Why social infrastructure matters for economic security

Where do you go, and who do you turn to for connection, or when times get tough? If you are lucky, you might have a local community hub hosting a range of services and activities; a social club or community-pub with a mid-week quiz; your neighbours might offer you a cup of tea and a chat. For many of us, the people we know and the places we go locally provide a bedrock of connection and support. Community spaces, activities, services and everyday connections weave together a social infrastructure that is crucial for helping people feel secure in their lives.

Social infrastructure is the lifeblood of neighbourhoods across the country, bringing people together and providing access to new opportunities that help to sustain economically secure and resilient communities. Yet for millions across the UK, community assets, groups and services that form a foundation of everyday support are much harder to come by, leaving them more economically insecure and less resilient. Investing in social infrastructure is therefore essential and must not be an optional extra.

The Government’s Pride in Place Programme is heeding this call by targeting investment at areas that are doubly disadvantaged: both economically deprived and weaker in social infrastructure. Yet questions remain; new JRF analysis reveals 430 doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods — home to approximately 3.5 million people — remain unfunded. Yet questions remain; new JRF analysis reveals 430 doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods in England remain unfunded. These areas are home to approximately 3.5 million people and include some neighbourhoods ranked among those facing the greatest challenges.

The speed with which the programme is being rolled out also creates challenges in funded neighbourhoods given the intention is — rightly — for plans and delivery to be community-led. Our analysis highlights strikingly lower levels of community capacity and social infrastructure in these areas, which will need time, investment and support to grow.

Economic security is about more than just money

A vital challenge facing the Government is building economic security for households and communities, supporting them to withstand or recover from life’s unexpected setbacks or shocks. Often, policymakers’ minds will jump straight to job quality, affordable housing and lowering the cost life’s essentials.

However, feeling economically secure is not just about the money in your pocket, it’s also about the relationships that make up your support system, how connected you feel to others in your community and the impact of what’s on offer in your local area. A neighbour who can pick your kids up from school when you’re running late from work, a residents’ association supporting with repairs, your local library with free resources, workshops and advice. The social infrastructure that enables this support must be seen as an essential, and not a voluntary add-on.

Recent polling from More in Common, commissioned by JRF, explored what factors support economic security. When asked what most helps them to get back on their feet during hard times, 33% of people selected 1 or more of the measures classified as social infrastructure, such as support from community organisations and having places to go in their local area.

Speaking directly to people on lower incomes also underlines how social infrastructure can be invaluable in challenging times. Insights from JRF’s Grounded Voices programme highlights how good libraries, accessible outdoor spaces and a vibrant network of charity organisations help people stay afloat. Relatives, friends, neighbours, faith communities and local organisations were also critical in providing financial, practical and emotional support and a valuable sense of stability.

When things get tough, I tend to lean on a combination of personal support and community resources. […] One of the main sources of support has been through community WhatsApp groups. These groups often share information about free or affordable resources. I’ve also visited local community centres, which sometimes offer free or low-cost activities for children.

Economic security therefore has social drivers and dynamics, which are, in part, sustained by strong social infrastructure. Being economically secure means having the positive building blocks of adequate resources, social relationships and strong support systems to cope with life’s ups and downs.

However, across the UK, many communities have seen their social infrastructure eroded, with the traces that remain surviving against the odds. For people facing the double disadvantage of living in an economically deprived neighbourhood where there is also weaker social infrastructure, socioeconomic challenges are compounded, making it harder for families to be resilient to setbacks and live with prosperity and hope.

Social infrastructure builds resilient households and communities

Social infrastructure helps deliver greater economic security both at the household and community level. It creates the context for social capital to form and be strengthened, with evidence showing the importance of different types of social capital for individual outcomes. However, not everyone has access to strong social infrastructure where they live, with availability and quality varying within neighbourhoods across the country.

Bonding social capital — strong ties often between family, close friends, religious groups or tight-knit communities — has a significant impact on an individual’s ability to access material support, plus their health and wellbeing. It protects against stress and poor mental health, reduces isolation, provides essential everyday support and fosters high levels of trust, belonging and mutual aid. Bridging social capital — connections outside of one’s close network — supports people to access new opportunities, skills, resources and information.

