1 GREATER MANCHESTER LOCAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 Introduction and Context 1 GREATER MANCHESTER LOCAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 1.1 The ten local authorities of Greater Manchester 1 Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, and Wigan work in partnership through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) to represent the largest functional economic area outside London, with a population of 2.6m and GVA of over 46bn. Working together with New Economy, the ten authorities have produced a single economic assessment of Greater Manchester to understand the priorities and challenges for the city s economy. 1.2 This is not new territory for Greater Manchester in 2009, the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER) was published, the largest and most ambitious review of a city s economy ever undertaken in the UK. This found that Greater Manchester was the best-placed city outside London to increase its long-term growth rate, and therefore the most realistic way of raising overall economic growth in the North and the UK as a whole. However, the MIER also concluded that Greater Manchester is currently punching below its weight, with productivity and skills below the levels that would be expected for a city of its size. Following-on from the findings and recommendations of the MIER, New Economy and AGMA produced the Greater Manchester Strategy (GMS) to set out a shared vision with accompanying strategic priorities for a more prosperous city. 1.3 This economic assessment revisits the findings of the MIER and GMS: considering how the further impacts of the recession since the MIER and GMS were published; the implications of new Government policy; and in particular the specific role played by each of Greater Manchester s local authorities and the challenges they face in rebalancing the economy towards private sectorled growth. STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1.4 Greater Manchester is adopting a two-pronged approach to the completion of its Local Economic Assessment. The first part of this assessment is a broad analysis of the sub-regional economy across multiple spatial levels, drawing on secondary data sources covering the areas specified within the original CLG guidance, to produce a cohesive overview of the GM economy and that 1 Greater Manchester denotes the city that comprise the ten local authority districts of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, and Wigan, and is often known simply as Manchester Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 01

2 of its constituent local authorities. This main GM assessment includes an assessment of the overall GM economy and individual sections on each of the local authorities. This is the GM LEA Baseline Assessment contained within this document. It can be read as one document or its separate parts can be read as stand alone documents in parallel to the main document. 1.5 In addition to this, and running in parallel, Greater Manchester will produce three additional research studies focussing on key issues identified by the GM local authorities. These will be more in depth studies, using primary as well as secondary data sources, to significantly improve understanding of key economic issues. The studies investigate advanced manufacturing in GM, the impact of Manchester Airport on local economies, and an investigation into specific worklessness issues in GM utilising DWP data. Whilst some early findings from these studies are included in this report, the full reports will follow at a later date. GREATER MANCHESTER LOCAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT BASELINE ASSESSMENT INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT CHAPTERS for clarity in this document the term Greater Manchester is used throughout, unless the City of Manchester local authority district alone is being discussed, where this is stated explicitly. Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 02

3 1.6 The main Greater Manchester level assessment is structured as follows: INTRODUCTION & ECONOMIC CONTEXT GREATER MANCHESTER FUNCTIONAL ECONOMIC AREA What makes up GM & is it a natural economic area? GREATER MANCHESTER ECONOMIC CONTEXT What is the position of the city within the UK economy & why is it important? GREATER MANCHESTER ECONOMIC STRUCTURE What makes GM successful? What are the city s challenges? BUSINESS BASE PEOPLE & SKILLS QUALITY OF PLACE 1.7 As illustrated in the diagram above, following this introductory section, there will be analysis of: Greater Manchester s Business Base this assesses the structure of the economy, illustrating the change in structure towards services, particularly financial & professional services and life sciences, but with an enduring manufacturing base. It assesses how structural change has been uneven across the city, with private sector, service growth, particularly in knowledge-based industries focused towards the south of the city, whilst the north remains reliant on a lower-value, more traditional industrial base. It also investigates enterprise in the city, where an enterprise gap exists on measures such as business start-up Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 03

