The rhetoric and the reality of rural deprivation

Journalof Rural Studies. Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 291-307, 1986 Printed in Great Britain

0713-01671S6 53.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

The Rhetoric and the Reality of Rural Deprivation Brian P. McLaughlin Essex Institute of Higher Education,

Essex, U.K.

Abstract - In the development of the rural deprivation debate in the U.K. in the early 197Os, the cause of rural deprivation was largely attributed to the imbalance in the allocation of state resources between urban and rural areas. In subsequent campaigns to redress that situation, much emphasis was placed on identifying specific ‘rural’ as opposed to ‘urban’ explanations for the problems facing rural populations. Evidence presented in this paper, however, illustrates the essentially aspatial nature of the deprivation experience. From a detailed household survey in a range of rural environments in England, deprivation was found to result as much from the socio-economic inequalities within rural society as it does from any perceived processes of territorial injustice in the allocation of Central Government financial support to local authorities. In the light of such findings, the paper questions the advisability of the state’s adherence to spatial policies in the pursuit of solutions to the problems of the deprived in rural areas.

enjoy. Such images exist in the countryside of the Shell commercial and of the not unrelated coffeetable publications dedicated to the theme of Beautiful Britain. It is the image of rural England repeatedly and profitably reproduced on calendars, chocolate-box lids, jigsaw puzzles and picture postcards. It is an environment where poverty and deprivation are conspicuous by their absence not least because it is an environment where, according to one popular image:

Intmduction Alth ugh much has been written about rural depriv @ion in both academic literature and policy dot ments over the past decade, considerable confusi n and uncertainty still surround the concept, not qast in terms of what it means and whether or not :”t actually exists. One explanation for this uncertainty and confusion is th fact that the concept of rural deprivation per se e . . lack$ credlbllity m English culture. Deprivation as it is p pularly presented by the media and as it is gen BIfally understood in both the academic and poli$y contexts is an urban experience and describes varyfng circumstances of interlocking social, economig’and cultural malaise within the clearly-defined spat al parameters of inner city. That popular image is p dhaps most graphically described by the Church of d ngland report (1985) as

people are names not numbers [and where] it is pkkble to practise good neighbourliness with all the benefits that this brings . . . (Development Commission, 1982, p. 2) The cultural conflict presented by the concept of rural deprivation finds a parallel expression in the conflicting explanations which have been advanced to explain its causes. In the burgeoning literature on the socio-economic problems of rural areas in the U.K., significant differences are apparent in the academic and policy perspectives on the subject.

grey walls, littered . . 4 squalor and delapidation, st aets, boarded-up windows, grafitti, demolition and d e? tiris . . . (&chbishop’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas, 1985, p. 18)

The Planning/Rural Services Model attempts to explain rural deprivation as the outcome of on-going processes of decline in the availability and quality of service provision which have characterised rural areas for the past two or three decades. According to this perspective, reduced levels of aggregate demand for services resulting from depopulation and/or the

By contrast, the concept of ‘rural’, as it is popularly undkrstood in the U.K., is associated with images of afflljence both in the standards of living of the rural popiLlations and in the quality of life which they 291

- _ 793

Brian P. McLaughlin

changing composition of the rural population combined with increasing costs of service delivery to rural areas create a situation where the quality and standard of services provided in rural areas are below that which are perceived to prevail elsewhere in the country. Central to this interpretation of deprivation are concepts of accessibility, critical population thresholds and economies of scale in service provision. The Sociologica/ Model of rural deprivation, on the other hand, largely rejects the territorial perspective inherent in the services model and identifies the causes of rural deprivation within the rural social structure. According to this model, deprivation results from the unequal distribution of the resources of economic and political power and social status within rural society. The presence of a group of relatively affluent newcomers within the village, it is argued, has increased both the subjective and objective ‘relative deprivation’ of local non-propertied households (Newby et al., 1978). The erstwhile social control by the farming and landowning community is dissipated as competition takes place for crucial positions of political power between the old and the new factions of the propertied middle class with significant implications for the nature and direction of rural policy. Social change further affects the distribution of material resources including publicly and privately dispensed goods and services. In short, the causes of rural deprivation, according to this model, are attributable to changes in the pattern of social differentiation and stratification. Although both explanations of deprivation are identifiable in the literature, the emphasis in rural problem analyses to date has been heavify weighted in favour of the ‘services’ model. To a large extent this reflects the fact that the official policy line on rural deprivation (where one can be identified) interprets it in a context of service decline. Indeed, the emergence of rural deprivation as a key issue of academic and policy debate in the 1970s owed much to a political campaign which identified rural service decline as a direct outcome of urban bias in the allocation of Central Government financial support to local authorities (McLaughlin. 1984). Subsequent policy initiatives have tended to emphasis this spatial context. By focusing the problem analyses and subsequent policy prescriptions on the issue of rural areas as poor places and on questions of service decline per se, the policy debate OR rural deprivation has largely ignored crucial questions about the particular groups and individuals within rural areas who gain or loseas

a result of service policies. In contrast to the urban deprivation debate. the key issues of differential standards of living and quality of life in rural areas and the resource distribution processes affecting them have also been ruled off the agenda. Evidence from the recent Government-sponsored study of Deprivation in Rural Areas, however, suggests that this is a serious omission in terms of our understanding of the nature of rural deprivation and of our efforts to produce effective policies to deal with the problems experienced by rural populations. As this paper will illustrate, whilst the data demonstrate the existence of acute problems of availability of and access to housing, empioyment. transport and public and private services in rural areas, they also clearly demonstrate that these problems are not equably distributed across rural society but tend to be concentrated amongst the less-well-off. Such findings raise important questions about our current interpretations of rural problems. They also challenge the effectiveness and even the relevance of some of our preferred policy options in our attempts to date to find solutions to the problems of the deprived in rural areas. The research project on the theme of Deprivation in Rural Areas was sponsored by the Department of the Environment and the Development Commission and completed in 1985. Part of the project’s terms of reference was to identify the nature and extent of deprivation in rural areas of England as a basis for evaluating competing claims for central resources. As indicated earlier, the different bases upon which the urban and rural debates had been predicated did not make for easy comparative evaluation of their respective claims for priority attention. The absence of an established methodology for the identification and assessment of deprivation which was appropriate to rural situations was a critical problem. In the established literature on the measurement of deprivation (Craig and Driver, 1972; Holtermann, 1976), much emphasis is placed on the vatue of socio-economic indicators derived from census and related data sets although considerable reservations surround the value of such indicators in the policy-making context (Knox, 1979). Their application to rural situations is also recognised as problematic (Openshaw and Cullingford, 1979). In some cases, deprivation indicators derived for application in the urban context are either too dispersed in rural areas to be recognisable as major problems, e.g. poor housing and/or they may have a different meaning in the rural context, e.g. car ownership. In those circumstances, indicators of deprivation in rural areas may represent measures of comparative affluence in urban Britain.