This, in turn, can link to improved economic outcomes via new job prospects, social mobility and even higher earnings. Good health, capabilities, wellbeing and agency are essential underpinnings for people being economically active and secure. Therefore, many of the risk and protective factors that shape economic security are also shaped by social infrastructure.

Economic security is also mediated by place, in that where you live influences how secure your life feels. It also conditions the social infrastructure you have access to. Living in one of the hundreds of doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the UK means facing more factors that increase the risk of economic insecurity, including poorer health, lower levels of qualifications, lower incomes and being economically inactive.

New JRF analysis shows that even when comparing areas with similarly high levels of deprivation, those with weaker social infrastructure are associated with greater risk factors. The inverse is also true, with stronger social infrastructure associated with fewer risk factors. Doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods, therefore, are where needs are greatest, but the vital community assets, services, and institutions are thinnest.

Strong social infrastructure provides the foundation for 3 core components of community resilience, namely social connectedness, resource availability and structures to support agency and empowerment. With outcomes from social infrastructure forming the key ingredients of community resilience, they are mutually reinforcing concepts. When people feel valued as part of a community, strong social bonds and informal networks develop, providing essential mutual support in times of need.

Communities with stable access to public, third sector and community resources have safety nets that buffer against economic strain and can scale support during and after periods of hardship. When individuals have agency and can influence decisions, they are more likely to share resources, strengthening collective resilience and self-sufficiency.

Largely place based, social infrastructure nurtures human connection and social capital, provides localised support that meets community needs, and creates structures for local people to engage in collective decision making. As social infrastructure builds social capital and resilience, it therefore also supports economic security. A virtuous cycle can take hold with economically secure households forming more resilient communities and resilient communities supporting greater household economic security.

Yet while people living in doubly disadvantaged places have fewer community spaces, groups, activities and connections, they may also be at greater risk of deeper divisive forces taking hold.

An antidote to distrust and disconnection

Economic insecurity also breeds social disconnection, with people who struggle to make ends meet sacrificing crucial social and leisure time. Recent polling from More in Common, commissioned by JRF, reveals that in the last year, 60% of people cut back on social activities or hobbies due to rising living costs. This increases to 84% for people who are struggling financially.

People who feel financially insecure have much higher levels of social and political distrust; they are also more likely to feel a loss of collective identity and control over the places they live. This strong correlation between economic and social pessimism has broader societal impacts for how we live with, and relate to, each other.

In doubly disadvantaged places, weakened social infrastructure risks propelling deeper fractures. With less social infrastructure to build a shared civic life, isolation and seclusion can take hold as there are fewer people, spaces and activities offering comfort, camaraderie and connection.

Community spaces and activities matter greatly. They facilitate different people and perspectives gathering and forming concrete relationships based on trust, reciprocity and shared norms. Such social infrastructure can act as democracy’s immune system to disruptive social, economic or political forces. Without it, economic security is eroded, civic power and collective agency depleted; this weakens community resilience, leaving people vulnerable to polarisation and social tension.

Doubly disadvantaged places are in danger of falling victim to a vicious spiral, where financial precarity feeds social disconnection, and social disconnection further entrenches financial precarity. This cycle can lead to people turning inward, breed disillusionment and destroy community bonds, pitting neighbours against each other as a scarcity mindset takes hold. It can break down solidarity and create fertile ground for scapegoating, hatred and even violence.

Whilst disillusionment and inwardness can also happen in connected local communities, social infrastructure can help protect against their very worst manifestations. The need to tackle this declinism and disempowerment is urgent, and investing social infrastructure offers a lifeline.

The Government has gone some way in recognising the opportunity to invest in social infrastructure, particularly in places where it has most been weakened. Their flagship Pride in Place Programme promises long-term neighbourhood renewal powered by local communities, with the Government originally investing up to £5 billion over 10 years across 244 places. Most recently, they announced a new package of £800 million for 40 new neighbourhoods (excluded from the analysis below).

