分析新冠肺炎的社会经济影响:新的区域地理还是疫情加剧的不平等?

IF 1.7 Q2 GEOGRAPHY
Katie Cross, Jamie Evans, J. MacLeavy, D. Manley
{"title":"分析新冠肺炎的社会经济影响:新的区域地理还是疫情加剧的不平等?","authors":"Katie Cross, Jamie Evans, J. MacLeavy, D. Manley","doi":"10.1080/21681376.2022.2084447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the UK the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 mitigations over the course of the pandemic (March 2020 to the time of writing in January 2022) have been experienced unevenly and with differential intensities at both the regional and local scales. Using individual-level geocoded data (from the Understanding Society: UK Household Longitudinal Survey COVID-19 study) linking people to the places in which they live, we consider the regional and local disparities in the risks and outcomes of financial hardship as a result of early stage mitigations. This paper provides direct evidence from the UK of a concentration of vulnerabilities in areas of high deprivation, undermining the capacity of individuals within those areas to shelter from economic shocks. Furthermore, the geography of financial hardship appears largely compositional – attributable to the pre-existing characteristics of individuals within regions and neighbourhoods, rather than being explicitly driven by the spatial contextual effect of their social or physical environments. This has implications for UK regional economic policy, and the Levelling Up agenda in particular. It is not the regions and neighbourhoods that give rise to COVID-19 hardship per se, but the concentration of individual disadvantages of the people living within them. The persistence of compositional dis/advantages means that there is a need not only to direct ameliorative packages to the individual but also to use local areas as places where the (regional) Levelling Up agenda can break long-term place trajectories that lock in existing disparities which in turn yield unequal financial opportunities and outcomes in periods of crisis.","PeriodicalId":46370,"journal":{"name":"Regional Studies Regional Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysing the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19: a new regional geography or pandemic enhanced inequalities?\",\"authors\":\"Katie Cross, Jamie Evans, J. MacLeavy, D. Manley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21681376.2022.2084447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In the UK the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 mitigations over the course of the pandemic (March 2020 to the time of writing in January 2022) have been experienced unevenly and with differential intensities at both the regional and local scales. Using individual-level geocoded data (from the Understanding Society: UK Household Longitudinal Survey COVID-19 study) linking people to the places in which they live, we consider the regional and local disparities in the risks and outcomes of financial hardship as a result of early stage mitigations. This paper provides direct evidence from the UK of a concentration of vulnerabilities in areas of high deprivation, undermining the capacity of individuals within those areas to shelter from economic shocks. Furthermore, the geography of financial hardship appears largely compositional – attributable to the pre-existing characteristics of individuals within regions and neighbourhoods, rather than being explicitly driven by the spatial contextual effect of their social or physical environments. This has implications for UK regional economic policy, and the Levelling Up agenda in particular. It is not the regions and neighbourhoods that give rise to COVID-19 hardship per se, but the concentration of individual disadvantages of the people living within them. The persistence of compositional dis/advantages means that there is a need not only to direct ameliorative packages to the individual but also to use local areas as places where the (regional) Levelling Up agenda can break long-term place trajectories that lock in existing disparities which in turn yield unequal financial opportunities and outcomes in periods of crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Studies Regional Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Studies Regional Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2022.2084447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Studies Regional Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2022.2084447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要在英国,新冠肺炎缓解措施在大流行期间(2020年3月至2022年1月撰写本文时)的社会经济影响不均衡,且在地区和地方层面上具有不同的强度。使用个人层面的地理编码数据(来自Understanding Society:英国家庭纵向调查新冠肺炎研究),将人们与他们居住的地方联系起来,我们考虑了早期缓解措施导致的经济困难风险和结果的地区和地方差异。这篇论文提供了来自英国的直接证据,表明脆弱性集中在高度贫困地区,削弱了这些地区的个人抵御经济冲击的能力。此外,经济困难的地理位置在很大程度上是复合的——归因于区域和社区内个人预先存在的特征,而不是由其社会或物理环境的空间背景效应明确驱动的。这对英国的地区经济政策,尤其是平准化议程有影响。造成新冠肺炎困难的并不是地区和街区本身,而是居住在这些地区和街区的人的个人劣势集中。成分差异/优势的持续存在意味着,不仅需要将改善方案导向个人,还需要将地方作为(区域)平准议程可以打破长期地方轨迹的地方,这些轨迹锁定了现有的差异,而这些差异反过来又在危机时期产生了不平等的金融机会和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysing the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19: a new regional geography or pandemic enhanced inequalities?
ABSTRACT In the UK the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 mitigations over the course of the pandemic (March 2020 to the time of writing in January 2022) have been experienced unevenly and with differential intensities at both the regional and local scales. Using individual-level geocoded data (from the Understanding Society: UK Household Longitudinal Survey COVID-19 study) linking people to the places in which they live, we consider the regional and local disparities in the risks and outcomes of financial hardship as a result of early stage mitigations. This paper provides direct evidence from the UK of a concentration of vulnerabilities in areas of high deprivation, undermining the capacity of individuals within those areas to shelter from economic shocks. Furthermore, the geography of financial hardship appears largely compositional – attributable to the pre-existing characteristics of individuals within regions and neighbourhoods, rather than being explicitly driven by the spatial contextual effect of their social or physical environments. This has implications for UK regional economic policy, and the Levelling Up agenda in particular. It is not the regions and neighbourhoods that give rise to COVID-19 hardship per se, but the concentration of individual disadvantages of the people living within them. The persistence of compositional dis/advantages means that there is a need not only to direct ameliorative packages to the individual but also to use local areas as places where the (regional) Levelling Up agenda can break long-term place trajectories that lock in existing disparities which in turn yield unequal financial opportunities and outcomes in periods of crisis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
15.80%
发文量
49
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Studies, Regional Science is an interdisciplinary open access journal from the Regional Studies Association, first published in 2014. We particularly welcome submissions from authors working on regional issues in geography, economics, planning, and political science. The journal features a streamlined peer-review process and quick turnaround times from submission to acceptance. Authors will normally receive a decision on their manuscript within 60 days of submission.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信