3.  Regional differences in New Zealand

This section looks at regional differences in New Zealand in order to determine the magnitude of differences and where efforts might be targeted.

3.1  What should we measure?

An inclusive economy perspective on regional distribution highlights the desirability of considering many indicators of well-being, including indicators of social capability that may have been less commonly considered in the past. Indexes of deprivation, such as NZDep96[9], are broad measures that include a number of things we think are important. Our measure is a deprivation proxy, drawn from census data, which correlates closely with the NZDep96 but, unlike NZDep96, gives us a picture across three census years.[10] Our proxy uses indicators of income, unemployment and education. These measures correlate with many other aspects of well-being, such as health and choice. However it is important to note that our picture of deprivation may alter slightly when factors such as housing costs and the natural environment are included. For example, areas that appear deprived under our proxy may not be deprived to the same extent if housing is cheap; in other areas where housing prices are high deprivation may be accentuated. It will be important to measure a wider range of indicators in the future.

The patterns we are presenting in this report are at the level of Regional Council. This gives us a good picture of New Zealand as a whole and is simple to present. If we zoom in further, similar patterns of disparity and persistence can be observed at lower levels of disaggregation.[11] No matter what level we look at, it is important to remember that there is generally greater variation within areas than between areas. The Christchurch region, for example, does not on average appear deprived, but there are neighbourhoods within the city of Christchurch with very high rates of deprivation. The lowest level of disaggregation our data allows is meshblock level[12]. Even within meshblocks there is significant variation in levels of deprivation between individuals.

Finally, since meshblocks are the smallest level of disaggregation that our data allow, the results presented in this report are meshblock averages, not data on individuals. Our findings refer to the 10% of the population who live in the most deprived meshblocks, not to individuals in the most deprived decile.

3.2  What patterns are we interested in?

Which regions in New Zealand we identify as being of most concern depends on whether we think it is absolute numbers of deprived people that is most important, or regional rates of deprivation. The Auckland and Waikato regions contain the greatest numbers of deprived people, while Northland and Gisborne have the highest proportions of deprivation (see Annex 1).

How concerned we are about this deprivation may also depend on whether these regions always do badly. Do the fortunes of areas change or are there persistently deprived regions? Here there are also divergent patterns (see Annex 2). Northland and Auckland have increased their share of people living in deprived neighbourhoods. Gisborne has been persistently deprived, but is improving. It is again not obvious which trends are the ones that should concern us. Are we most worried about regions, such as Gisborne, that are persistently deprived (but improving), or regions, such as Northland and Auckland, that are declining?

Similar issues and questions arise when examining subgroups of the population. Are we interested in areas with the greatest number of deprived Maori or Pacific people for example, or areas with the highest proportions?

3.3  Key patterns in New Zealand: static, dynamic and ethnic

Auckland is a priority for regional policy. When we look at deprivation in New Zealand we see that Auckland contains by far the largest number of deprived neighbourhoods (36.5%).[13] Furthermore, the proportion of Auckland’s population living in deprived neighbourhoods has increased from 7.3% in 1986 to 12.4% in 1996.[14] As discussed above, cities are important for economic performance. Given the concentration of deprived neighbourhoods in South Auckland, negative spillovers are likely to be a particular problem here. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that, despite geographical proximity, deprived Aucklanders are not very well connected to the rest of the metropolitan region. Auckland, therefore, is a crucial focus.

Relative to heavily populated areas such as Auckland, rural regions are less of a policy concern because they have far fewer deprived neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, they warrant attention if many people have no local options and face real barriers to relocation. As job opportunities reduce in non-urban areas, and those who can relocate do so, the risks of negative neighbourhood effects in the communities that remain increase. When community functioning is impaired the region concerned suffers and, in serious cases, there may be spillovers affecting the social cohesion of New Zealand as a whole. Gisborne and Northland have the highest proportion of their population living in deprived neighbourhoods (around 24%).[15] Whilst Gisborne has been persistently deprived, it is in fact improving, whereas Northland has declined significantly. In 1986 only 10% of Northlanders lived in the most deprived neighbourhoods – by 1996 that figure had risen to almost 24%.[16]

In looking at ethnicity by region, we are interested in whether national patterns are simply reflected at a regional level, or whether there is a distinct regional dimension to the distribution of people from different ethnic groups. Maori are particularly affected by deprivation, both relatively and absolutely. First, they are over-represented in the most deprived neighbourhoods in every region in New Zealand. Second, at almost 38% of those residing in the most deprived neighbourhoods, they are also the largest ethnic group in absolute terms (see Annex 3). Further analysis of the degree of that overrepresentation reveals that Maori are between 1.5 and 7 times more likely to live in deprived neighbourhoods than European New Zealanders, depending on the region. For instance, in Taranaki, 5.2 percent of Europeans live in deprived neighbourhoods, whereas 17.8 percent of Maori do. The risk faced by Maori in Taranaki is thus 3.4 times the risk for Europeans. More comprehensive understanding of the patterns for Maori in particular regions may require further region-specific consideration (see, for example, the box in Annex 3).

However, it is important to note that the statistical analysis on which this section of the paper is based makes no allowance for differences between ethnic groups in the prevalence of causal factors which may lead to deprivation. For example, it may be that Maori are disproportionately deprived because they are on average more poorly educated than Europeans. The current analysis of regional differences presents simple comparisons of the level of deprivation between the principal ethnic groups within regions.

With this methodological caveat in mind, it is still important to observe that in many regions, Pacific peoples experience poorer outcomes than Maori. In Auckland, where 65% of Pacific peoples live, their risk of living in a deprived neighbourhood is 11.2 times that of European New Zealanders, and in Wellington, where a further 15% of Pacific peoples live, the risk is 12 times. With 80% of the Pacific peoples’ population in two urban centres any attempts to address deprivation amongst the Pacific peoples’ population as a whole would appear to require programme delivery focused on these centres. Furthermore, the policy levers required are likely to be of quite a different nature than for deprived Maori or European people, in order to focus on the particular needs and situation of the Pacific peoples’ community. The same focus for programme delivery would apply to Maori populations, but to a lesser extent, given their greater dispersion across population centres.

The greater deprivation experienced by Maori and Pacific peoples within each region implies that the deprivation of these ethnic groups nationally is not simply a reflection of which region they live in. Reducing the differences between regions will not reduce the difference between ethnic groups to the same degree.

Similarly, reducing the differences between ethnic groups will not necessarily reduce regional differences to the same degree. In some regions, the risk of deprivation is relatively high for every ethnic group, (but still higher for Maori and Pacific peoples than for Europeans). In others, the risk is relatively low for all groups. Having said that, the ranking of regions from lowest to highest risk of deprivation is not exactly the same for all ethnic groups. For instance, in Auckland, Pacific peoples face their highest risk of deprivation, whereas, for Europeans, it is one of the lower regions in terms of their risk of deprivation.

In summary, observed differences in deprivation between regions reflect both underlying regional fortunes, and differences in the mix of people living within each region. Maori and Pacific peoples fare less well than Europeans, so regions with a high proportion of Maori or Pacific peoples will have greater relative levels of deprivation. However, even when we control for differences in ethnic composition, some regions are more deprived than others, implying that regional fortunes do not simply reflect ethnicity. There is both an ethnic and a regional dimension to deprivation in New Zealand – neither completely subsumes the other. Even if there were no regional disparities, Maori and Pacific peoples would still fare worse. Even if there were no ethnic disparities in deprivation, regional differences would remain.