By age 32, nearly 6 in 10 (59%) of
workers from outside London who were in the top 5% of GCSE scores
have moved away from their home town. 30% of those who moved went
to London.
This is one of the findings of new
research published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS),
funded by ADR UK (Administrative Data Research UK), which shows
that youth mobility responds to – and in turn shapes – regional
differences in economic opportunities.
Despite the recent focus on ‘levelling
up', youth mobility has increased in recent years, with graduates
born in 1997 being 8 percentage points more likely to live
outside their home Travel to Work Area (TTWA) than similar
graduates born in 1986. The analysis shows that mobility has
risen more for workers from low-paying areas, which could be
widening geographical divides.
The research highlights London's
enduring ability to draw and retain skilled workers, attracted by
higher pay and faster pay growth, from other parts of the
country. It finds that:
-
By age 32, 26% of young workers in
the top 5% of GCSE scores live in London, despite only 13%
having grown up there. Another 14% live in TTWAs that border
London – meaning that, overall, 40% of top achievers live in
and around the capital.
Whilst many people leave London in
their early 30s, they tend to move to already-prosperous places
in the South East. This means that mobility in people's early 30s
does not reduce – and in fact exacerbates – regional
divides.
-
Half of onward movers from London
move to TTWAs that border London. In this way, London
fundamentally reshapes the spatial distribution of skills,
bringing in talent from all over the country and pushing it
into the South East.
Xiaowei Xu, a Senior Research
Economist at IFS and author of the report,
said:
‘Young people's choices on where to
live respond to and reinforce regional inequalities. Talented
people want good jobs – that are well matched to their skills, at
productive firms that offer training and career development – and
they'll move if they can't find them locally. This means that
raising skills in left-behind places will not be enough to reduce
economic disparities. We need to think about bringing opportunity
to people – building places where skills are
rewarded.'