Introduction

Place has long been recognized as a key factor in shaping individual lives and livelihoods. It also plays a role in determining the capacity of local groups and organizations to (re)create conditions for social wellbeing. As Chapter 3 detailed, places with established community support systems and affluent or well-resourced residents are more likely to be able to buffer the negative impacts of austerity than places where these resources and networks are limited. However, affluent or well-resourced residents do not always play a positive role in their communities. In some cases, they may gentrify neighbourhoods, displacing low income residents and undermining the social fabric of the community (Casarin et al, 2023). This underlines the need to consider how place and individual characteristics interact to create different experiences of austerity, which can reinforce trajectories of neighbourhood change, as well as existing social and economic (dis)advantages over time (MacLeavy and Manley, 2018; 2022). For instance, someone with a secure, well-paying job and good benefits will be better able to cope with austeritydriven cuts to public services and welfare benefits than someone in low-paid, insecure employment. They will also be more likely to have the means to move to neighbourhoods where local groups and organizations have been able to maintain essential services despite the cuts. Any such moves will leave less well-resourced communities with a higher share of struggling residents, making it even more challenging for them to secure the support and resources needed to recover and thrive.

In what follows, I expand my focus from place to the wider complex of inherited factors that stratify the impact of austerity, creating different experiences even for those living within the same (urban) locale. While the previous chapter examined the retrenchment of the public sphere through the cutting of spending and the reduction of public services, this chapter will focus on other core features of austerity, namely intense welfare reform and labour market deregulation. It will begin by examining how reduced social spending and a growing role for the private sector, coupled with an emphasis on labour market flexibility and the implementation of ‘workfare’ (Peck, 1998b) principles, have led to a more fragmented support system, with increased inequality and reduced access to essential supports.