In the year the Queen celebrates her Diamond Jubilee, Centre for Cities looked back at the shape of urban Britain in the final year of her grandmother Queen Victoria's reign. What we found was that while the geography of our economy looked very different in 1901, the patterns of city performance that we still see today were already emerging.
The industrial revolution was built on northern powerhouses such as Manchester and Liverpool. By 1901 the industrialised parts of the north and Midlands accounted for nearly 35% of England's population, compared to around 25% today.
Many of our cities in these areas were reliant on heavy industry such as ship building, textiles and dock working. But much of this employment was cyclical and more susceptible to wider changes in the economic climate than other industries. The casual nature of employment in these sectors meant the typical response of employers to downturns was to either cut wages or lay off workers.
With the exception of Blackpool, heavy industry accounted for at least 45% of total employment in every city north of Mansfield. In Bradford it hit 59%, in Middlesbrough 64% and in Burnley it hit a high of 68%. So while heavy industry was a big source of jobs, it did not usually provide stable employment for its workers. Instead, it created periods in and out of employment for many people working in the north.
The reverse was observed in towns and cities in the south of England. These cities were much less reliant on cyclical employers; in Reading just 33% of workers were employed in these industries. Southern cities also had a greater proportion of service jobs and had a higher share of workers in professional occupations. In Bournemouth, for example, there were 10 times the proportion of men employed in professional occupations than in Nottingham.
The industrial profile of the towns and cities in the south meant that they were in a better starting position to adapt to changes in the structure of the national economy throughout the 20th century. Services overtook manufacturing as the largest employment sector as early as the 1920s, and today it accounts for 84% of all jobs in England and Wales. Manufacturing accounts for just 9% of all employment, down from more than 40% in 1901.
The pace of this change varied hugely across cities. In 1901, services were already a bigger employer than manufacturing in Bournemouth. But it wasn't until the 1970s that services employment overtook manufacturing in Rochdale.
Despite these employment trends, UK manufacturing is and will remain important to our economy. It is a big investor in research and development, and some of our manufacturers are world leaders. Nevertheless, looking at urban development over the last century tells us two things about future patterns of economic growth.
First, manufacturing is highly unlikely to be a net contributor to the jobs growth that the country needs. In order to remain competitive in the global marketplace, manufacturing is continually improving in productivity, producing more goods with fewer workers. The UK is not alone here; even Germany has seen manufacturing's share of total employment halve in recent decades in response to global competition.
Second, cities need to continue adapting to changes in the national economy. Many cities have grappled with the impact of structural change in the second half of the 20th century and some of this industrial legacy continues to manifest itself to this day.
The answer is not to attempt to turn back the clock. The assets that helped cities thrive in the 1900s are no longer the economic strengths they were. Instead cities need to focus on the distinctive assets that will help them thrive in a 21st-century economy, and to invest more generally in skills and transport, which our work shows to be important for growth and prosperity in the 21st century.
Looking back at the last 110 years of urban development shows that history matters for a city's economic performance. The challenge for current and future policy makers is to ensure that cities are not beholden to their past, but instead make the most of their assets as they look to the future.
Paul Swinney is an economist who leads on data analysis for Centre for Cities