Productivity
Productivity is measured as Gross Value Added (GVA) per workforce job by
LA/district, aggregated to the LA classifcation. See Annex 2 for more detail.
Productivity in rural areas is lower than in urban areas.
Productivity in rural areas have increased in the four years since 2002.
- Policy Context
- Regional Productivity [PDF] (134 KB)
Indicators:
- Productivity is lowest in the most rural areas but is at a similar level for all other non-Major Urban categories of the classification.
- Major urban areas perform higher than the English average, while all other categories of the Classification have productivity which is lower than the national average (Table 1; Figure 1).
| Table 1: Productivity indexed to 100 (England) | ||||
|
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
England |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Major Urban |
109.9 |
109.9 |
109.7 |
109.7 |
Large Urban |
95.5 |
94.7 |
94.3 |
93.9 |
Other Urban |
95.8 |
95.7 |
95.8 |
95.6 |
Significant Rural |
97.7 |
96.8 |
94.4 |
94.7 |
Rural-50 |
93.7 |
94.3 |
96.5 |
97.2 |
Rural-80 |
85.8 |
87.6 |
89.4 |
89.2 |
Figure 1: Productivity by LA classification, compared to England (=100)
When LAs in the London region are separated from the Major Urban category, a different picture emerges. Rather than below average productivity being related to rurality, the evidence shows that being outside London is a large factor in lower productivity, regardless of the LA classification (Table 2; Figure 2). This is due to London being a global financial centre and the fact that it has performed extremely well in recent years which can obscure the performance of other areas when compared relatively to it. It has benefited strongly from agglomeration, which is the spatial concentration of economic activity that occurs because the economic environment promotes benefits of proximity that are greater than the associated costs such as congestion.
| Table 2: Productivity indexed to 100 (England) with London separate from Major Urban |
||||
|
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
England |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
London |
123.3 |
125.0 |
127.0 |
128.1 |
Major Urban |
97.8 |
96.3 |
94.5 |
93.3 |
Large Urban |
95.5 |
94.7 |
94.3 |
93.9 |
Other Urban |
95.8 |
95.7 |
95.8 |
95.6 |
Significant Rural |
97.7 |
96.8 |
94.4 |
94.7 |
Rural-50 |
93.7 |
94.3 |
96.5 |
97.2 |
Rural-80 |
85.8 |
87.6 |
89.4 |
89.2 |
Figure 2: Productivity by LA classification, compared to England (=100) with Major Urban and London plotted separately
By analysing the proportion of districts with productivity under 5 per cent below the national average for 2005, we can see that rural areas generally fare less well than urban areas, especially in R80 areas where over 70% of districts have below average productivity.
In analysing the proportion of districts with productivity over 5% above the national average for 2005 we can see that there is more of a mixed picture between rural and urban areas, although R80 areas again stand out as having a very small proportion of areas more productive than the average.
| Table 3: Proportion of districts with productivity around the national average, by LA classification (2005) | ||||
|
Under 5% below average |
Between 5% below and 5% above average |
Over 5% above average |
Total |
England |
58% |
17% |
25% |
100% |
Major Urban |
45% |
24% |
32% |
100% |
Large Urban |
60% |
16% |
24% |
100% |
Other Urban |
55% |
22% |
24% |
100% |
Significant Rural |
62% |
9% |
28% |
100% |
Rural-50 |
54% |
19% |
27% |
100% |
Rural-80 |
73% |
12% |
15% |
100% |
Figure 3: Proportion of districts with productivity around the national average, by LA classification (2005)
However, once again when London is separated from the Major Urban category, there is a clear difference between the Capital and the remaining Major Urban districts. Over double the percentage of London districts have productivity over 5 per cent above the national average than the rest of the major Urban category.
| Table 4: Proportion of districts with productivity around the national average, by LA classification with London separate from Major Urban (2005) | ||||
|
Under 5% below average |
Between 5% below and 5% above average |
Over 5% above average |
Total |
England |
58% |
17% |
25% |
100% |
London |
27% |
27% |
45% |
100% |
Major Urban (excl London) |
58% |
21% |
21% |
100% |
Large Urban |
60% |
16% |
24% |
100% |
Other Urban |
55% |
22% |
24% |
100% |
Significant Rural |
62% |
9% |
28% |
100% |
Rural-50 |
54% |
19% |
27% |
100% |
Rural-80 |
73% |
12% |
15% |
100% |
Figure 4: Proportion of districts with productivity around the national average, by LA classification, with London and Major Urban plotted separately (2005)
03 July 2008