Students as catalysts of city and regional growth

Mark Livingston, Moira Munro and Ivan Turok

University of Glasgow

“Britain’s great teenage transhumance”

Students - rapidly growing section of city populations:– 0.8m (1991) - 2.3m (2005)– Transient – but distinct (& relatively fixed) characteristics– Increasingly varied (though social disparities remain)– A growing target of policy attention – talent attraction

Potential impacts:

1. Source of (skilled) labour supply

2. Stimulus to neighbourhood revitalisation

3. A catalyst for new consumer services & amenities

4. Intangible effects: atmosphere, image, reputation

Especially important in former industrial cities?

• Economic diversification• Human capital in-migration• Low demand housing• Richer amenities• Image enhancement

• AND student location decisions less influenced by state of the local labour market so can help to initiate growth

Objectives

• Analytical framework to examine effects on cities, neighbourhoods and disadvantaged communities

• Net effects at regional scale (origins & destinations)• How effects differ between types of HEI and regional

contexts• Tensions and policy lessons

Methods• Quantitative national picture of student places• 5 case studies across the UK for causal relationships

and detailed impacts

Example of simple typology

HEI Type Student

origin

Graduate destination

Examples

Local ladder Local Local ?

Springboard Local Elsewhere ?

Magnet Elsewhere Local ?

Training ground Elsewhere Elsewhere ?

1. Students as workers

• Do students occupy distinct niches or displace locals for jobs?– Great majority work in ‘low value’ service industries

• Students may offer:– Flexibility– Greater social capital & soft skills– Lower wage expectations?– Specialised skills?

• Could block entry points, depress wages, increase casual work

• But could attract/retain businesses, foster learning, increase competitiveness

Student workers (2001 census)

% of students economically active

England 36.3

Scotland 44.0

Wales 33.0

Student workers

% of students economically active

% of economically active students living at home

Gloucester 53.7 44.3Aldershot 52.9 49.5Swindon 52.4 40.6Ipswich 51.7 33.2Worthing 51.2 50.2Milton Keynes 50.7 42.8Wigan 50.4 65.3Southend 49.3 52.1Crawley 49.2 54.4Peterborough 49.0 41.8Blackburn 48.9 49.7Warrington 48.5 54.0Hastings 48.5 40.7Blackpool 48.4 51.9

% of students economically active

% of economically active students living at home

Leicester 34.16 28.39Newcastle 33.37 36.26Manchester 33.15 31.45Leeds 33.05 19.49Liverpool 32.56 34.74Bristol 32.25 21.49York 31.35 14.14Norwich 31.08 19.49Southampton 30.34 16.88Hull 29.89 23.42Sheffield 29.58 23.44Coventry 28.55 23.88Nottingham 25.86 20.32Oxford 19.24 5.73Cambridge 14.26 7.39

Students and economic activity

Economically active students as a % of economically active population

Oxford 7.08Cambridge 5.28Southampton 3.99Coventry 3.63Brighton 3.60Leeds 3.51York 3.46Luton 3.34Leicester 3.34Plymouth 3.17Liverpool 3.10Nottingham 2.79Sheffield 2.71Derby 2.70London 2.68Bristol 2.68

Hours worked

% of students

1-2 hours 0.7

3-5 hours 4.0

6-15 hours 36.9

16-30 hours 30.2

31-37 hours 9.2

38-48 hours 14.9

49 + hours 4.1

More students tend to work where there is more work

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0

overall employment rate (%)

% o

f s

tud

en

ts e

mp

loy

ed

Students work more where more students work

% Economic active vs % of full time working students

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

% of full time students

% E

cono

mic

ly a

ctiv

e

PUA

2. Student as residents

• Negative media portrayals are common:– Anti-social, attract crime, create grime, undermine

neighbourhood cohesion– ‘Studentification’ and displacement

• BUT also – vibrant, ‘buzzy’ quarters; novel and interesting businesses; social diversity

• Can students help neighbourhood regeneration?

How students live

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

England Scotland Wales

Other

Alone

Student hhlds

Communal

With Parents

% of population that are students

Aldershot 1.2Warrington 1.2Wakefield 1.2Ipswich 1.2Burnley 1.2Milton Keynes 1.2Barnsley 1.1Wigan 1.1Worthing 1.1Crawley 1.1Gloucester 1.1Hastings 1.0Swindon 1.0Doncaster 1.0Peterborough 0.9Mansfield 0.9Grimsby 0.9Southend 0.9

Cambridge 17.0Oxford 16.7Southampton 6.5Coventry 5.7York 5.5Leeds 5.1Nottingham 5.0Brighton 4.9Leicester 4.5Sheffield 4.2Bristol 4.2Plymouth 4.1Liverpool 3.9London 3.6Luton 3.5Norwich 3.5Newcastle 3.5

Leeds: Census 2001

Bradford: Census 2001

Students & area deprivation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Least 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most

England

Scotland

Wales

(Students living independently)

Bristol

Newcastle

3. Students as consumers

• Supporting the night-time economy• Demand for (& supply of) culture, arts, music,

entertainment – lively attractive urban areas• Can these amenities help to attract other forms of

investment?

Conclusions

• Initial support for significance of students as workers and residents

• Suggests different kinds of ‘student cities’ with different kinds of impact, positive and negative

• Next steps:– More data analysis– And then case studies…