The Rhetoric

293

and the Reality of Rural Deprivation

Arguably of greater significance, however. is the absence of an appropriate data set which is sufficiently fine-grained and comprehensive in coverage to be of value in assessing the extent of rural problems. Indeed, an early conclusion of the research project was that one of the most critical deprivations facing the rural population in the U.K. was the unavailability of reliable information which might be used to assess whether or not they were deprived. In the circumstances, the project identified hiclear need to establish a data set which would allow a detailed examination and evaluation of the

lifestyles and living conditions of rural populations as a basis for determining the nature and extent of problems (if an);). To that end, five sample survey areas were selected as representing ideal types of rural locality in England. The areas chosen for investigation are illustrated in Fig. 1. They were: (i) North- wes t E ssex: a group of parishes located primarily to the south of the local service centre of Saffron Walden and selected to represent a rural area within a metropolitan labour market. N.NORTHUMBERLANO

N

YORKSHIRE $&_.J?&

SW. SHROPSHIRE

h

Figure 1.

Locatlon of parishes included in the household

survey.

N.W.ESSEX

291

Brian

P. McLaughlin

(ii) Yorkshire Dales: a group of parishes located in Upper Wensleydale and Snaledale within the Yorkshire Dales National Park and selected to represent a remote rural locality. (iii) North mid-Suffolk: a group of parishes surrounding the local service centre of Eye and selected as illustrative of an area of capital intensive agriculture. Shropshire: a group of parishes (iv) South-west located within the geographical area defined as Corvedale and westward to the A49 and selected initially to represent an area of mixed farming with a high input of family labour. (In practice, this area illustrated a complex range of issues associated with its functions as a desirable residential environment for commuters to the West Midlands labour market and for a growing elderly retired, early retired and pi-e-retirement population.) coast: a group of (v) Mid-Northumberland parishes located in and on the edge of a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty selected to represent a high amenity coastal environment with primary employment in tourism and fishing.

In practice, whilst particular economies were characteristic of each area. they were in no way exclusive in either a sectoral or areal context. Within each of the chosen survey areas, a 10% random sample of households aggregated from individuals recorded on the electoral register was selected for personal interview using a detailed household survey schedule. Over 80% of the households selected at the first attempt agreed to take part in the survey and additional randomly-selected households were added to secure an overall 10% household sample. A total of 876 households were interviewed, representing some 2100 individuals. The survey sought detailed information on a comprehensive range of topics including housing conditions and access, educational opportunities and achievements, employment patterns and work conditions, patterns of household expenditure, shopping and related services. health and welfare needs and service use, levels of poverty and household income, and transport and accessibility. In addition to the questionnaire survey, each household in the sample was requested to complete a weekly expenditure diary modelled on that used in the Department of Employment’s Family Expenditure Survey. The overall objective of this comprehensive exercise was to fill the crucial gaps in our (then) existing knowledge about rural living standards and conditions which would assist in the identification both

of the disadvataged population in rural areas and of the nature and meaning of their disadvantage.

The survey findings

A basic premise upon which much of the analysis of deprivation has been based to date is that a critical determinant of deprivation is the level of financial resources available to individuals and households to allow them to participate in the styles of living appropriate to their needs. This invariably raises a multitude of definitional problems, not least about the meaning of appropriate and the level of needs to be considered. For reasons of political expediency and administrative convenience (the project being sponsored by a Department of State), the datum base used for assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of household resources was the state benefit standard as defined by the supplementary benefit entitlement of each household in the survey (plus actual housing costs). A supplementary benefit entitlement income (S.B. level) was calculated for each household and that household’s actual gross disposable income for the preceding twelve months was expressed as a percentage of that S.B. level. Using this calculation, households with incomes of up to 139% of their S.B. entitlement are identified as living in or on the margins of poverty. According to this standard, 25% of households in the rural sample were recorded as living in or on the margins of poverty, a proportion which was broadly consistent across all rural survey areas (Table 1). Apart from the stark contrast which such findings provide for popular images of affluence which characterise rural areas, they also illustrate the extent to which the rural poor have become statistically marginalised. In contrast to the situation in the historic past where poverty is identified as a shared experience for the majority of the rural population (Laslett 1983; Thirsk 19&l), in the late 20th century the rural poor occupy the position of a minority group (albeit a substantial minority). Although 25% of households were recorded as living in or on the margins of poverty, this represents approximately 20% of the rural population. This apparent anomaly is explained by the fact that a large percentage of poor households in the sample were elderly. Sole elderly accounted for approximately 35% of all poor households in the survey and over three-quarters of that proportion were elderly women aged 60+. The full extent of the rural poor’s marginalisation is underlined by the patterns of inequality in the distribution of household income. In contrast with

N

900+ 800-899 700-799 600-699 500- 599 400-499 300-399 200-299 l40- 199 loo- 139 Under 100

rerccm:1ge of supplementary benefit scales plus actual housing costs

165

I.2 06 I.2 0.0 3.6 36 15.8 30.9 18.2 15.2 9.7 453

1.8 0.9 0.7 0.0 3.5 2.9 17.2 33.6 20.5 12.4 6.6

Persons

and persons.

