Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:28:50.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dereliction, decay and the problem of de-industrialization in Britain, c. 1968–1977

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2019

Aaron Andrews
Aaron Andrews*
Affiliation:
Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De-industrialization and the rise of the service sector have formed the basis of recent attempts to develop a new metanarrative of economic change in twentieth-century Britain. Their effects have been taken as writ through labour market statistics or aggregate measures of gross domestic product. However, by focusing on particular micro-economic spaces, a different story emerges. Using the inner areas of Liverpool as a case-study, this article shows how the city's social and economic problems were underwritten by the decline of the service sector, located around the port. By reading the effects of social and economic change through accounts of the physical environment, it demonstrates how urban decay and dereliction provided material resonance to Liverpool's economic decline. The city's landscape of urban decay and dereliction encompassed the infrastructure of everyday life – housing, roads and even trees – as well as that of economic activity, including the docks and warehouses. Taken together, this article shows how this landscape of urban decay and dereliction came to be constituted as an agent within Liverpool's continued economic decline in the 1970s rather than simply being a reflection of it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 47 , Special Issue 2: The de-industrializing city in the UK and Germany: conceptual approaches and empirical findings in comparative perspective , May 2020 , pp. 236 - 256
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Jörg Arnold, Tobias Becker and Otto Saumarez Smith for their comments on earlier drafts of this article; Jim Tomlinson and Henrietta O'Connor for their thoughtful interrogation of the ideas as they appeared in my thesis; and Simon Gunn for his continued support throughout. I am also grateful to Shane Ewen and the anonymous reviewer.

References

1 Jones, A. and Matthews, C., Cities of the North: Jones the Planner (Nottingham, 2016), 208Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 207.

3 Smith, O. Saumarez, ‘Graeme Shankland: a sixties architect-planner and the political culture of the British left’, Architectural History, 57 (2014), 393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Lowe, R., ‘The rediscovery of poverty and the creation of the Child Poverty Action Group, 1962–68’, Contemporary Record, 9 (1995), 602–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Todd, S., ‘Family welfare and social work in post-war England, c. 1948 – c. 1970’, English Historical Review, 129 (2014), 384–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapely, P., Deprivation, State Interventions and Urban Communities in Britain, 1968–79 (London, 2017)Google Scholar.

5 V. Brittain, ‘Why Hamburgers would not accept the standards of living in Liverpool’, Times, 11 Dec. 1974, 16.

6 Ibid. It is not certain how clear an image the author of the article had of Hamburg itself; Brittain had previously published articles in The Times on a number of inner-city areas in Britain, but the piece comparing life in Liverpool and Hamburg appears to have been written immediately after her time in South Vietnam reporting on the Vietnam War.

7 For example, Donald, J., Imagining the Modern City (Minneapolis, 1999)Google Scholar; and Jones, G. Stedman, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society, 4th edn (London, 2013)Google Scholar.

8 Taylor, I., Evans, K. and Fraser, P., A Tale of Two Cities: Global Change, Local Feeling and Everyday Life in the North of England: A Study in Manchester and Sheffield (London, 1996)Google Scholar.

9 Broadberry, S., ‘The rise of the service sector’, in Floud, R., Humphries, J. and Johnson, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, vol. II: 1870 to the Present (Cambridge, 2014), 330–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tomlinson, J., ‘De-industrialization not decline: a new meta-narrative for post-war British history’, Twentieth Century British History, 27 (2016), 76–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Tomlinson, ‘De-industrialization not decline’, 84.

11 For example, see Cairncross, A., ‘What is de-industrialisation?’ in Blackaby, F. (ed.), Deindustrialisation (London, 1978), 5–17Google Scholar; and Tomlinson, ‘De-industrialization not decline’, 84–5.

12 On these trends, see Connolly, S. and Gregory, M., ‘Women and work since 1970’, in Crafts, N., Gazeley, I. and Newell, A. (eds.), Work and Pay in Twentieth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2007), 142–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Broadberry, ‘The rise of the service sector’.

13 For example, see Central Statistical Office, Standard Industrial Classification (London, 1968), 34Google Scholar, on the classification of the ‘loading and unloading of vessels’ as a service within the transport and communication order alongside omnibus crews and post office workers.

14 Cunningham, N.J., ‘The pattern of Merseyside employment 1949–66’, in Lawton, R. and Cunningham, C. (eds.), Merseyside: Social and Economic Studies (London, 1970), 149–201Google Scholar; and Cornfoot, T., ‘The economy of Merseyside, 1945–1982: quickening decline or post-industrial change?’, in Gould, W. and Hodgkiss, A. (eds.), The Resources of Merseyside (Liverpool, 1982), 14–26Google Scholar.

