Suchergebnisse

The geography of income and taxation is an important but underresearched subject. Given the uneven geography of incomes, changes in tax regimes are likely to have an uneven regional impact. The author examines the social and spatial impact of the Conservative government's 1988 higher rate income tax cuts in Britain. It is shown that, in addition to their highly regressive social impact, the 1988 tax cuts favoured the South East where the concentration of high income earners is most marked. This had a significant impact on the late 1980s consumption and housing market boom in the South East.

In this paper, OPCS (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) 1% longitudinal study data for a sample of 60500 individuals were used to examine the relationships between housing tenure and residential migration in inner and outer London between 1971 and 1981. Three questions are examined. First, the extent to which migration rates within and from London differ by tenure and their links to differences in the socioeconomic composition of tenures; second, the extent to which different tenure structures are associated with different migration patterns; and third the relationship between patterns of tenure origins and destinations. It is argued that geographical differences in housing tenure structures play an important part in influencing migration flows, and that changes in tenure structure may influence migration.

It is argued in this paper that Berge's valuable reanalysis of my data generally supports, rather than contradicts, my conclusions regarding social and tenurial change in the South East. His use of indices of overrepresentation and underrepresentation points to the central role of the housing market in shaping the spatial distribution of different social groups. Although he shows that professionals and managers became slightly less proportionately overrepresented in owner occupation, some of Berge's interpretations of his tables are questioned.

The late 1960s saw the reemergence of concern over the growth of social polarisation in London. Much of the evidence produced subsequently has been fragmentary and inconclusive, the results depending on the geographical extent of the analyses, the time periods, and levels of spatial disaggregation utilised. Using head of household data for 1966 and 1981, it is shown that the level of social polarisation between London and the rest of the South East increased over this period. There was also a slight tendency towards greater polarisation between inner and outer London. It is also shown that these changes were strongly associated with changes in the tenure structure of the region over this period. In particular, the large increases in the number of professional and managerial household heads in the South East outside London were strongly associated with the growth of owner occupation, whereas the relative increases in the less skilled and economically inactive in London were associated with the growth of council tenure. It is concluded that the period 1966–1981 saw an increasing degree of sociotenurial polarisation within the region and that the structure of housing opportunities by tenure played a major role in this process.

In a recent paper in this journal, Thorns sought to relate together changes in the labour and domestic property markets in Britain since World War II. He argued that it was important to analyse the operation of these markets and the extent to which they operate to reinforce social inequalities. In this paper, it is argued that, although the issues Thorns raises are important ones, his analysis and conclusions are marred by his treatment of regional differences and trends in the rate of house price inflation over time. By generalising from data over a single year, Thorns sought to show that there was a strong link between the gains received from the labour market and those from the domestic property market. Although there is no evidence at the regional level to support Thorns's assertions regarding the growth of interregional differentials in average house prices over time (if anything the evidence shows the reverse), it is suggested that the regional scale may not be the most appropriate scale of analysis, and some evidence is presented which indicates the possibility of growing inner-city/suburban differentials. Finally, it is argued that the concentration on owner occupiers may well obscure the equally, if not more important, changes which are occurring in the distribution of owner occupiers and council tenants. It is argued that there is a growing social and spatial polarisation between the two main tenures at the intraurban level; some evidence from London is presented to support this.

The last few years have seen a major debate on the scale, extent, and causes of social polarisation in global cities and in Western societies in general. But the debate has often been characterised more by theoretical assertion than by empirical analysis. In particular, the concept of social polarisation has often been confused with inequality. The authors use General Household Survey data and New Earnings Survey data from 1979 to 1995 to examine the existence and extent of polarisation in London. It is argued that the evidence for polarisation is relatively weak, and that to the extent that polarisation exists it is asymmetric, with much greater growth in the size of groups at the top of the earnings distribution than at the bottom. But it is also argued that both London and Great Britain as a whole have seen a marked increase in earnings inequality over the last twenty-five years. Although most groups have improved earnings in real terms, the increase has been much greater at the top end of the earnings scale. As a result, the interquartile and interdecile earnings ratios have risen sharply. It is concluded that London has seen an increase in earnings inequality rather than growth of social polarisation.

THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES AN ASSESSMENT OF PRIVATIZATION IN THE US, UK AND FRANCE. THE AUTHORS FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION ON THE AGENDA SETTING PROCESSES BY WHICH PRIVATIZATION BEGAN TO APPEAL SO STRONGLY TO POLITICAL LEADERS AND CITIZENS ALIKE IN THESE THREE COUNTRIES. THEY CONCLUDE THAT THE MOVE TOWARD PRIVATIZATION TOOK ROOT MORE IN POLITICAL STRATEGY THAN IN COMPELLING ECONOMIC OR FISCAL MOTIVES. IN ALL THREE COUNTRIES IT EMERGED ON THE LEVEL OF CAMPAIGN RHETORIC. INSOFAR AS THIS HAS BEEN PURSUED BY ACTUAL INITIATIVES, THE THRUST OF THE POLITICAL STRATEGY HAS SHIFTED THROUGH A PROCESS OF REALIZATION WHEREBY CONSERVATIVE REGIMES RECOGNIZE THAT THEY CAN ALTER VOTERS' VIEWS OF THEIR INTERESTS BY GIVING THEM A CLEARER SENSE OF HAVING A STAKE IN THE ECONOMY. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS INTERESTING THAT AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES DISILLUSIOND WITH THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION FREQUENTLY CITE ITS LACK OF FOLLOW THROUGH UPON ITS PRIVATIZATION RHETORIC.