ESWX

liouscholdr

Table I. Percenkqp of households

167

I.2 1.2 0.6 2.4 3.6 4.2 11.4 23.4 26.3 15.6 10.2

Households

414

14 1.4 1.0 2.2 2.9 5.1 II.8 27.8 26.3 11.8 x.2 168

2.4 0.0 3.0 1.2 2.4 4.8 16.1 29.2 19.6 13.1 8.3

Households

518

1.9 0.0 2.7 1.2 3.9 54 18.7 32.6 19.3 83 6.0

Persons

Gross disposable household Suffolk

Persons

YorkshIre

169

5.3 06 1.8 2.4 3.6 83 9.5 24.3 19.5 15.4 9.5 481

5.6 0.4 2.3 1.7 3.7 7.9 8.9 26.0 21.0 13.5 8.9

Persons

Shropshire

Households

income

176

3.4 0.6 I.1 0.0 1.1 4.5 11.9 23.Y 26.1 18.8 8.5

420

4.3 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.4 3.8 13.3 27.1 27.6 14.8 6.4

845

2.7 0.6 1.5 0.Y 2.7 5.1 13.0 26.4 22.1 15.6 Y.3

Households

bcnelil

2286

3.0 06 1.5 1.0 3.2 5.0 14.2 29.5 22.7 12.0 7.2

Persons

All XCPS

of the supplemenlary

Persons

Northumbcrland

as a percentage

Households

;~ccordmg lo gross disposable household income over the previous year, expressed scale rates, plus actual housing costs, for each household

Brian

296

P. hIcLaughlin

the national pattern identified by Townsend (1979) in uhich ll”,~ of households had gross disposable incomes of at least three times their S.B. eligibility level. the corresponding rural aggregate was 26% although the extent of inequality within some localities exceeded that aggregate. e.g. Shropshire.

status of other households is income poverty derived from low uages. Approsimately a quarter of all male manual workers and over three-quarters of all female manual workers in the survey earned below the then (1951) low-pay threshold of fS0 per week (Table 3).

A major determinant of income inequality described by the data is the employment profile of the population in each area and the resultant income differentials between particular employment categories (Table 2).

Such aggregate data, however, conceal many other important facets of the quality of rural work opportunities vvhich are critical to the rural deprivation debate. As Table 4 demonstrates, aggregate hourly rates of pay for rural manual workers in the survey areas were well below the national equivalent although in this context it is notable that. whilst women remain the lowest paid in rural areas, the rural-national pay differential for women was less than that for men.

Superficially, the data describe no significant differences between the earnings profile defined for rural areas and that for the nation as a whole in terms of the relative positions of particular groups in the earnings league. Where the rural profiles differ significantly. however, is in the extent of earnings inequality recorded by the survey. On aggregate the highest incomes in the rural areas were considerably higher (33%) than the national equivalent whilst the lowest incomes were comparatively lower. This gap is maintained (at least) across all survey areas. It is in the latter incidence

context that a major determinant and distribution of rural poverty

Moreover, the popular image derived primarily from the farming industry that the rural labour force enjoys a wide range of ‘invisible earnings’ in the form of non-monetary benefits to supplement their low pay is not supported by the data. Indeed, the evidence confirms that the distribution of fringe benefits amongst the employed population living in rural areas accentuates the inequalities described by wage levels (Table 5). Not only does the receipt of fringe benefits decrease significantly at either end of the earnings league, but even in a high-cost economy such as prevails in rural areas, the value of free wellingtons and/or protective clothing makes little impact on wage differentials when those at the top of

of the can be

identified. Whilst the majority of the poor in rural areas are identified as elderly households living on state pensions as their sole source of income, the single most important factor determining the poverty

Table 2. Average

Full-time male non-manual Full-time male manual Full-time female non-manual Full-time female manual *Da.ta derrved

gross weekly earnings

Shropshire

Northumberland

by area

Suffolk

205.6

206.3

201 1

291.5

159.3

215.2

163.1

121.6

103.3

125 S

131.3

102.8

117.2

121.9

108.3

113.1

119.2

96.9

s3.1

104.1

96.7

43.2

69.7

78 3

71.4

56.8

66.3

71.5

Survey.

1981 (Department

(%) of manual

employees

Less than f60iaeek Rural areas Great Brrtain*

derived

of employment

Yorkshrre

Table 3. Proportion

*Data

categories

Essex

from New Earnings

Male manual (21 yr and over) Female manual (18 yr and over)

(f) for various

4.7%

1.3%

44.7%

27.2%

from New Earnings

Survey,

of Employment,

in selected

average

63.5%

19Sl (Department

weekly

-1.3% 47.0%

of Employment,

Great

Britain*

1982b)

Less than f70lweek Rural areas Great Britain*

1-I. 1%

All areas

1982b).

income

categories

Less than f80iweek Rural areas Great Britain”

“4 _ 3%

10.2%

77.6%

65.9%

The Table 1. Distribution Less than 12OpJhr Rural Great areas Britain*

Rhetoric of manual

and

the Reality

employees

Less than 160pihr Rural Great areas Britain*

of Rural

according

to selected

Less than 200plhr Rural Great areas Britain*

297

Deprivation average

Less than 220plhr Rural Great areas Britain*

hourly rates of pay Less than 260p/hr Rural Great areas Britain*

Less than 3OOplhr Rural Great areas Britain*

Male manual (21 yr and over)

6.7

0.3

15.4

2.5

37.5

13.5

51.6

24.4

73.3

48.9

82.5

69.2

Female manual (17 yr and over)

28.2

4.8

49.3

29.7

73.3

64.3

77.5

76.9

83.1

91.9

87.3

96.8

*Data Iderived from New Earnings

Survey,

1981 (Department

the earnings league receive high value ‘executive’ benefi!s such as free life insurance, educational expen$es, free medical insurance, company cars and/or occupational pensions. It is ih the latter context that an important connectioh can be illustrated between the situation of poverty of the employed population and the situation iaf poverty of the retired population in rural areas.~ The type(s) of job which leaves workers vulnerable to poverty during their working lives as a result’of low pay structures is also likely to extend that experience into their non-working lives as a resultiof work conditions which leave them reliant on state pensions as their sole source of income. The distribution of poverty described for the rural areas #and particularly that which is attributable to low wage levels illustrates a critical dimension of the depridation debate. In the specific context of rural employment, it illustrates an environment of limited job opportunities which characterise local labour markets in rural areas, particularly for those who either lack the academic and/or professional credentials for entry to higher-paid work or who may have the credentials but lack the opportunity to use them locally. The incidence of unemployment recorded by the survey was low. Even taking account of that proportion 01 the population who were recorded as ‘looking for work’ (whether registered or not), the aggregate for the rural survey was 3.7%. At face value, such a situation lends credence to the oft-recorded observation - ‘There’s work for them as wants it’. When set in the context of the wage levels of the rural laboui force, however, and taking account of the comparatively higher levels of academic and professiohal qualifications of rural employees in low status jobs, the low levels of rural unemployment refled not so much an abundance of job opportunities but more the outcome of having to ‘make do’ and take whatever is available. That situation is often ~reinforced by the strong work ethic which still

of Employment,

prevails lation.