15 Wildman, C., Urban Redevelopment and Modernity in Liverpool and Manchester, 1918–1939 (London, 2016), 1Google Scholar.

16 See Phillips, J., ‘Class and industrial relations in Britain: the “long” mid-century and the case of port transport, c. 1920–70’, Twentieth Century British History, 16 (2005), 55–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Wilson, H. and Womersley, L., Economic Development of the Inner Area: Report by the Consultants, IAS/Li/21 (London, 1977), 79Google Scholar.

18 The data in Table 1 is used as a proxy for the changing labour market. More detailed analysis of the sectoral composition of job losses during this period needs to be undertaken.

19 High, S., MacKinnon, L. and Perchard, A. (eds.), The Deindustrialized World: Confronting Ruination in Postindustrial Places (Vancouver, 2017), 8Google Scholar.

20 Kefford, A., ‘Disruption, destruction and the creation of “the inner cities”: the impact of urban renewal on industry, 1945–1980’, Urban History, 44 (2016), 492–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Connell, K., ‘Race, prostitution and the New Left: the postwar inner city through Janet Mendelson's “social eye”’, History Workshop Journal, 83 (2017), 334CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Arnold, J., ‘“De-industrialization”: a research project on the societal history of economic change in Britain (1970–90)’, German Historical Institute London Bulletin, 34 (2012), 34–6Google Scholar.

23 Gandy, M., Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City (Cambridge, MA, 2003)Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., 7.

25 Latour, B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford, 2007), 1–17, 247–9Google Scholar.

26 Ibid.; and de Munck, B., ‘Reassembling actor-network theory and urban history’, Urban History, 44 (2017), 111–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Shapely, Deprivation, State Interventions and Urban Communities. This occurred alongside an increasing focus on ‘space’ as a category of analysis within academic studies more generally; see Foucault, M., ‘Of other spaces’, Dialectics, 16 (1986), 22Google Scholar, as cited in Gunn, S., ‘The spatial turn: changing histories of space and place’, in Gunn, S. and Morris, R. (eds.), Identities in Space: Contested Terrains in the Western City since 1850 (Aldershot, 2001), 1–14Google Scholar.

28 Couch, C., City of Change and Challenge: Urban Planning and Regeneration in Liverpool (Aldershot, 2003), 3–4Google Scholar. Also see Todd, S., ‘Affluence, class and Crown Street: reinvestigating the post-war working class’, Contemporary British History, 22 (2008), pp. 501–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Figures taken from Employment and Productivity Gazette, 76 (1968); Department of Employment Gazette, 80 (1972); and Employment Gazette, 94 (1986).

30 Scott, P., Triumph of the South: A Regional Economic History of Early Twentieth-Century Britain (Aldershot, 2007)Google Scholar.

31 In some parts of the city, and among some demographic groups – particularly the city's black communities – unemployment reached a rate of 46% in the early 1980s; see Worlock, D. and Sheppard, D., Better Together: Christian Partnership in a Hurt City (London, 1989), 146Google Scholar.

32 Wilson, H. and Womersley, L., Project Report by the Consultants, IAS/Li/1 (London, 1974), 15Google Scholar.

33 Shelter Neighbourhood Action Project (SNAP), Another Chance for Cities: SNAP 69/72 (London, 1972), 11–15Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., 53–5.

35 See Tenth Report with Evidence Taken before the Environment and Home Office Sub-Committee in Session 1972–73, Appendices and Index: Volume II – Evidence (1972–73: House Improvement Grants), HC 349-ii (London, 1973), 265; and Home Affairs Select Committee, Racial Disadvantage: Minutes of Evidence (Liverpool) 14 October 1980, HC 610-x (London, 1980), 560Google Scholar. Also see Topping, P. and Smith, G., Government against Poverty? Liverpool Community Development Project, 1970–75 (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar, for an account of similar changes in Vauxhall, located to the north of Liverpool city centre.

