Drivers of rural business growth, decline and stability
CONFIDENTIAL
This work contains statistical data from ONS which is Crown Copyright. The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the statistical data. This work uses research datasets which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates
Rural and urban definitions used in the analysis
Rural-urban classification Sparsity classification
Classification at OA level
Rural and Urban are not very different…
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Agr
icul
ture
/ fis
hing
Min
ing/
qua
rryi
ng/
cons
truc
tion
/ util
ity
Man
ufa
ctur
ing
Who
lesa
le/ r
etai
l /lo
gist
ics
Ser
vice
s
Fin
ance
Hea
lth/
soci
al w
ork
/ed
uca
tion
/ pub
lic
To
uris
m-r
ela
ted
Sha
re o
f em
ploy
men
t
Rural Urban Less sparse Sparse
…but Rural performed better
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Em
ploy
men
t in
are
a (2
008
= 1
00)
Rural
Urban
LesssparseSparse
Total
Which sectors drove the difference?
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Rural Urban Less sparse Sparse
Con
trib
utio
n to
cha
nge
in e
mpl
oym
ent
(200
8-2
012)
Tourism
Health/ social work /education / publicFinance
Services
Wholesale/ retail / logistics
Manufacturing
Mining/ quarrying/construction / utilityAgriculture/ fishing
Overall net change
Top 10 growth sectors Top 10 decline sectorsSocial work without accommodation Employment activities
Residential care activities Construction of buildings
Education Civil engineering
Retail Manufacture non-metal mineral
Human health activities Manufacture fabricated metal
Agriculture Manufacture motor vehicle
Service to buildings Office admin, business support
Computer prog, consultancy Manufacture plastic / rubber
Sports & recreation Repair installation machinery
Telecommunications Manufacture machinery nec
Which sectors have changed the most in rural areas?
These are a mix of cyclical sectors (e.g. construction / business support) and
manufacturing
Main growth is in social work and residential – both key sources of
employment growth. Other growth sectors are more of a mixed group
Rural performed better in each region…
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
Nor
th E
ast
Nor
th W
est
Yor
kshi
re
Eas
t Mid
land
s
Wes
t Mid
land
s
Eas
t of E
ngla
nd
Sou
th E
ast
Sou
th W
est
Cha
nge
in e
mpl
oytm
ent
(200
8-2
012)
Rural Urban
Why do rural businesses do better in some places than others?
Supply side Demand side
● Input costs (diverse and vary by industry)
● Labour: price + quality
● Transport / transactions costs
● Local demand drivers (population, income)
● Search goods (customers’ knowledge of product)
● Wider e.g. global demand – exchange rates etc.
But for reliable analysis you need data at a fine spatial scale
Postcode / OA level data
c. 170k OAs
LAD level data
Only 326 LADs
● Broadband
● Population, households and income
● Transport infrastructure
● House prices
● Demographics – pensioners and graduates
● Number of public sector employees
● Measures of sectoral agglomeration
● Business rates
Quantitative analysis found some drivers related to rural business performance…
Broadband / mobile infrastructure
● Rural areas with good broadband have fared a lot better
● Strongly correlated with business births and employment growth
● Also linked to churn…
Local demand
● Population, households and income are all correlated with business performance
● Effect seen in relation to both changes and levels; the latter effect could suggest some form of agglomeration effects occurring (relatively more growth in more populated areas)
Transport infrastructure
● Better connected areas have higher rates of both start-ups and failure (i.e. higher churn)
● More flexibility to re-deploy inputs in other uses, so this should enhance productivity
Qualitative analysis confirmed many of these findings and identified other areas of concern
Bro
ad
ba
nd/
Mo
bile
Ph
on
e
Cov
era
ge
Tra
nsp
ort
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
Acc
ess
to
Fin
an
ce
● Access and speed
□ Slow broadband constitutes a major time cost, both waiting for up/downloads and/or traveling to use the internet
□ High cost of installing lines in rural areas
□ Barrier on tourism as free Wifi expected
● Roads
□ Poor public transport options perceived as a major barrier to employing low level staff as they cannot afford to run a car
□ Closures can be costly in terms of customer access and time cost for employees
● Rail
□ Seen as a driver in North-East/North-West and a major barrier in South-West
● Participants felt investment capital was unavailable
□ Banks requiring too much security on loans, loss of the ‘local’ bank manager
□ Most had written off commercial finance and were extremely adverse to debt. They were therefore expanding from profits alone
Lo
ans
an
d G
ran
tsP
lan
nin
gE
mp
loym
en
t an
d
Em
plo
yme
nt l
aw
● Lack of awareness
□ Grant application process too complex with multiple organisations. Participants were put off by this
□ No real marketing of peer-to-peer lending schemes
● “Can’t do”, “Detached from reality”
□ Participants felt that planning authorities were not on their side and as a result there was too much of a time burden on senior staff
□ Planning authorities unrealistic about stopping development on green land
Employees need cheep housing
● Payroll and Auto-Enrolment
□ Frustration at the time cost on senior management at having employees on payroll and auto-enrolment
● Access to Labour
□ There was a wide perception that employers weren’t getting value for money and employment law was making it hard to remove poor performers
Summary
● Rural and urban overlap considerably in terms of sector. Around 80% of rural employment is in sectors that are equally important in the urban economy.
● Rural has performed better than urban (at least as far as employment), in most sectors and regions.
● Rural growth has been stronger in areas that are in close proximity to urban areas, suggesting there may be agglomeration benefits in linking resource-rich rural areas with centres of economic activity.
● Much of the change in rural economic activity can be characterised by sector-specific structural factors or cyclical factors.
● There is a strong relationships between rural performance and broadband provision.
● The planning system is claimed to be an over-zealous constraint on economic development and on housing.
Frontier Economics Limited in Europe is a member of the Frontier Economics network, which consists of separate companies based in Europe (Brussels, Cologne, London and Madrid) and Australia (Melbourne & Sydney). The companies are independently owned, and legal commitments entered into by any one company do not impose any obligations on other companies in the network. All views expressed in this document are the views of Frontier Economics Limited.
FRONTIER ECONOMICS EUROPE LTD.BRUSSELS | COLOGNE | LONDON | MADRID
Frontier Economics Ltd, 71 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6DA
Tel. +44 (0)20 7031 7000 Fax. +44 (0)20 7031 7001 www.frontier-economics.com