4 rates, but where a strong base of high-growth firms in both services and manufacturing exist that can support future growth. Greater Manchester s People and Skills this assesses demographic change, with Manchester being a young city, and the strengths and weaknesses of the labour market, and the issues of worklessness affecting residents, including how these link to health issues. These are broken down by age, ethnicity and district. The shortage of skills is also assessed as a key cause of weak productivity in the city, but also as a core component of worklessness. More still needs to be done to translate the strong economy within Manchester into benefits for residents of the city, through improved skills and labour market inclusion, resulting in higher earnings. This chapter also considers child poverty and makes links to the Child Poverty Assessment. Greater Manchester s Quality of Place this assesses Manchester s place-based assets, including its commercial property market where development has been focused upon the centre and south of the city, and housing where despite a diverse stock, there are imbalances in supply and demand, particularly amongst flats and detached housing, and where a affordability, especially in the south of the city, is a problem, even in the current market context. The section also looks at tourism, as both an attractor of visitors and an economic sector in its own right, transport infrastructure supporting commuting patterns, and environmental quality. Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 04

5 2 GREATER MANCHESTER A NATURAL ECONOMIC AREA 2.1 Greater Manchester has an extensive transport infrastructure that puts 5.2 million people within an hour s commute of the city centre. 2 As the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER) showed, Greater Manchester has the largest travel-to-work area of any city in the UK outside London, drawing in commuters everyday from across the historic counties of Cheshire and Lancashire plus the Peak District and parts of Yorkshire, particularly at higher skills levels. As such, Greater Manchester has an economic influence that extends far beyond its administrative boundaries and the city is the main driver for economic growth in the North of England. 2 MIDAS data from Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 05

6 Figure 1.0: Net commuting flows between Greater Manchester districts, 2001 Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 06

7 2.2 Initial analysis of this APS2008 TTWA data (of all flows of 1 % or more) supports the idea that the 10 Greater Manchester districts represent a natural economic geography, and that whilst there are strong linkages with the neighbouring authorities, these are rightly considered as separate economic geographies (with greater degrees of internal retention and movements to areas outside Greater Manchester than into Greater Manchester). 2.3 On this analysis, the position of two districts is marginal. Within Greater Manchester, Wigan has the greatest connectivity with districts outside Greater Manchester, with 15 % of residents working in Lancashire, Merseyside and Warrington, though this is still fewer than the 19 % that commute to other Greater Manchester districts. Conversely, more people commute into Wigan from outside Greater Manchester than from other districts within Greater Manchester (8 % cf. 4 %). 2.4 Outside Greater Manchester, Macclesfield has strong in and outbound connectivity with Greater Manchester South, particularly Stockport and the City of Manchester, which are connected by the West Coast Mainline. In contrast to Wigan, which exports labour to all its surrounding districts, outcommuting from Macclesfield out flows into Greater Manchester, suggesting it faces towards the city rather than the rest of Cheshire. However, when Cheshire (including Macclesfield) is considered as a whole, then the county is linked as closely to Merseyside, Warrington, North Wales, and Staffordshire as it is to Greater Manchester. 2.5 Taking into account the existing political and institutional ties that exist within Greater Manchester including Wigan that do not extent out to Macclesfield, the TTWA analysis tends to support the status quo of Wigan being within the Greater Manchester economic area and Macclesfield being an important satellite but outside the Greater Manchester economic geography. 2.6 Warrington also has strong connectivity with Greater Manchester but on the basis of TTWA is essentially an independent economic centre, which looks more to Merseyside than Greater Manchester. St Helens and Blackburn with Darwen both have strong links to Greater Manchester but are more connected to Merseyside and Lancashire respectively than to Greater Manchester. The Pennines act as a natural gateway to Greater Manchester, with neither Yorkshire nor Derbyshire having significant connectivity with Greater Manchester (though High Peak is a small importer of labour into Stockport). 2.7 Within Greater Manchester itself: The City of Manchester is the main importer of labour and the primary destination for all other GM districts though this connection is much weaker for Bolton and Wigan Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 07

