![]()
Polarized Social Class of Global City?Social
class in 21st-century London shows both continued professionalization and
asymmetric polarization.
Hamnett,
C. (2024). The changing social class structure of London, 2001–2021:
Continued professionalisation or asymmetric polarisation? Urban Studies, 61(9),
1666–1685.Source:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980231213280
Picture
source:
https://www.urbanstudiesonline.com/the-changing-social-class-structure-of-london-2001-2021-continued-professionalisation-or-asymmetric-polarisation/Since
the publication of The Global City by Saskia Sassen (hereafter referred to as
Sassen) in 1991, the book has garnered widespread attention and sparked
extensive discussions, with its influence extending far beyond academic
circles. The concept of the global city has been enthusiastically embraced,
even though many people do not fully understand what Sassen meant by the term.
Sassen argued that global cities have experienced a sharp increase in demand
for highly paid elite professionals and a large-scale low-income workforce, while
traditional middle classes are the least needed. This has led to a growing
polarization of social strata in global cities (for more details, see CityReads
| What Saskia Sassen Talks about When She Talks about the Global City?).But
is this really the case? Many studies suggest that in recent decades, cities
like London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, and Amsterdam have become more
middle-class. The working class and the poor have not disappeared, but the
occupational class structure in many major Western cities has shifted upwards.
There has been a rapid increase in university-educated professionals, managers,
and administrative workers, particularly at the top end of the occupational
spectrum—a trend referred to as professionalization. Similar trends can also
be observed in cities in developing countries.So,
what changes in social stratification have occurred in global cities in the
21st century? Have global cities become more middle-class, or have they
experienced increasing professionalization at the top and growing
proletarianization at the bottom? Alternatively, are both trends occurring
simultaneously, leading to a decline of the middle class and intensified
polarization?A
recent paper published in Urban Studies, titled “The Changing Social
Class Structure of London, 2001–2021: Continued
Professionalisation or Asymmetric Polarisation?”analyzes data from the UK censuses of 2001, 2011, and 2021. Using the 32 London
boroughs (excluding the City of London, which has a small residential
population) as case studies, the paper examines changes in London’s social class composition and its socio-geographic patterns over
two decades in an attempt to answer these questions.This
study categorizes social classes using the National Statistics Socio-Economic
Classification (NS-SEC) developed by the UK’s Office for National
Statistics, which is based on occupation and employment. The classification
includes eight main categories: (1) Higher managerial, administrative and
professional, (2) Lower managerial, administrative and professional
occupations, (3) Intermediate occupations, (4) Small employers and own account
workers, (5) Lower supervisory and technical occupations, (6) Semi-routine
occupations, (7) Routine occupations, and (8) Never worked and long term
unemployed.The
Office for National Statistics further groups the first seven employment-based
categories into three broader classes: middle class (1 and 2), lower middle
class (3, 4, and 5), and working class (6 and 7).Notably,
the self-employed warrant special attention. Over the past few decades, the
number of self-employed individuals in the UK has grown significantly. In 1975,
self-employment accounted for 8% of the UK workforce, but by 2019, this figure
had risen to 14%. London has the highest proportion of self-employed
individuals, reaching 20% in 2021, closely linked to the rise of the gig
economy. Self-employment income tends to be polarized, with some high-earning
professionals at one end and a majority of low-income workers at the other.Changes in London’s Social Class in the 21st
CenturyThe
population of London aged 16–74 has increased dramatically since the
start of the 21st century, rising from 5.3 million in 2001 to 7.1 million in
2021, driven largely by migration, particularly international migration. During
this period, the employed population grew from 3.7 million to 5.7 million,
representing a 52% increase.Changes in the Composition of Middle Class, Lower Middle
Class, and Working Class Between 2001 and 2011The
middle class declined by 3 percentage points (from 48.5% to 45.2%). The lower
middle class increased by 2 percentage points (from 30.6% to 32.7%).The working
class grew by 1 percentage point (from 21% to 22.1%). Growth in the middle
class stalled during this period.Between
2011 and 2021:The middle class grew by 2.3 percentage points.The
lower middle class declined by 1.8 percentage points. The working class
declined by 0.5 percentage points.Over
the entire period from 2001 to 2021, the middle class experienced a slight
decline (down by 1 percentage point). The lower middle class saw a modest
increase (up by 0.3 percentage points).The working class also showed a slight
increase (up by 0.6 percentage points).Changes in the Size and Composition of Occupational ClassesThe
division into middle class, lower middle class, and working class is overly
simplistic, obscuring the significant growth of three occupational groups: higher
managerial, administrative, and professional occupations; small employers and
own account workers; and routine occupations.Although
higher managerial, administrative, and professional occupations declined during
the first decade of the 21st century, they experienced robust growth in the
second decade, nearly doubling in size (+95%), from 640,000 to 1.25 million
people. Their share of the workforce rose from 16.5% to 21.9%. In contrast,
while lower managerial, administrative, and professional occupations grew by
20% in the first decade, they increased by only 4% in the second decade, with
their share declining from 31.4% to 25.6%.Among
the lower middle class, the share of lower supervisory and technical
occupations continued to decrease, while the proportion of small employers and