36 The term ‘multiple deprivation’, while then ill-defined, appeared in a 1968 joint circular from the Home Office (225/68), Department of Education and Science (19/68), Ministry of Health (35/68), Urban Programme (London, 1968), 1Google Scholar. Also see Norris, G., ‘Defining urban deprivation’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Urban Deprivation and the Inner City (London, 1979), 17–31Google Scholar; and Andrews, A., ‘Multiple deprivation, the inner city, and the fracturing of the welfare state: Glasgow, 1968–78’, Twentieth Century British History, 29 (2018), 605–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 It was, for example, argued that ‘THE “URBAN CRISIS” IS NOT REALLY A CRISIS OF THE MUNICIPALITY, BUT RATHER A CRISIS OF TECHNOLOGY and the public often feel they are governed by technocrats and the administrators who deploy the professionals’ (emphasis in original); see SNAP, Another Chance for Cities, 35. This sense of physical and figurative distance between the governors and the governed – ‘them and us’ – was also articulated in the final report of the Liverpool IAS; see Wilson, H. and Womersley, L., Change or Decay: Final Report of the Liverpool Inner Area Study (London, 1977), 167–8Google ScholarPubMed.

38 The aim of maintaining a significant proportion of the city's population had been set out in City and County Borough of Liverpool, Development Plan: Summary of Proposals (Written Statement) (Liverpool, 1952), 7Google Scholar.

39 General Register Office, Census County Reports: Lancashire (London, 1911–61)Google Scholar; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Census County Report: Lancashire (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Census County Reports: Merseyside (London, 1981–91)Google Scholar.

40 Robson, B., Those Inner Cities: Reconciling the Social and Economic Aims of Urban Policy (Oxford, 1988), 35–7Google Scholar.

41 SNAP, Another Chance for Cities, 53.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., 55.

48 SNAP, The New Granby Centre & SNAP Liverpool: Shelter Neighbourhood Action Project July 1969 – June 1972 (London, 1972), 34Google Scholar.

49 SNAP, Another Chance for Cities, 53.

50 Ibid., 53 and 55.

51 Ibid., 55. This had many similarities to the findings of John Barron Mays’ 1950s sociological study of juvenile delinquency in Liverpool which advocated a move away from purely psychological explanations of behaviour to focus on ‘the social setting in which the delinquency occurs and of the way in which environmental and personal factors interact’; see Mays, J.B., Growing Up in the City: A Study of Juvenile Delinquency in an Urban Neighbourhood (Liverpool, 1964), 9Google Scholar.

52 Police encounters were fraught, on both sides, in part reflecting poor relations between the local multi-ethnic population and the authorities. As such, when the ‘nice young copper’ had ‘identified his enemy’, it was, in his words, ‘some half-castes [who] were on a rampage’; Ibid.

53 Ibid.; for several nights in July 1981, Upper Parliament Street was the locus of significant urban disorder, known as the Toxteth ‘riots’.

54 Ibid.

55 On residents’ concerns over the ‘effect of vice on innocent by-standers’, see SNAP, Another Chance for Cities, 101.

56 See Pearson, C., ‘Dogs, history, and agency’, History and Theory, 52 (2013), 128–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McFarland, S. and Hediger, R., ‘Approaching the agency of other animals: an introduction’, in McFarland, S. and Hediger, R. (eds.), Animals and Agency: An Interdisciplinary Exploration (Leiden, 2009), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 SNAP, Another Chance for Cities, 53.

58 Ibid., 53.

59 Ibid., 55.

60 Ibid., 55.

61 Ibid.

62 Levinson, M., The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2016)Google Scholar; on Liverpool, see 270–9.

63 The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (MDHB) proposed the construction of the Seaforth Dock to the National Ports Council in 1965. This was approved in 1966 through the passing of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Act 1966; the new dock opened in 1971. See MDHB, Annual Report and Review for the Year Ended 1st July, 1965 (Liverpool, 1965), 6.

64 Balderstone, L., Milne, G. and Mulhearn, R., ‘Memory and place on the Liverpool waterfront in the mid-twentieth century’, Urban History, 41 (2014), 478–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Levinson, The Box, 2.

66 MDHB, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1970 (Liverpool, 1971), n.p.

67 Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (MDHC), Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1971 (Liverpool, 1972), 5.

68 MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1972 (Liverpool, 1973), 7.

69 MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1974 (Liverpool, 1975), 3.

70 MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1979 (Liverpool, 1980), 3.

71 MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1973 (Liverpool, 1974), 4–5.

72 ‘Statement of the advisory committee in respect of 1975’, MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1975 (Liverpool, 1976), n.p.

73 MDHC, Annual report 1975, 3.

74 The sale of the Albert Dock to Liverpool City Council to provide additional accommodation for the polytechnic was officially dropped in October 1975; see Liverpool Record Office, Liverpool: 352 MIN/FIN II/23/1, minutes of a meeting of the Performance Review and Financial Control sub-committee, 29 Oct. 1975, 86.

75 ‘Statement of advisory committee in respect of 1977’, MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1977 (Liverpool, 1978), n.p.