8 This means that there is a general pattern of TTWA for each district of strong interconnectivity with its 2 3 neighbouring districts plus the City of Manchester Trafford and the Cities of Manchester and Salford are the most connected districts, with labour flows with all other GM districts, though all districts have more flows to the rest of GM than to districts outside GM 2.8 Taking this analysis further, ONS produce a classification of local authorities using 42 variables to group areas that are alike in socioeconomic terms. Mapping these relationships across Greater Manchester districts reveals that broadly the city divides into three groups: Central core of the Cities of Manchester and Salford Commuter belt of Trafford, Stockport and Bury Northern fringe of Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton and Wigan Figure 1.1: Areas that are alike in Greater Manchester Areas that are alike classification Rochdale Bolton Bury Oldham Wigan Salford Manchester Tameside Trafford Stockport miles Source: ONS Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License number Source: National Statistics 2001 Area Classification for Local Authorities, Using this methodology, ONS have categorised local authority districts across the UK. The data also highlights the fact that, whilst many of Greater Manchester s districts are similar to other districts in and around the conurbation, districts often share characteristics with areas elsewhere in the Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 08

9 UK. Indeed, Manchester, Salford and Wigan are compared entirely to areas in other parts of the UK. Table 1.0: GM areas that are alike classification GM LOCAL AUTHORITY MOST SIMILAR SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH Bolton Rochdale Oldham Preston Tameside Derby Bury Stockport Warrington Rossendale Tameside Nuneaton and Bedworth Manchester Nottingham Newcastle upon Tyne Birmingham Coventry Bristol Oldham Rochdale Bolton Walsall Preston Hyndburn Rochdale Oldham Bolton Tameside Bury Preston Salford Gateshead North Tyneside Plymouth Tameside Darlington Stockport Trafford Bury Warrington Cheshire West and Chester Solihull Tameside Stoke-on-Trent Bury Rossendale Wigan Bolton Trafford Stockport Bury Bedford North Hertfordshire Northampton Wigan Wakefield Barnsley Rotherham Nuneaton and Bedworth Ashfield Source: National Statistics 2001 Area Classification for Local Authorities, These variables used for comparison fall within six domains, summarised in the brackets below: demographics (age/ethnicity/country of birth/population density) household composition (living arrangements/size of family), housing (tenure/type & size/quality crowding) socio economic variables (education/class/car ownership/commuting/health & caring) employment (students/unemployment/long-term unemployed/part-time work/looking after the home) industry sector (construction, manufacturing, finance etc.) Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 09

10 3 GREATER MANCHESTER THE DRIVER FOR GROWTH IN NORTHERN ENGLAND 3.1 Greater Manchester is the UK s second city in economic terms, driving growth across the North of England, and providing the national economy with a strong source of growth, diversity and resilience. Figure 1.2 shows the concentration of UK activity in London and the Southeast plus a number of key cities across the UK, but with Greater Manchester South being the most productive NUTS3 area outside London and the South East as well as being the only area outside the Greater South East to see comparative GVA growth (illustrated in Figure 1.3). Greater Manchester as a whole generated over 46bn. of GVA in 2007, representing almost 40% of the Northwest s economic output and almost 20% of the economic output of the entire North of England. 3 3 Office for National Statistics (ONS) Regional sub-regional and local gross value added, 2009 data, Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 010

11 Figure 1.2: Gross Value Added England & Wales, NUTS3 Areas, current prices, 2007 Source: ONS, 2010 Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 011

12 Figure 1.3: Change in Gross Value Added England & Wales, NUTS3 Areas, current prices, 1997 to 2007 Source: ONS, 2010 Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 012

13 3.2 In an international context, Greater Manchester is a leading European city, amongst the top 20 % largest economies in the European Union. When Greater Manchester s productivity 4 performance is ranked against major growth poles in other European countries, as in Figure 1.4, the city has outstripped growth seen in Munich, Lille, Lyon, Milan and Turin. Figure 1.4: GDP and employment growth against EU comparators, DUBLIN BARCELONA HELSINKI GREATER MANCHESTER MUNICH GDP EMPLOYMENT LYON LILLE MILAN TURIN Source: Eurostat, % 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE 3.3 The Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER) highlighted how, unlike other parts of the UK outside London and the Southeast, Greater Manchester s growth has gone hand-in-hand with private sector investment and employment growth. (The issue of public versus private sector growth is discussed in greater detail in the proceeding chapter.) 3.4 The MIER also showed Greater Manchester benefits from agglomeration economies that have created a critical mass of skilled, knowledge-based jobs. The city has a diversified economy driven by the private sector, with particular strengths in digital media and business and professional services, that have attracted international investment from major companies, such as Bank of New York Mellon, Google, Nike and Credit Suisse. 3.5 But whilst the last decade has seen sustained economic growth, Greater Manchester still suffers from serious structural weaknesses that may threaten future growth, especially in the current difficult economic climate. There remain significant disparities in economic performance across the districts of Greater 4 Productivity is defined here as the additional economic output produced by each person in employment, which is the standard measure of workforce productivity. Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 013