amongst

1982b).

the

majority

of the rural

popu-

In an economy dominated by very small enterprises (outside Essex, at least 40% of rural workers had fewer than four work-mates and 60% had fewer than nine) and in which unionised labour is the exception (80% of semi-skilled and unskilled manual labour was non-unionised), the price of that situation is calculable in wage levels and working conditions which compare unfavourably with national norms. Such wage levels and working conditions also place their recipients in positions of considerable disadvantage relative to other rural residents in respect of key issues which determine the quality of their lives, e.g. access to housing, levels of mobility and their (in)ability to accommodate the higher costs of rural living. In situations where policy-makers are not sensitive to such positions of relative disadvantage and/or are not aware of or even prepared to confront the broader welfare implications of their policies, the plight of the less-well-off is further exacerbated. Their status as a minority group and hence their inability to influence the policy-making processes which affect them maintains their position of disadvantage. Such experiences are demonstrable in a wide range of situations in the rural context.

Rural poverty and housing

In much of the debate on deprivation in the U.K. to date, the relevance of the housing dimension has usually been analysed in terms of the quality of the housing stock as measured by its structural condition and/or the availability of basic amenities such as hot water, a fixed bath or shower and an indoor W.C. In the rural deprivation debate, however, the major focus of concern has tended to be the question of access to the housing market and particularly the plight of ‘local’ populations in gaining access to housing in their localities.

No fringe benefits 83.2 66.2 77.7 67.8 60.4 59.5 65.3 50.0 48.3

Gross average weekly earnings

Less than f4O/week f40-<65/week .f65-<80/week f80-
0.5 -

1.1 0.8 1.6 2.9 4.0 15.8 20.7 0.8 4.1 1.9 2.9 4.0 13.2 10.3

2.6 0.8 0.8 3.8 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.3

grants

Free life insurance

Loans/

Medical

0.9 1.3 2.6 -

-

-

5.2 2.7 3.5

1.3 0.8 0.8 -

12.4 20.8 11.9 13.0 13.2 10.3 14.7 2.6 3.5

Free/reduced goods

by income

Free/reduced travel

fringe benefits

Education expenses

of employees’

expenses

Table 5. Distribution

1.1 1.2 1.7 6.5 13.2 4.3 3.5

Free shoes

1.7 7.8 5.6 4.9 7.5 10.3 2.7 7.9 -

Other benefits

178 77 56 123 53 116 75 38 29

N

The Rhetoric

299

and the Reality of Rural Deprivation

The evidence from the deprivation research project, however, indicates that not only do questions of housing quality and standards still remain a key issue for some sections of the rural population but that the issue of housing access in rural areas is not only a problem for locals. Indeed, from the research findings, it could be suggested that by concentrating on the territoriaVethnic dimension of the debate, commentators are disregarding more fundamental structural problems which arguably are more amenable to policy intervention than the much publicised ‘local needs’ approach which has been the major area of policy debate so far.

The experience of sub-standard housing also displayed clear social class and income gradients. The proportion of the semi-skilled and unskilled workforce who occupied the poorest housing was significantly higher than the corresponding proportion of non-manual, socio-economic groups. The experience of sub-standard housing also varied according to household circumstances. The incidence of poor housing in the rural survey was highest amongst the poorest households, whilst for those households with incomes of three times their S.B. eligibility, the experience of poor housing was largely irrelevant (Table 6).

Houdng standards

Access to rural housing

Despite the significant improvements which have been yitnessed in the quality and standard of rural housing in the past two or three decades, the available national data still identify poor housing as a sign/fiicant problem in the rural areas of Britain. The Bnglish House Condition Survey (1981) recorded approximately 168,000 rural properties (4.2%, of the national total) as lacking one or more basic amenity, whilst 268,000 rural properties (6.7% of the national total) were graded unfit. This proportion of unfit housing was, in fact, higher than the corresponding proportions recorded for towns and cdnurbations.

A similar profile is described in the context of housing access. The tenure structure of rural areas nationally has altered considerably since the 1950s. Partly as a result of changes in the rural economy and partly as a direct outcome of successive governments’ policies on home ownership, the proportion of housing in owner-occupation has increased significantly whilst that in private rented tenures has declined. In contrast to the national situation where public sector housing grew to compensate for the latter’s decline, that sector has never been a major component in the rural housing stock and its availability has tended to be restricted to selected locations.

The application of comparable evaluative standards to the’rural areas in the survey, however, illustrates that the distribution of substandard housing is uniform neither in a spatial sense nor in a social sense., In two of the rural survey areas - Suffolk and Shropshire - the incidence of poor housing recorded was almost twice the national average. In Essex; and Northumberland the incidence of poor housing was almost non-existent. These latter areas also recorded the highest proportion of owneroccup/cd (mortgaged) properties and public sector houting, thus indicating the effects of externally devised national performance standards on local housing stock.

Table 6.

The tenure structure described for the rural areas in the survey generally accords with that model. On aggregate, private ownership accounted for approximately 85% of the total rural housing stock compared with 67% nationally. As Table 7 illustrates, however, the aggregate data conceal significant contrasts between the rural and national profiles. Owner-occupation represented the single most important tenure group, accounting for nearly twothirds (64%) of all tenures. In contrast to the national profile, however, owner-occupation in the rural sample displayed a distinct skew towards

Housing deprivation by household poverty S.B. level (%)

<139 No hlohsing deprivation Slight housing

deprivation

Modenatelsevere deprkbtion (%)

(%) (%)

140-199

200-299

300-399

400+

46.2

41.9

45.9

54.6

63.0

47.6

52.7

49.1

43.5

36.1

6.2

5.4

5.0

1.9

0.9

housing

300

Brian P. McLaughlin Table 7.

Owner-occupied (fully owned) Owner-occupied (mortgage) Public rented Private rented Rent-free

Tenure structure in rural areas

Essex

Yorkshire

Suffolk

Shropshire

39.6

55.3

13 3

51.7

15.1 14.1

10.0 15.0 5.8 7.7

21.1 14.6 10.5 10.5 N = 171

6.9 2.9 IV = 173

N=

180

outright ownership. On aggregate, two-thirds (67%) of all owner-occupied tenures in the survey were fully owned, predominantly by households whose members were of retired or immediately pre-retirement age (45% of total) or by adult households defined as households in which the youngest members were aged 18+ (34% of total). The varying proportional importance of each group within the selected survey areas reflected

(4 the impact of in-migrant retirement tb)

and preretirement households in the rural housing market; and the impact of ‘trading-up’ by households movi~~ through the housing market and who, in the process, place increasing priority on ‘environment’ rather than ‘shelter’ in their residential choices.

