This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/06/living-in-the-suburbs-could-take-three-years-off-your-life-but-it-doesnt-have-to

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Living in the suburbs could take three years off your life. But it doesn't have to Living in the suburbs could take three years off your life. But it doesn't have to
(about 5 hours later)
Living in south west Sydney instead of northern Sydney can take three years off your life. Across Australia, male life expectancy between the inner city and regional areas can vary by 10 years. According to the National Health Performance Agency, the rate of preventable death is 30% higher in outer suburban areas than the inner city. It’s not just health. Generally, the further from a state’s parliament house you get, the more likely you are to experience all forms of socioeconomic disadvantage. Living in south-west Sydney instead of northern Sydney can take three years off your life. Across Australia, male life expectancy between the inner city and regional areas can vary by 10 years. According to the National Health Performance Agency, the rate of preventable death is 30% higher in outer suburban areas than the inner city. It’s not just health. Generally, the further from a state’s parliament house you get, the more likely you are to experience all forms of socioeconomic disadvantage.
Hidden amongst the poles and wires, spatial inequality was the defining issue of the recent NSW election campaign. Both parties’ major policies were linked to addressing differences caused by geography: infrastructure to lower transport costs for the suburbs, health projects to improve equality of access across NSW and better funding to address varying education outcomes. Similar spatially-based policies play out in other states and at the federal level. Hidden among the poles and wires, spatial inequality was the defining issue of the recent NSW election campaign. Both parties’ major policies were linked to addressing differences caused by geography: infrastructure to lower transport costs for the suburbs, health projects to improve equality of access across NSW and better funding to address varying education outcomes. Similar spatially-based policies play out in other states and at the federal level.
Geography matters. Where you live dictates your access to health, education and employment. The great Australian divide between the city, suburbs and bush persists. This is not just a demographic or income issue. Variation in outcomes continue to occur even when limiting comparisons to similar areas. Communities differ not solely due to funding but also the norms that bind them. The point? Local policy matters.Geography matters. Where you live dictates your access to health, education and employment. The great Australian divide between the city, suburbs and bush persists. This is not just a demographic or income issue. Variation in outcomes continue to occur even when limiting comparisons to similar areas. Communities differ not solely due to funding but also the norms that bind them. The point? Local policy matters.
Across Australia, governments need more localised policies to address outcomes in suburban and regional areas. Evidence from the UK offers both warning and hope, especially for our regional cities and outer suburbs.Across Australia, governments need more localised policies to address outcomes in suburban and regional areas. Evidence from the UK offers both warning and hope, especially for our regional cities and outer suburbs.
Despite 80 years of policy focus, northern England remains behind London and the south on almost every socioeconomic indicator. For every job created in the whole of the north, Midlands and Wales in England since 1911, 2.3 have been created in the south. Policies to boost the north have included government support for industry in areas of high disadvantage, large transport infrastructure developments, subsidies for the relocation of manufacturers and addressing funding inequities in health and education. Sound familiar?Despite 80 years of policy focus, northern England remains behind London and the south on almost every socioeconomic indicator. For every job created in the whole of the north, Midlands and Wales in England since 1911, 2.3 have been created in the south. Policies to boost the north have included government support for industry in areas of high disadvantage, large transport infrastructure developments, subsidies for the relocation of manufacturers and addressing funding inequities in health and education. Sound familiar?
There is hope. Despite failures, success stories are emerging that may be relevant to the Australian experience.There is hope. Despite failures, success stories are emerging that may be relevant to the Australian experience.
Devolution combined with strong planning and capable people can make a real impact. Evidence suggests giving greater autonomy over policy and spending to local councils can, under the right conditions, produce better outcomes. In the UK, Manchester was the only local economy to grow at a comparable rate to London throughout the 2000s. This was not luck. The city has had the same leadership team in place since 1998. Strong leadership and planning, combined with spending and administrative powers, attracted investment and spurred growth. A similar story can be found in NSW’s own Newcastle. Coordinated planning, targeted spending and collaborative leadership at local, state and federal levels helped mitigate the worst effects of BHP closing its steelworks in 1999.Devolution combined with strong planning and capable people can make a real impact. Evidence suggests giving greater autonomy over policy and spending to local councils can, under the right conditions, produce better outcomes. In the UK, Manchester was the only local economy to grow at a comparable rate to London throughout the 2000s. This was not luck. The city has had the same leadership team in place since 1998. Strong leadership and planning, combined with spending and administrative powers, attracted investment and spurred growth. A similar story can be found in NSW’s own Newcastle. Coordinated planning, targeted spending and collaborative leadership at local, state and federal levels helped mitigate the worst effects of BHP closing its steelworks in 1999.
Regional cities and urban areas must reinvent themselves, not replicate the industries or skills of old. Cities in the UK with low skill bases have struggled to grow or innovate. Routinised jobs, such as call centre or basic manufacturing work, are most exposed to international competition and automation. Some local councils in the UK spent millions attracting such businesses to an area, only to find them leaving after cost pressures increased further. Communities such as Manchester, that reinvent themselves, transforming into healthcare, education or technology hubs, have been better able to adapt and thrive.Regional cities and urban areas must reinvent themselves, not replicate the industries or skills of old. Cities in the UK with low skill bases have struggled to grow or innovate. Routinised jobs, such as call centre or basic manufacturing work, are most exposed to international competition and automation. Some local councils in the UK spent millions attracting such businesses to an area, only to find them leaving after cost pressures increased further. Communities such as Manchester, that reinvent themselves, transforming into healthcare, education or technology hubs, have been better able to adapt and thrive.
What does this mean for policy? Increased infrastructure, education and health funding are vital for regional and urban areas. Yet structural changes in governance are required to address large pockets of inequality. Evidence from the UK, and successful Australian reinventions, suggest two priorities. First, give local councils more power. All urban and regional councils should be encouraged to shift to direct mayoral elections and fixed terms greater than one year. Second, a competitive system of council grants and the incentive of greater devolution should be offered to councils with strong plans, capable leaders and consistent results. Preference should be given to councils striving for reinvention of their local economy rather than replication.What does this mean for policy? Increased infrastructure, education and health funding are vital for regional and urban areas. Yet structural changes in governance are required to address large pockets of inequality. Evidence from the UK, and successful Australian reinventions, suggest two priorities. First, give local councils more power. All urban and regional councils should be encouraged to shift to direct mayoral elections and fixed terms greater than one year. Second, a competitive system of council grants and the incentive of greater devolution should be offered to councils with strong plans, capable leaders and consistent results. Preference should be given to councils striving for reinvention of their local economy rather than replication.
The world, it turns out, is not flat. Place matters. Alongside infrastructure and funding for services, we need local policies that allow communities to combat geographic inequality. In NSW’s recent election the sell-off of poles and wires was touted as a major reform. That rhetoric went too far. For true change in Australia, we need to give more power to the people.The world, it turns out, is not flat. Place matters. Alongside infrastructure and funding for services, we need local policies that allow communities to combat geographic inequality. In NSW’s recent election the sell-off of poles and wires was touted as a major reform. That rhetoric went too far. For true change in Australia, we need to give more power to the people.