14 Manchester strong overall growth driven by the southern districts of the Cities of Manchester and Salford, and Stockport and Trafford, whilst growth in the remainder of Greater Manchester has been far weaker. This is illustrated by the fact that seven out of the ten GM authorities have an estimated GVA below the overall average for GM with the average being heavily skewed upwards by Manchester, Stockport and Trafford. Indeed, latest forecasts show that there is a gap of over 11bn between the output of the top performing district, Manchester ( 13.7bn in 2008), and Bury ( 2.3bn). This uneven growth prevents the city as a whole being able to bridge the gap in productivity and competitiveness with London and the Southeast. GREATER MANCHESTER STILL PUNCHING BELOW ITS WEIGHT 3.6 Greater Manchester punches below its weight, with lower economic output than it should be producing for a dynamic modern city its size. The MIER estimated that a quarter of this productivity gap is caused by low levels of economic activity in the city as low activity rates reduce the available workforce, constrain output levels and reinforce concentrations of deprivation and three quarters is caused by low productivity. Greater Manchester s enduring productivity gap is the result of a weak skills base, together with relatively low levels of enterprise and internationalisation in comparison with its peer cities. 5 Whilst the south of Greater Manchester has also been successful in increasing productivity levels, the conurbation as a whole continues to lag behind London and Bristol. 3.7 Although the MIER found that firms in Greater Manchester are generally more productive than firms elsewhere in the Northwest, and that GM is perhaps the best placed city outside London to offer a large-scale second centre of growth for the UK economy 6, skills problems and persistent deprivation in large parts of the conurbation currently hold Greater Manchester back from reaching its potential. 3.8 As Figure 1.5 illustrates, productivity growth over the last decade has been largely driven by productivity gains in the centre and south of the conurbation mirroring the spatial distribution of private sector jobs growth over the same period. Whilst GM South is only NUTS 3 area outside Greater London with GVA of over 30bn, much of GM North has seen only modest GVA growth over the last two decades. 5 Sebnem Oguz and Jonathan Knight (2010). Regional economic indicators. Economic & Labour Market Review, Vol. 4, No 2, February MIER: The Case for Agglomeration Economies, Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 014

15 Figure 1.5: Growth in GVA by Greater Manchester district, Source: GMFM, 2010 Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 015

16 EARNINGS 3.9 A reflection of the productivity gap that exists between GM and other parts of the UK is found in the fact that, on average, employees in Greater Manchester earn less than in other major UK cities. Table 1.1 below shows that average gross earning in Greater Manchester rank in the bottom half of its comparator cities with both resident and workplace wages low in a national context This is partly caused by the sectoral bias of parts of Greater Manchester s economy towards lower value activities as discussed in greater detail in the next chapter of this assessment but is also due to employees earning lower wages on average for the same activity than in other cities. Whilst this reflects the cost advantage that Greater Manchester holds over the UK s southern cities, where lower wage levels make Greater Manchester a competitive location for businesses to locate, it is also a hindrance to GM s growth prospects. As the table also shows, Greater Manchester also ranks behind other northern cities, reflecting the enduring low value and low productivity bias of certain parts of its economy a significant disadvantage for the city when attempting to attract and retain talented people. Table 1.1: Average employee earnings, resident and workplace based, full-time median salaries 7, 2009 RESIDENTFT WORKPLACE FT BOLTON 23,200 21,400 BURY 26,100 24,600 MANCHESTER 23,100 26,700 OLDHAM 21,500 20,800 ROCHDALE 23,800 21,100 SALFORD 23,000 23,800 STOCKPORT 26,000 26,400 TAMESIDE 22,800 22,400 TRAFFORD 27,700 27,000 WIGAN 23,200 22,600 GREATER MANCHESTER 24,000 23,700 ENGLAND 26,100 26,100 GREAT BRITAIN 25,900 25,900 LEEDS 24,500 24,500 BIRMINGHAM 25,100 23,700 BRISTOL 25,700 25,900 GLASGOW 25,800 21,900 GREATER LONDON 29,000 31,600 Source: ONS, ASHE, As Figure 1.6 shows, the central and southern spine of the city is the location of the highest paying workplaces, with workplace pay in the urban core of the 7 Note that for city region comparators mean averages have taken of median salaries for individual districts. Salaries have also been rounded to the nearest 100. Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 016