In the context of housing access, one of the implications of the high incidence of outright ownership is the fact that not only does it reduce turnover rates but when the housing comes on the market, it is priced at a level well beyond the income range of a large proportion of rural households, whether Iocal or non-local. Objective professional valuations of the property in the survey were not possible but households were asked to indicate the ‘asking price’ of their property were they to put it on the market at that time (1981). Although the resultant data represent ‘expected values’ rather than actual market valuations, it is contended that they represent a reasonably accurate assessment of their value at that time. The price profiles which the data produce provide some indication of the extent to which the rural housing market is becoming gentrified. Over 60% of properties had an expected value of at least f30,OOO and 23% had an expected value of at least $50,000. The true significance of the price profiles is arguably best illustrated in the context of smaller housing units which are popularly perceived to be most

Northumberland

All areas

Great Britain

29.8

42.8

23.0

17.2 5.7 18.4 6.9

12.9 27.0 21.3 9.0

21.1 15.4 13.2 7.5

31.0 33.1 9.3 2.0

N = 174

iv = 17s

N = 876

appropriate for first-time buyers and to local needs. Forty-seven per cent of all two-bedroom houses and 56% of all three-bedroom houses had an expected value in excess of f30,OOO. (In 1981, only 5% of properties bought by first-time buyers nationally cost &30,000 or more.) The extent to which home ownership was a realistic objective for many of those households who were not then in owner-occupied housing can be assessed from the fact that 75% of al1 households in local authority housing and 63% of all households in private rented tenures had net annual incomes below f6000 per annum. The distributional effects of these market processes are clearly demonstrable in the poverty status of different tenure groups (Table 8). With the exception of the 20% of fully-owned tenures which were occupied by poor elderly households, that sector and the owner-occupied mortgage sector were dominated by better-off households to a degree which betied their proportional importance in the rural sample. Whilst the poiarisation which is evident within the owner-occupied sector in the rural sample may be more extreme than elsewhere in the country, the fact that poor households cannot gain access to owneroccupied housing is not an experience unique to the rural environment. Whether or not their lack of housing opportunity is repeated in other sectors, therefore, becomes a critical consideration for the analysis of rural deprivation. The data identify that the public rented sector provides for the housing needs of a considerable proportion of poor households. A more detailed analysis of the dynamics of that sector, however, illustrates considerable problems of access arising from its limited availability in many rural areas and/or the management and use of the available stock. Although local authority housing accounted for 15% of the total housing stock, the distribution between and within rural areas was uneven, reflecting the

The

Rhetoric

and

the Reality

of Rural

301

Deprivation

Table 8. Housing tenure according to household poverty Household income (?G S.B. level) Less than 139 14Q- 199 200-299 3oQ-499 500+

Owner-occupied (outright)

Owner-occupied (mortgage)

Rented local authority

Rented private

Rent-free

21.8 18.2 23.5 21.3 15.1

11.8 23.1 34.8 22.5 7.8

46.3 29.5 20.4 3.8 0.0

34.5

17.5

15.9 29.2 16.8 3.3

36.5 26.9 14.3 4.8

N = 357

N = 178

N = 133

$N = 113

N = 63

impact of local authority housing investment decisions, of settlement planning policies and the pattern of physical infrastructure provision in rural areas.: As a result, many parishes within the survey areas icontained no council housing at all. An equally critical determinant of access, however. was the nature of the public sector stock and its management by local authority housing departments. On aggregate, local authority housing was occtupbed primarily by elderly and adult households (all mbmbers 18+) who accounted for 40% and 31% respectively of all council tenancies. One outcome of the hi$h incidence of elderly tenants was a problem of under-occupancy. Whilst nearly a quarter (23%) of all ~qouncil tenants were sole elderly households, less than 9% of council housing stock could be descrjbed as appropriate for single person accommodalion. This degree of under-occupation reflects a co+bination of low housebuilding rates and a prevalent housing type (standard three-bedroom terrace or semi-detached) which together limit oppodtunities for meaningful housing management in the rural environment. At the time of the survey (1981), 50% of all elderly and adult households in council housing had lived in their ithen current house for 16+ years (pre-1965). Thein families had either grown up and moved away or, as in the case of adult households, were in the process of family formation themselves and were thus lin housing need. The limitations which the coun&l sector presented both to these households and to others who were already established on official waiting lists were considerable, a situation unlikely to improve since the introduction of the Housbng Act 1980. Nor were the housing prospects of lower income households much better served in the private rented sector, Although this sector was proportionately the second most important in the total rural housing stock1 aggregate data again concealed considerable variations in its availability between areas and also

management within areas.

constraints

which

restricted

access

Private rented tenures tended to be more prevalent in those areas where employment opportunities existed in primary industries, such as agriculture and tourism. In such circumstances, however, the extent of the housing opportunities available was often more apparent than real, due to occupancy conditions which restricted the general availability of a significant proportion of this stock. On aggregate, over 40% of all private rented housing was job-tied although that proportion varied from 23% in Essex to approximately 64% in Suffolk, where it was closely linked to the agricultural job market. The limitations on access resulting from job ties also varied between rent-free housing, 80% of which was job-tied, and rented properties, of which 20% was tied. The extent to which housing was related to employment was a significant determinant of the housing opportunities available to particular household types. Rent-free tenures were dominated by lowincome adult and and family households, two-thirds of whom were in manual occupations. Whilst it appeared, therefore, to make a significant contribution to the housing needs of the less-well-off, the limitations imposed by its job tie together with the fact that this sector recorded a high incidence of poor housing conditions create a certain degree of disadvantage for its occupants. The private rented sector, by contrast, was occupied mainly by elderly and adult households and nearly one half (47%) of all private rented tenants were in non-manual occupations. Although the high incidence of tenant farmers and farm managers (Socioeconomic class II) in this sector partly explains the profile, it also reflects the important role which private rented housing plays in satisfying some of the housing demands of high-income non-manual employees in rural areas who cannot gain access to owner-occupied stock because of cost and/or who

