Recession, Austerity and the ‘Great Risk Shift’: Local Government and Household Impacts and Responses in Bristol and Liverpool

Abstract

A key feature of the rise of neoliberal politics and policy has been the progressive shift of risk from corporations and national states to the local government, individuals and households. In this article, we argue that, in the UK, 'great risk shift' has not only been intensified by recession and austerity but has also been marked by the unevenness of the redistribution of risk and insecurity across scales and places, and between different types of household. In order to capture the differentiated nature of experiences and impacts of recession, risk and insecurity, this article first considers the spatial and temporal dynamics of recession and the great risk shift. It then goes on to localise and embed these dynamics within the city regions and local authorities of Bristol and Liverpool, drawing on a quantitative survey of 1,013 households, across a range of different household types. The survey was segmented geographically and by ten different household types using Ipsos-MORI's (ACORN) classification of residential neighbourhoods. Whilst the evolving crisis and subsequent austerity measure have been a 'moving target' for cities, the local government and households, the household survey was undertaken in the two city regions in the winter of 2011 and explored experiences and impacts since 2008. It will seek to demonstrate the nature, impact and 'lived experience' of the 'risk shift' during this period and consider the ongoing and broader implications for households, and national and local policymakers.

Austerity urbanism in England: The ‘regressive redistribution’ of local government services and the impact on the poor and marginalised

“…The GFC and the associated Great Recession should therefore be understood as "a justifying mantra" (Levitas 2013) which forms part of a resurgent neo-liberalism with aims and practices which include disempowering and dismantling systems of social protection (Krugman 2012;Taylor-Gooby, 2012), re-structuring, rescaling and downsizing the state (Donald et al, 2014;Lowndes and Gardner, 2016), and shifting the locus of risk and responsibility on to the public and to the poor in particular (Peck, 2012;Kennett et al, 2015). This paper focuses on the urbanisation of these austerity measures and on the effects of this urbanisation on the poor and marginalised -that is, on the 'austerity urbanism' thesis developed by Jamie Peck to explain the dimensions and significance of austerity in US cities (2012; 2014), and applied and augmented by others in relation to the US and to other developed nations (for example, Davidson and Ward, 2014;Tabb, 2014;Meegan et al, 2014;Pugalis et al, 2014;Davies and Blanco, 2017).…”

Governance and Governmentality in Community Participation: The Shifting Sands of Power, Responsibility and Risk

“…The level of agency in each situation is shaped by community capacity, in terms of communities' ability to assess and manage the risks, responsibilities and power involved. Such collective capacity seems to demonstrate a distinct socio-economic gradient (McCulloch et al, 2013), reinforcing concerns that community participation policies can become regressive, imposing greater risks and responsibilities upon more disadvantaged communities in return for lower levels of power (Hastings et al, 2015a;Kennett et al, 2015).…”

Local Government and Natural Capital

“…The cutbacks in funding mean that local authorities are forced to reduce their services, shifting risks to residents. See Meegan et al (2014); Bailey et al (2015), Hastings et al (2015), Kennett et al (2015) and Scott (2015). Hacker (2008) introduced the term in a US context.…”