17 City of Manchester, Trafford and Stockport at or above the English average of 26,100. Figure 1.6: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, Workplace Based, 2009 Source: ONS, ASHE, By contrast, workplaces in the northeast and northwest of the conurbation are paying wages over 10% below the English average, with the lowest in GM (Oldham) being 20% below the national level. Whilst it would be expected to find lower-value activities at the periphery of the conurbation, the levels of these earnings highlight a weakness of GM that holds back its overall productivity and growth, and is preventing it from closing the gap with London and the Southeast, despite the strong performance of the city core. It reflects persistent problems of skills and worklessness that are especially widespread in the north of the conurbation, as explored further in the district assessments It also reflects a lack of opportunity in these districts something that is further evidenced by the fact that resident wages in many of these districts are higher than workplace wages (Bolton, Bury, and Rochdale in particular) suggesting Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 017

18 that many people who live within these districts have sought and found higher paid employment in the centre and south of the conurbation. THE CONTINUING IMPACTS OF THE RECESSION THE WORLD ECONOMY The financial crisis that first erupted in the US sub-prime mortgage market in 2007 triggered the worst global recession since the 1930s. A sharp contraction in global growth in 2009 was accompanied by steep rises in unemployment. The UK economy has been particularly hard hit during the recession, with output falling 4.9% during 2009, compared to a fall of 3.3% in the OECD as a whole. And whilst early assumptions were that this would be a white collar recession amongst financial and professional services in the South, in reality it has followed the pattern of previous recessions and disproportionately affected the North of England and manufacturing. The overall impact of the recession across Greater Manchester is a loss of over 50,000 jobs by 2010 and claimant count unemployment rising well above the national average. And whilst Greater Manchester s economy contracted at a slower rate (- 4.4%) than the UK as a whole in terms of loss of output, this masks differs impacts across the conurbation with the path back to growth uneven across GM. Southern and central districts such as Manchester, Salford, Stockport and Trafford are expected to experience a relatively short contraction, whilst other districts are not forecast to see a return to pre-recession levels of employment for the best part of a decade (Oldham and Rochdale) or even two (Tameside). Whilst global indicators are showing a return to growth in 2010 and 2011, recovery remains weak in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast UK growth will be 2.1% in 2011, below many other advanced economies, with UK unemployment continuing to rise in 2011 to 8.0%. The recession has also seen a large fiscal deficit built up, with public debt now standing at 53.8% of GDP and forecast to continue rising. Reducing this deficit is now the priority for UK Government action, through a combination of public spending cuts and tax rises over the life of the next Parliament. UK Government policy is focused upon rebalancing growth towards the private sector and the regions, in order to create a more effective structure to drive economic growth and development across the whole country. As the third largest net creator of private sector jobs over the last decade 8, ensuring the recovery and continued growth of Greater Manchester is essential in delivering this vision of economic renewal. 8 Centre for Cities (June 2010); Private sector cities: A new geography of opportunity Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 018

19 THE RETURN TO GROWTH AN UNEVEN PATH 3.14 If Greater Manchester was as productive as the UK average, the city would generate an additional 6.4 billion economic output every year. 9 There is therefore clearly scope for enhancing Manchester s productivity the prize for doing which is significant However, forecasts suggest that, unless significant action is taken, Greater Manchester as a whole will continue to experience a productivity gap with the rest of the UK, which will further stretch the overall economic output gap, as shown in Figure 1.7. Figure 1.7: GVA per worker in Greater Manchester and the UK, GVA PER WORKER (,000) UK GVA PER WORKER GM GVA PER WORKER Source: GMFM, One slightly encouraging sign can perhaps be found in the fact that GM suffered less than the UK as a whole during the recession. Forecasts produced by Oxford Economics suggest that the economic output of Greater Manchester fell by 4.4% between 2008 and 2009 alone, wiping 1.9bn of value of the economy. Over the same period however, the UK s economy fell by only 4.9%, a loss of almost 58bn in output However, whilst all districts within GM have seen a reduction in employment and GVA during this recession, it has clearly affected different authorities to varying degrees, as illustrated in Table 1.2. The greatest percentage 9 Calculations based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) Regional sub-regional and local gross value added, 2009 data, Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 019