302

Brian P. McLaughlin

are ineligible or are a low priority for the limited stock of council property. The competition which these higher-income households create for other households in the rural housing market is often intense in areas where supply is limited. In areas where additional demands arise from external sources such as those generated by the tourism industry, the resultant problems are exacerbated. The rental income which can be derived from short-term tenancies, such as those which characterise self-catering tourist areas, are such as to create significant problems for more than just the low-income households. The broader implications of such restricted housing opportunities for low- and middle-income households in rural areas can be demonstrated in the patterns of availability and use of other critical facilities and services. Rural poverty and rural services: shopping

The decline of rural services has been an important and popular indicator in much of the early debate on rural deprivation. Indeed, over time, the indicator has become so closely identified with the problem that in some popular versions of the debate rural deprivation and service decline have become synonymous. A key issue in the declining rural services debate has been the question of the decline in the number of village shops and the implications of that process on village life. An associated dimension of this problem of declining village shops has been the parallel decline in the number of village post offices, many of which occupy the same premises. Two main themes have dominated much of the rural shopping debate: (i) the decline in the number of shops in rural areas; and (ii) the extent to which the remaining shops are being used (or not) by the rural population and hence their vulnerability to closure and/or conversion to outlets for non-essentials, such as antique shops. Table 9. Availability

The availability of shops in the rural survey areas and the extent of their use by the rural population are illustrated in Table 9. Two aspects of the data are of particular relevance to the popular debate about rural shops and shopping habits:

6) the considerably high proportion of rural households in the survey living in villages which had a shop; and (ii) the high percentage of those households who did not use the village shop for everyday needs. (For the purposes of the survey, everyday needs was defined for the househoId as ‘the bulk of their shopping requirements’ as distinct from ‘casual’ or ‘topping up’ shopping use.) How many of the parishes then without a local shop (1981) had ever had one was impossible to establish. Within the survey areas, however, the available information indicated that their decline was continuing. Indeed, the process was given a contemporary flavour in Essex when the local village shop in one of the chosen study parishes closed during the period that the household survey was taking place. This continuing process of decline was not, however, affecting all sections of the rural population to the same extent. Analysis of shop-users identified elderly (retired} households and adult households as the dominant user groups, the former accounting for over one-third of local shop-users in four of the five survey areas. The extent to which this use pattern was a matter of dependence rather than choice is illustrated by the high proportion of local shop-users who were not mobile. Over one-half (56%) of all households without a car in the sample used village shops for the bulk of their shopping needs, whilst two-thirds (67%) of all elderly households shopping locally had no car (that proportion was 82% in the case of sole elderly households). Overall, the data describe a considerable degree of mutual interdependence between poor households and locat

and use of village shops according to households

Essex

Yorkshire

Suffolk

Shropshire

Households living in parishes without a shop (%)

18.5

18.0

15.4

26.6

9.0

17.4

Households in parishes with a shop but not using it (%)

62.4

40.4

66. I

62.4

23.6

50.3

Households using their village shop (%)

19.1

41.6

18.5

11.0

67.4

32.3

Northumberland

All rural areas

The

Rhetoric

and the

Reality

The patterns of availability other essential services and

Table 10. Shopping patterns

Shop in nearest centre Shop jr, other centre Superbarket/hypermarket/ out-oi%own centre, etc.

140-199

42.1 38.8 14.8

31.7 41.9 22.0

4.3

4.3

The extent to which poorer households in rural areas are dependent upon the local shop underlines their vulnerability when that shop closes and/or converts to become a source of ‘non-essential’ items. In such circumstances, poor households are often doubly disadpantaged given the additional financial costs and other inconveniences involved in travelling to alternative shopping. The telative disadvantage which they may experience at not being able to participate in the widelyadvertised loss leaders and special promotions of the larger multiples can only be a matter of conjecture. WhaO is not debatable, however, is the actual cost disadivantage which this dependence on the local shops creates. Data from the household expenditure diaries confirm that the comparative weekly costs of food ishopping at local rural shops are consistently higher for all household groups compared with the costsiincurred by similar rural household groups who shop ~elsewhere. They are also significantly higher than phe average costs for such households in Great Britabn as a whole, as defined by the Family Expenditure Survey, 1981 (Department of Employment:, 1982a) (Table 11). The significance of these cost differentials for the rural/ deprivation debate, however, becomes clearer when set in the context of the financial circumstat&s of rural households. As Fig. 2 illustrates, low-iincome households who shopped locally were

N=

and consumption of facilities in the rural

by household poverty

up to 139

N = 209

303

Deprivation

not only disadvantaged relative to their national equivalent income group in respect of higher costs but were also disadvantaged relative to all other income groups in rural areas in terms of the proportion of their weekly income which u’as spent on food shopping. (Ironically, the high costs of shopping locally was the single most important explanation advanced by rural households for nor using their local shop. Unlike the rural poor, however, these households could exercise choice and shop elsewhere.)

shops in rural areas. Forty-two per cent of the former used their local shop for the bulk of their shopping requirements and their custom accounted for one-third of the total customers using local shops in the rural survey. The extent to which this dependence on the local shop was greater for the poor households compared with any other household ibcome group is clearly illustrated in Table 10 which~ describes the response to the question: ‘Whede do you usually shop for everyday needs?’ (For Ohe purposes of this survey, ‘everyday needs’ was defined as the bulk of the household’s shopping requitiements as distinct from ‘casual’ or ‘topping up’ shopping.)

Local Mllage shop

of Rural

183

S.B. level (%) 200-299

300-499

500+

27.9 42.8 24.3

25.2 38.4 33.1

23.7 48.7 25.0

4.9

3.3

5.6

N = 222

N=

151

N = 76

survey areas describe similar distributional effects. Table 12 demonstrates that in the case of health services, for example, recorded visits to doctors’ surgeries, opticians and dentists display a significant social class gradient. Not only does the rural population in the lower socio-economic groups make less absolute use of services, but those who do use them less frequently despite the fact that the survey recorded no difference in the medical needs of the population. For all rural populations, levels and standards of service provision emerged as a key issue of concern, particularly given the increasing tendency to centralise both general and specialist medical services. The impact of such decisions, however, in terms of the accessibility problems which resulted were not uniformly distributed across the rural population. At a simple level of analysis, it is apparent that the level of personal mobility is an important determinant of accessibility. Approximately one-half (49%) of all households with problems of access to medical services were households without cars. More detailed analysis, however, displays a complex amalgam of explanatory factors in which the availability and costs of alternative means of access and/or the convenience or inconvenience of using them are key issues. Poor public transport particularly problematic

services were identified as especially for poor house-

Brian

P. ~~cLaughlin

Table 11. Comparative costs (f) of food shopping according to selected household groups

Local shop Shop elsewhere Great Britain average*

Elderly

Household Adult

Family

18.05 16.60 13.78

27.96 26.51 21.18

35.33 33.87 29.63

*Data derived from Family Expenditure Employment. 1982a).