own account workers steadily increased (+2.7 and +2.2 percentage points in the
first and second decades, respectively), with an overall growth of 134%.Although
the absolute number of working-class individuals grew by 56%, their share of
the total population increased only slightly, from 21% to 21.6% over the past
20 years. More specifically, semi-routine occupations declined by 2 percentage
points, while the number of routine workers doubled, rising from 307,000 to
615,000, an increase of 2.6 percentage points.Three
major trends stand out over the 20 years:Growth
at both ends of the occupational hierarchy: Both higher managerial,
administrative, and professional occupations at the top and routine workers at
the bottom experienced substantial growth. While the size of higher managerial,
administrative, and professional occupations is double that of routine workers,
this pattern reflects a degree of occupational polarization, described in the
study as "asymmetric polarization."Decline
in lower-tier professional and supervisory roles: The share of lower
managerial, administrative, and professional occupations declined by 5.5%,
while the shares of intermediate occupations and lower supervisory and
technical occupations also fell, by 2.3%.Significant
growth of small employers and self-employed individuals: The number of small
employers and own account workers increased by 454,000. This group is highly
heterogeneous, encompassing high-skilled, high-earning independent
professionals (such as lawyers, IT specialists, consultants, and media
workers), skilled tradespeople (like plumbers and electricians), and a large
number of low-skilled, low-paid temporary workers, many of whom are engaged in
precarious gig economy jobs with minimal employment security.Spatial Patterns of Social Class Change in LondonLondon
is divided into Inner London and Outer London: Inner London refers to the
central areas of the city, consisting of 12 to 13 administrative districts
depending on the era and definition, and contrasts with Outer London, which
comprises the surrounding districts.The
spatial patterns of social class change in 21st-century London show a clear
spatial division between Inner London and Outer London: higher-income groups in
higher managerial, administrative, and professional occupations are
concentrated in Inner London, while lower-income working-class and
self-employed individuals are located in Outer London.In
2021, the highest proportion of individuals in higher managerial,
administrative, and professional occupations was found in the central districts
of Kensington and Westminster, reaching 33%. Following closely were Wandsworth,
Richmond, Camden, and Islington, with proportions of 30–32%, Hammersmith and
Tower Hamlets at 28%, and Lambeth and Southwark at 26%. Except for Richmond,
all of these areas are located in Inner London. Tower Hamlets, once one of the
poorest areas of London before the 1990s, has transformed due to urban
regeneration in the Docklands area, which led to the construction of expensive
apartment buildings and renovated warehouses.At
the other end of the spectrum, working-class and lower-middle-class suburban
areas have the lowest proportions of higher managerial, administrative, and
professional occupations, with figures around 16-17%. These areas, all located
in East London, include Waltham Forest, Hillingdon, and Hounslow (16-17%), with
Newham and Havering at 14%, and Barking and Dagenham at just 9%.![]()
Routine
workers have increased in all administrative districts, except for Tower
Hamlets, with the largest growth observed in poorer working-class suburbs such
as Brent, Newham, Hounslow, and Enfield. The smallest increases were found in
wealthier central and inner-city areas such as Camden, Kensington, Westminster,
Hammersmith, Wandsworth, and the southwest districts of Merton and Richmond.
The
self-employed population has also grown across all London districts, ranging
from 59% in wealthy Kensington to 333% in working-class Newham. Overall, the
highest proportions and greatest growth were seen in poorer outer suburbs,
including Newham, Barking, Harrow, Waltham Forest, Brent, Haringey, Ealing, and
Hounslow. In contrast, the lowest proportions were found in wealthier central
and inner-city areas, such as Camden, Hammersmith, Wandsworth, and Tower
Hamlets. This indicates that routine workers and self-employed individuals are
increasingly suburbanized, driven by the high housing costs in central London.In
summary, since the beginning of the 21st century, London has continued to
experience gentrification. In 1964, British urban sociologist Ruth Glass first
introduced the term "gentrification" to describe the changes in the
social class and spatial structure of London at the time (see "CityReads |
Who First Coined Gentrification?"):“One by one, many of the
working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes – upper and lower …Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes
on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are
displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.”Sixty
years later, Inner London continues to gentrify, with elite professional groups
occupying the city center, while routine workers and the self-employed are
increasingly relocating to Outer London.Returning
to the core question of this article: Is the social class of global cities
polarizing? The analysis of London largely supports Saskia Sassen's view of
social class polarization in global cities. One pole is the growth of higher
managerial, administrative, and professional occupations, and the other is the
growth of low-skilled, low-income occupations. However, given that the number
of higher managerial, administrative, and professional occupations in London is
twice that of routine workers, this constitutes asymmetric polarization.
1.“The
mistake doctors made, and continue to make, is imagining that a disease that’s in the patient’s head must therefore, in
some sense, be a fabrication over which the patient has control.”- Elizabeth Comen, All in Her Head: The Truth and Lies Early
Medicine Taught Us About Women's Bodies and Why It Matters Today![]()
2.“A man
with high testosterone…was virile, a warrior, a stud. A woman with too much
estrogen, on the other hand, was just crazy.” - Elizabeth
Comen, All in Her Head: The Truth and Lies Early Medicine Taught Us About
Women's Bodies and Why It Matters Today