20 reductions in employment over the period were seen in Rochdale (-3.3%), Oldham (-2.5%) and Tameside (-2.7%), whilst Stockport (-0.5%), Manchester (-1.3%) and Salford (-1.3%) have seen the smallest percentage reductions. Similarly, in terms of GVA, Rochdale (-6.4%) and Oldham (-4.8%) have seen amongst the highest percentage falls in GVA, alongside Tameside (-4.7%) and Trafford (-5.6%). Table 1.2: GVA and employment reductions during recession, GM authorities, 2008 to 2009 GVA EMPLOYMENT RECESSION 2008 TO 2009 THOUSANDS PERCENTAGE 2008 to 2009 RECESSION 2008 TO 2009 THOUSANDS PERCENTAGE 2008 to 2009 BOLTON % % BURY % % MANCHESTER % % OLDHAM % % ROCHDALE % % SALFORD % % STOCKPORT % % TAMESIDE % % TRAFFORD % % WIGAN % % GREATER MANCHESTER % % Source: GMFM, Similarly, the forecasts suggest that the ten GM districts will emerge from recession at different points. Manchester, Stockport, Salford and Bury are expected to experience relatively short contractions, with returns to prerecession GVA and employment within the next two years. Trafford is perhaps surprising in this regard as it has experienced one of the sharpest declines in output and employment, and is not forecast to recover this lost output and employment until well after the other GM South districts of Manchester, Salford and Stockport. However, it s prospects for the medium and long-term look better than districts that have experienced deep contractions the borough has relatively high concentrations of Professional Services a sector that suffered disproportionately in the downturn but is expected to be a key growth sector over the next decade. In contrast, the districts of Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside are forecast to experience very long periods of stagnation, with a return to peak levels of pre-recession employment not expected for at least another two decades an issue of considerable concern to the overall GM economy and prospects for growth Figure 1.8 also illustrates how different districts entered the recession at different points. Over the last decade Bolton saw employment reach its peak in 2003 a point it is not forecast to return to until Oldham, Tameside Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 020

21 and Trafford all saw peak periods of employment in 2004, although the situation in Oldham and Tameside is even more worrying, as they are not forecast to return to this peak for at least another two decades (whereas Trafford is forecast to return to peak in 2020). The graphic illustrates how there is forecast to be a relatively short time period to return to previous employment peaks for Manchester, Bury, Salford and Stockport. For GM as a whole the forecasts suggest peak levels of employment reached in 2008 will not return until Figure 1.8: Peak-to-peak employment levels, GM districts, 2000 to 2032 Key Employment peak/ Return to peak Employment decline Employment growth Source: GMFM, 2010 Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 021

22 Table 1.3: Forecast return to pre-recession GVA and employment, GM authorities GVA EMPLOYMENT RETURN TO 2008 RETURN TO PEAK RETURN TO 2008 RETURN TO PEAK BOLTON BURY MANCHESTER OLDHAM Post-2032 ROCHDALE Post 2033 SALFORD STOCKPORT TAMESIDE Post-2032 Post-2032 TRAFFORD WIGAN GREATER MANCHESTER Source: GMFM, These variations between areas of GM are important, as addressing these inequalities will be crucial to increasing the prosperity of GM as a whole, and reducing the productivity gap between GM and other parts of the country. Boosting Greater Manchester s productivity is central to the Greater Manchester Strategy and critical to ensuring that the city remains the driver of growth for the North of England and the UK as a whole. In order to close the productivity gap, the MIER identified that it would be necessary in the short term to attract more skilled labour to the city and, over the longer term, increase the skills levels of those already resident in the city. Manchester s Commission for the New Economy 022