Survey. 1981 (Department

of

f50r

f40Food costs

f30

f2O

LlO

-

” Hw%?hofd Income

Under-t 95

655

< f&O

Rural

feo(

Shop

f120

El20 < Cl60

a

f160

< f2OO

f200

l

G.8

Figure 2. Comparative costs (f) of food shopping according to selected household income categories. Source: Rural data derived from the weekly expenditure diary completed as part of the rural household survey. Great Britain data derived from Family Expenditure Survey 1981, Table 8 (Department of Employment, 1982a).

Table 12. Proportion

of population

using selected medical services according economic status Socio-economic class IV 111

I

II

Visits to doctor No visits One or two visits Three+ visits

33.5 50.0 16.5

47.7 41.1 11.2

41.4 37.7 20.9

Visits tu opticians No visits One or two visits Three+ visits

70.3 29.7 0.0

76.9 21.3 1.7

Visits to dentists No visits One or two visits Three f visits

26.7 63.6 9.7

32.6 51.0 16.4

to socio-

V

VI

50.9 33.2 15.9

48.9 36.6 14.5

46.0 41.3 12.7

78.2 18.9 2.9

80.9 18.7 0.4

85.8 13.3 0.9

78.5 21.5 0.0

35.9 57.3 6.8

52.6 44.0 3.4

47.8 47.3 4.9

53.8 44.6 1.6

The Rhetoric

and the Reality of Rural Deprivation rates for rural areas compared profile (Table 13).

holds, 60% of whom reported that public transport timetables and medical appointment schedules did not coincide. In other situations, reliance on limited public transport services for access to specialist treatment necessitated complex travel arrangements and lengthy travelling times for comparatively short consultations.

with the national

Not all areas recorded such high levels of mobility, however, reflecting the variations in the composition of the population in each area. The comparatively high proportion of households without cars in Yorkshire and Northumberland partly reflects the high percentage of elderly population recorded in these areas, such households recording the lowest car-ownership levels in the survey. Fifty-two per cent of all elderly (retired) households had no car, although that proportion increased to 72% in the case of sole elderly women and 64% for sole elderly men..Arguably of greater significance for the deprivation debate is the correlation between car ownership and household income (Table 14).

More critical perhaps, especially in the context of earlier analysis of rural employment, was the relationbhip between the nature of the local labour market and the use of medical services. For the lowincome households without a car and/or with a poor or inconvenient bus service, reliance on taxis for mediqal visits was a cost which they could ill afford. For low-income households whose sole car was used to take the primary wage-earner to work, the question of travelling to medical services posed an additjonal dilemma, i.e. whether to request time off from Lvork and lose pay as a result or to decide not to use medical services at all. In a low-paid job, the price of losing a day’s pay was often considered to be more important than the perceived longer-term advantage of healthy teeth or effective vision.

Within the rural survey areas, the low-income households who had earlier been identified as disadvantaged in terms of access to and consumption of a range of services and facilities were also disadvantaged in terms of personal mobility. For 8% of non-car households, the extent of their immobility was underlined by the fact that they lived in parishes which lacked a bus service. Of that immobile group 46% had a gross weekly income below 255 and 77% had a gross weekly income below f80.

The profile described for services such as shopping and health services was repeated across a range of situations in the rural environment resulting in the continuing polarisation of rural society in the survey areasl and the creation of ‘two nations in one village’ (Newby, 1985). This trend can be demonstrated in a range of situations but was particularly apparent in the context of car ownership.

Even for those poorer households who owned a car, the price of maintaining their mobility in a period of rising petrol costs was a commitment to continuous adjustments in their travel behaviour. Of households in poverty 61% reported a forced reduction in the use of their cars as a result of increasing petrol costs compared with 38% of households with incomes of three or more times their S.B. level. The outcome of these decisions also varied between the groups. For the poor households, increasing costs of travel

Personal mobility

In the rural survey, aggregate car ownership profiles conformed to the now familiar pattern of higher

Table 13. Proportion of households owning or having regular use of a car

No car 1 car 2+ cars

Essex

Yorkshire

Suffolk

Shropshire

17.9 43.4 38.7

25.0 52.2 22.8

15.5 45.8 38.7

12.6 49.9 38.5

N = 173

N = 180

N = 171

N = 174

Northumberland

All areas

Great Britain

34.3 50.6 15.1

21.2 48.2 30.6

39.0 45.0 16.0

N = 178

N = 876

Table 14. Car ownership according to household income Up to f55/week No car 1 car 2+ cars

60.4 38.3 1.3

f55-
f80-<120/week 17.5 68.9 13.6

f120-<160/week 9.5 62.9 27.6

f160-<200/week 6.4 53.3 40.3

f2OO+lweek 1.7 36.2 62.1

306

Brian

P. McLaughlin

meant a reduction in both essential and non-essential journeys. For the better off, economies were more often achieved by the use of a more ‘economical’ vehicle, a situation succinctly described by one household as: ‘One uses the Jaguar less and the Renault more’. The range of disadvantages experienced by poor households in relation to their better-off neighbours, however. does not describe the total extent of comparative disadvantage within rural society. In some circumstances, age was a significant determinant of disadvantage and young adults often emerged as deprived across a range of situations including opportunities for and access to further and higher education, choice of jobs, levels of income and work conditions and the quality of social life which they did or did not enjoy. In the short term, the opportunities available to the young in rural areas to move away from home and establish ‘independence’ locally were virtually non-existent. In the longer term, their housing opportunities are no more attractive.

not employed within the chosen sector. Indeed. such populations may arguably experience a greater level of relative deprivation as a consequence of their exclusion. Despite such findings, the rural policy initiatives introduced over the past decade in the U.K. reaffirm an established spatial approach. In 1951, the commitment to assist area’s of greatest need through concentrated investment strategies was reiterated in the designation of Rural Development Areas (RDAs) by the Development Commission (Fig. 3). Ostensibly defined on indicators of social and economic malaise,* the policy objective is to concentrate funding to assist the process of economic and social regeneration within what might be termed the rural equivalent of Urban Priority Areas. To achieve that objective, a wider range of grants and loans is being promised for the construction of advance factories, the provision of business advice, loans and grants for both economic and community development and a limited number of innovatory housing schemes.