76 MDHC, Annual Report 1975, 3.

77 MDHC, Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31st December 1976 (Liverpool, 1977), 4.

78 Ibid.

79 This issue will be discussed in more detail below; see Merseyside Development Corporation, Initial Development Strategy (Liverpool, 1981), 5Google Scholar.

80 See Walker, P., The Ascent of Britain (London, 1977), 124–5Google Scholar; and Heseltine, M., Life in the Jungle: My Autobiography (London, 2000), 211–12Google Scholar.

81 Heseltine, Life in the Jungle, 211.

82 Similar wording was adopted through the Local Employment Act 1960, § 5 (1); and Local Employment Act 1972, § 8.

83 The National Archives, London (TNA): EW 7/292, W. Guy, note on dereliction, 11 May 1965.

84 TNA: EW 7/292, Douglas Jay to Richard Crossman, 27 Oct. 1965; emphasis in original MS.

85 TNA: EW 7/294, Philip Chantler to Aaron Emanuel, 15 Mar. 1968.

86 TNA: EW 7/1250, results of derelict land survey, 3 Oct. 1968; the acreage of derelict land for the years preceding and succeeding 31 Dec. 1967 was simply given as ‘—’.

87 These statements built on a previous report submitted to the council's Planning and Land Committee in June 1976; see Evans, E.S.P., The City's Land Resources (Liverpool, 1976)Google Scholar.

88 Evans, E.S.P., The Inner Area District Statements: Proposals for the Development of the Land Resource (Liverpool, 1976), 1Google Scholar.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid., 2.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid., 5.

93 Smith, O. Saumarez, ‘The inner city crisis and the end of urban modernism in 1970s Britain’, Twentieth Century British History, 27 (2016), 578–98Google Scholar.

94 Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal project, The Future for GEAR: Key Issues and Possible Courses of Action (Glasgow, 1978), 28.

95 Evans, Inner Area District Statements, 6; also see appendix 2, table 8 for a break-down of land use allocations.

96 H. Wilson and L. Womersley, Vacant Land: Report by Consultants, IAS/LI/11 (London, 1976), 1.

97 Ibid., 1–2.

98 Ibid.

99 Ibid., 5–17 and 26; similarly, the IADS concluded that, were funding available, it would take between four and a half and eight years to redevelop all of Liverpool's vacant land, assuming the work was undertaken concurrently – see Evans, Inner Area District Statements, figure 2.

100 Wilson and Womersley, Vacant Land, 27.

101 Ibid.

102 Cf. Kefford, ‘Disruption, destruction and the creation of “the inner cities”’.

103 Wilson and Womersley, Vacant Land. The conclusions of the consultants’ survey of vacant land were supported by their environmental care project, which ran from 1973 to 1977, though this focused more on the social than the economic effects of urban decay and dereliction; see Wilson, H. and Womersley, L., Environmental Care Project: Report by Consultants, IAS/LI/19 (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

104 Wilson and Womersley, Vacant Land, 13, uses included housing, highways, education and open space. On the plans for each planning district, see Ibid., appendix 1.

105 Ibid., 1.

106 Liverpool Council of Voluntary Service (LCVS), Vacant Land: An Enterprise Merseyside Ginger Paper (Liverpool, 1977), 4Google Scholar.

107 Ibid., 1.

108 Ibid., 4–5.

109 Community Development Section of Liverpool City Council et al. , In Our Liverpool Home: A Collective Response by Community Organisations to the Publication of the Inner Area Study Summary Report (Liverpool, 1977)Google Scholar, Appendix B.

110 Ibid., 6.

111 Ibid., 2.

112 There is an extensive literature on this, but for an authoritative account, see Sugrue, T., The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, revised edn (Woodstock, 2005)Google Scholar.

113 Baumeister, M., Bonomo, B. and Schott, D., ‘Introduction: contested cities in an era of crisis’, in Baumeister, M., Bonomo, B. and Schott, D. (eds.), Contested Cities: Urban Politics, Heritage, and Social Movements in Italy and West Germany in the 1970s (Frankfurt and New York, 2017), 7–10Google Scholar.

114 Arnold, J., ‘“Managed decline”?: zur diskussion um die zukunft Liverpools im ersten Kabinett Thatcher (1979–1981)’, Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte (2015), 139–54Google Scholar.

115 TNA: PREM 19/578, Michael Heseltine, It took a riot, 13 Aug. 1981.

116 TNA: PREM 19/578, Geoffrey Howe, memorandum on Merseyside, 4 Sep. 1981, para. 5.