Urban Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, P.E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 45-60 (1979)
DOI: 10.1080/713702459

The Components of Industrial Change for Merseyside Inner Area: 1966-1975

P.E. Lloyd

Department of Geography at the University of Manchester

A substantial body of research is now to hand to show that there has been a significant 'drift' of manufacturing industry away from the older conurbations in general and the inner areas of the great cities in particular. Most of the work that has come to light more recently on metropolitan industrial change seems to point to the dominance of some form of 'net shift' process. In this, the outer areas benefit both from their own growth momentum and from their propensity to attract more mobile industry. While, for the inner areas by contrast, the absence of growth momentum produces a differential shift in relative and often absolute growth rates. In the paper, Merseyside, in many ways a special and extreme case, is subjected to components of change analysis for the period 1966-75. This indicates that although the physical closure of factories was the dominant force for employment loss there was also a significant shrinkage in the workforce of surviving plants. Such was the scale of employment losses for the inner area that clear tendencies toward growth in outer suburban areas were neutralised. The paper reviews the implications of the analysis for current government policy for inner areas. While much of this is directed toward incentives for small indigenous firms it shows that the real key to the future prospects for the economic base of inner Merseyside and for its manufacturing job creation potential lies with the fortunes of a small number of companies and with their decisions on the future deployment of corporate resources.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Urban StudHome page
T. Bovaird
Local Economic Development and the City
Urban Stud, May 1, 1992; 29(3-4): 343 - 368.
[PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
M. Healey
Components of Locational Change in Multi-Plant Enterprises
Urban Stud, August 1, 1983; 20(3): 327 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
G. Ortona and W. Santagata
Industrial Mobility in the Turin Metropolitan Area, 1961-77
Urban Stud, February 1, 1983; 20(1): 59 - 71.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
A. J. Scott
Locational Patterns and Dynamics of Industrial Activity in the Modern Metropolis
Urban Stud, May 1, 1982; 19(2): 111 - 141.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
C. M. Mason
Industrial Decline in Greater Manchester 1966-1975: a Components of Change Approach
Urban Stud, June 1, 1980; 17(2): 173 - 184.
[Abstract] [PDF]