilly Cardiff Carmarthenshire Ceredigion Conwy Denbighshire Flintshire Gwynedd Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire Neath Port Talbot Newport Pembrokeshire Powys Rhondda Cynon Taff Swansea Torfaen Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
4.8
1.5
3.2
5.1
1.6
3.4
4.9
1.6
3.3
7.8
2.4
5.2
5.4
1.7
3.6
4.7
1.8
3.3
6.7
2.3
4.6
3.6
1.4
2.5
4.6
1.6
3.1
3.6
1.0
2.4
3.5
1.3
2.4
2.0
0.8
1.4
3.8
1.2
2.5
3.7
1.3
2.6
2.9
1.1
2.0
3.9
1.4
2.7
5.8
1.8
3.8
2.0
0.9
1.5
4.2
1.6
2.9
4.8
1.7
3.3
2.9
1.1
2.0
2.3
1.1
1.7
3.9
1.5
2.7
3.7
1.3
2.5
4.0
1.5
2.8
3.6
1.2
2.4
2.9
1.0
2.0
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
11.1
8.0
9.6
10.1
6.5
8.3
9.7
7.2
8.5
14.2
9.3 11.9
12.3
9.1 10.8
10.7
7.7
9.3
16.7
15.0 15.9
9.5
10.8 10.1
13.1
12.7 12.9
7.6
6.0
6.8
9.5
10.3
9.9
5.3
5.3
5.3
8.4
6.8
7.6
6.1
5.8
5.9
6.7
6.8
6.7
7.0
5.5
6.3
15.5
15.2 15.3
4.8
6.0
5.4
13.6
13.7 13.6
10.5
8.1
9.3
8.7
8.0
8.4
4.6
5.4
5.0
10.9
12.5 11.7
10.1
9.2
9.6
10.0
8.8
9.4
7.2
5.8
6.5
7.9
7.7
7.8
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
6,700 9,400 5,800 6,700 11,200
4,500 5,700 4,100 4,100 7,900
11,200 15,100 10,000 10,900 19,100
2,300 3,500 3,900 7,000 8,100 5,100 1,300 2,700 1,800 3,200 2,500 2,600 1,300 5,700 4,500 3,000 1,900 7,900 7,200 2,800 2,700 3,300
1,500 3,000 4,100 6,400 6,100 5,200 1,200 2,000 1,500 3,000 1,800 2,500 1,500 5,400 3,300 2,600 1,900 8,600 6,100 2,300 2,100 3,000
3,700 6,500 8,000 13,400 14,200 10,300 2,600 4,700 3,300 6,200 4,400 5,100 2,800 11,000 7,800 5,600 3,800 16,500 13,300 5,100 4,700 6,300
60
SCOTLAND Aberdeen Aberdeenshire Angus Argyll & Bute Clackmannanshire Dumfries & Galloway Dundee East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Lothian East Renfrewshire Edinburgh Eilean Siar Falkirk Fife Glasgow Highland Inverclyde Midlothian Moray North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Orkney islands Perth & Kinross Renfrewshire Scottish Borders Shetland Islands South Ayrshire South Lanarkshire Stirling West Dunbartonshire West Lothian
Claimant Count (%) Male Female Total
2.3
0.7
1.5
1.3
0.6
0.9
3.8
1.5
2.7
3.6
1.6
2.7
4.8
1.8
3.3
3.7
1.5
2.7
6.4
1.8
4.1
5.9
2.1
4.0
2.4
0.8
1.6
2.1
0.9
1.5
2.0
0.8
1.4
3.3
1.1
2.2
5.3
1.5
3.6
4.1
1.4
2.8
4.9
1.7
3.3
6.3
1.8
4.1
3.2
1.4
2.3
7.1
1.8
4.5
3.0
1.1
2.0
2.8
1.5
2.2
6.6
2.4
4.5
4.6
1.4
3.0
2.2
1.1
1.7
2.6
1.0
1.9
4.3
1.3
2.8
2.4
0.9
1.7
1.8
0.6
1.3
4.9
1.5
3.3
3.7
1.3
2.5
3.1
1.0
2.1
6.7
2.5
4.6
3.8
1.3
2.6
Real Unemployment (%) Male Female Total
6.4
5.8
6.1
2.3
4.3
3.3
6.3
5.9
6.1
5.8
5.8
5.8
11.3
11.7 11.5
7.7
7.3
7.5
13.8
9.1 11.4
11.7
9.4 10.6
4.3
5.5
4.9
5.0
5.5
5.2
4.4
4.6
4.5
6.5
4.6
5.6
9.3
4.1
6.9
8.8
8.5
8.7
9.2
8.0
8.6
16.5
11.5 14.0
7.4
6.8
7.1
16.3
9.5 13.0
7.2
6.3
6.7
4.7
5.9
5.2
13.1
10.1 11.6
11.1
10.5 10.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
10.5
8.4
9.4
5.1
4.8
5.0
3.3
3.4
3.4
9.3
7.2
8.2
9.5
8.6
9.1
5.4
6.4
5.9
15.2
10.6 12.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
Real Unemployment
Male Female
Total
4,500 1,800 2,100 1,700 1,800 3,500 6,100 4,400 1,400 1,400 1,200 10,100 800 4,200 10,500 31,900 5,000 4,200 1,700 1,400 5,400 11,400 200 2,100 5,700 1,700 200 3,200 9,200 1,500 4,400 4,200
3,700 3,000 1,800 1,400 1,700 3,000 4,000 3,400 1,700 1,500 1,200 7,000 300 3,900 8,600 21,600 4,200 2,300 1,500 1,500 4,100 10,600 200 1,900 4,400 1,500 200 2,300 8,100 1,700 3,000 4,000
8,200 4,800 4,000 3,100 3,500 6,500 10,100 7,800 3,100 2,800 2,400 17,100 1,100 8,100 19,100 53,500 9,200 6,600 3,300 2,800 9,500 22,000 400 3,900 10,100 3,200 500 5,500 17,300 3,200 7,400 8,200
61

C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore, A Green

File: the-real-level-of-unemployment-2007.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - THE REAL LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT 2007- Final version.doc
Author: C Beatty, S Fothergill, T Gore, A Green
Author: sedtb
Published: Mon Jun 11 16:08:14 2007
Pages: 61
File size: 1.33 Mb


Zack's Alligator, 7 pages, 0.14 Mb

Quiet City, 2 pages, 0.21 Mb

Cultural criminology, 2 pages, 0.01 Mb

Poems, 1799, 93 pages, 0.13 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com