Meaningful distinctions can also be illustrated in the experiences of men and women in rural areas, particularly, but not exclusively, in their employment conditions and levels of mobility. In both circumstances, the level of comparative disadvantage is greater for women not only in relation to men in rural areas but also in relation to women nationally. Such cleavages occurred in a wide range of situations and circumstances in rural areas and they cut across many of the more popular arguments upon which the rural deprivation debate has been developed so far. In the light of the research findings, the criterion of ethnicity which attempts to explain rural deprivation solely in a context of the experience of local and non-local populations appear crude and potentially misleading. The available evidence illustrates that not all locals in rural areas are deprived nor are all the deprived in rural areas locals. A similar conclusion may be drawn in respect of the ‘area’ dimension of the rural debate. Whilst the study investigated the lifestyles and living conditions of a cross-section of the population in a range of contrasting rural environments, the extent to which deprivation occurred across afl areas challenges the essentially spatial and/or sectoral basis upon which many rural socio-economic policies have been based to date. The evidence suggests that policies based solely on specific areas or pockets of need and/or on particular sectors will almost by definition omit a significant proportion of the deprived population who live outside the designated areas and/or who are

Figure 3. Rural development

areas.

Although concern has already been expressed about the extent to which financial restrictions will permit the Development Commission and the relevant local authorities to fund proposed projects within one such designated area (Hurr, 1985), the RDA initiative stands as a primary policy vehicle around which a significant proportion of future state investment in rural socio-economic regeneration will be developed. For not only have RDAs become established as the focus for Development Commission funding,

The Rhetoric

and the Reality of Rural Deprivation

307

they have also been adopted by other agencies such as the Housing Corporation and the Sports Council as the determinant of their investment priorities in rural England.

Failure to recognise and act upon that distinction may result in a policy programme which treats the symptoms of the problems whilst leaving the problems unaffected.

The limited extent to which spatial policies alone can be e$ective in providing solutions to what are essen$ally aspatial problems has already been demohstrated in the context of inner cities in the U.K. show much more effective the repetition of that kpproach can be in rural areas must be contettable. In a land-use planning context, the most likely!outcome of such policies would appear to be the qaintenance of the rural social and environmental status quo. Despite the rhetoric which has surrounded the rural policy programme and the (mardinal) improvement in funding which accomppnied it, the resultant package remains firmly withi+ an overall policy of environmental protectioni$n for rural areas. From the experience of rural policy implementation to date, the likelihood that benejits from that package will trickle down to the level iof the most needy is slim indeed.

Note

In sqch circumstances, there is a clear need to reco nise that deprivation is a problem which affects peop 1 e rather than places per se and devise policies acco dingly. Consequently, there is a need to direct our s‘, arch for solutions towards those agencies and polic es which have welfare and well-being as their expli 1it remit as well as at those which have land-use consi/derations as their primary concern. It seems unlik@y that we will solve the problems of the rural deprived: if our housing policies continue to support the sale oft council housing which is the only source of rebted housing available to low-income househdlds; if he continue with a policy to abolish the Wages Cbuncils which attempt to protect the interests of thie low paid; if we continue to dismantle the state welfare syktem upon which the ‘less able’ depend; if owe fail to recognise the unequal distributional eflfects of our rural land-use and environmental policies and take action accordingly. In short, if we are serious about finding solutions to the groblems of the deprived in rural areas, we need to cpluntenance not only the real causes of their pligqt but also recognise the need to reform those poliQies which maintain that sector of the population in deprived circumstances. In that respect, we shoqld begin by recognising just how far we are dealing with rural problems per se and how far we are healing with more general problems which have a particular manifestation in the rural context.

1. The

published indicators included: above average unemployment rates, inadequate or unsatisfactory range of employment opportunities, population decline or sparsity which is having an adverse effect, net outward migration of working age population. poor access to services and facilities and population imbalanced in favour of the elderly.

References Archbishop’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas (1985) Faith in the City: a Call for Action by Church and Nation. Church House Publishing, London. Craig, J. and Driver, A. (1972) The identification and comparison of small areas of adverse social conditions: a study of social indicators and social indices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 21. Department of Employment (1982a) Family Expenditure Survey, 1981. HMSO. London. Department of Employment (1982b) New Earnings Survey, 1981. HMSO, London. Development Commission (1982) Fortieth Report - April 1981-March 1982. HMSO, London. Holtermann, S. (1976) Census indicators of urban deprivation. Social Trends No. 6. HMSO, London. Hurr, S. (1985) Devising and implementing a rural development programme. In Rural Economic Development Policies and Initiatives, Occasional Paper No. 20. Planning Exchange. Glasgow. Knox, P. (1979) Territorial social indicators and area profiles: some cautionary observations. Town Planning Review No. 49, 75-83. Laslett, P. (1983) The World We Have Lost - Further Explored. Methuen, London. McLaughlin, B.P. (1984) Rural deprivation: from administrative convenience to policy respectability. In Rural Deprivation and Planning, Research Report No. 6. pp. 13-29. Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology. McLaughlin, B.P. (1985) The Revival of the Rural Idyll. Paper to RESS Annual Conference, Loughborough University (unpublished). McLaughlin, B.P. (1986a) Local approaches to rural deprivation-the growing dilemma. Local Government Studies 12. McLaughlin, B.P. (1986b) Rural policy in the 1980s -the revival of the rural idyll. Journal of Rum1 Studies 2, 81-90. Newby, H. (1985) Agriculture and the Future of Rural Communities (unpublished). Newby, H., Bell, C., Rose, D. and Saunders, P. (1978) Property, Paternalism and Power: Class and Control in Rural England. Hutchinson, London. Openshaw, S. and Cullingford, D. (1979) Some Comments on Ways of Measuring Rural Deprivation (unpublished). Thirsk, J. (1984) The Rural Economy of England. The Hambledon Press, London. Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. Penguin, Harmondsworth.