Pride in Place is an important and timely policy agenda; however, there are 2 core issues that could hinder its potential to spread economic security and bolster resilience.

Pride in Place: hitting the target but missing the point?

An ambition to improve the lives of those living in some of the most disadvantaged communities is undoubtedly the key impetus for the Pride in Place Programme. However, the politics of the moment may arguably have shaped some aspects of the policy in ways that could reduce its impact — namely, the distribution of the funding and the speed at which the Government is seeking results.

New JRF analysis has looked in detail at the Government’s funding allocation mechanism for England and the places that have, and those that have not, received investment. It reveals 430 neighbourhoods, with approximately 3.5 million people, that can be categorised as most in need of support (in that they fall in the top 10% of all neighbourhoods ranked by the ‘doubly disadvantaged’ measure), who have received no Pride in Place grant funding.

In addition, the Government’s decision to spread resource broadly across England has prioritised a potential political pay-off, over investing in the places with the greatest needs. The Government's choice to allow a maximum of one funded neighbourhood in any one constituency means that in constituencies with several doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods, many of the areas ranked as facing the most challenges have missed out on investment.

The neighbourhoods overlooked for investment are particularly likely to be concentrated in the Northern regions of England. Just 34% of the North East's doubly disadvantaged neighbourhoods received funding, 35% in the North West and 38% in Yorkshire and the Humber region. By contrast, in the South East 48% received funding.

In some areas the consequences are particularly stark. For example, the constituency of Blackpool South has received Pride in Place funding for the area of Little Layton & Little Carleton (ranked as the 2nd most doubly disadvantaged area in England), yet 9 other areas — that are also categorised as doubly disadvantaged — have missed out, including the places ranked 5th (South Promenade & Seasiders Way), 11th (North East Centre) and 20th (Central Blackpool). Some of the places where action to boost economic security is most needed have so far been disregarded.

The second way that the impact of Pride in Place could be undermined is in the desire to see quick results. The backdrop of political urgency which surrounded the programme’s launch has propelled the Government’s wish to see ‘shovels in the ground’. Funded places received their first payment to support community engagement and the establishment of their Neighbourhood Board early this year.

They now have until November 2026 to establish the Board itself alongside developing and submitting their Pride in Place plan to the Government for approval. With less than 12 months to build relationships, develop governance structures and agree objectives, this timeline is ambitious and would be challenging even for a highly engaged, empowered and trusting community.

However, as the policy deliberately targets places with weaker social infrastructure, true ownership of the delivery plans may be harder to achieve at speed. The fundamental ingredients of community-led renewal — community capacity, local leaders and trusted community anchors — must be strengthened and supported across all selected neighbourhoods.

JRF analysis, using the Community Needs Index, shows the extent of the potential challenge. The index, which is used along with the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation to identify doubly disadvantaged places, contains a range of indicators, including on civic participation, levels of social trust and the number of local third sector organisations, that measure the extent to which a neighbourhood has an active and engaged community. This gives an indication of the social infrastructure currently in place.

High scores indicate lower levels of community capacity, cohesion and participation, where trying to develop and deliver a community-led plan may be particularly challenging. Across England, the average score in this dimension is 25/100, while in doubly disadvantaged places it rises to 51. For the 146 neighbourhoods who have received Pride in Place funding announced in September 2025 the average score is 58. Of these, 33 neighbourhoods (22%) score above 75 and so are in high need of extra support.

Current Pride in Place support is universal, applying to all funded places equally, and there is no recognition of the different starting points or levels of ‘readiness’ amongst the cohort of neighbourhoods. 

The policy rightly aims to root community power in the governance and delivery, with the expectation that each Neighbourhood Board will have a community-led delivery model by its third year. This offers the chance to reset the relationship between local people and the state, embedding community leadership and control early in a bid to ensure sustainability and long-term transformation. It could also demonstrate how government policy can be enabling rather than technocratic — providing communities with the tools to build, strengthen and sustain the social infrastructure that they want and need.

Strengthening social infrastructure isn’t simply about giving places more money, it’s about government policy that creates the enabling conditions for long-term community leadership and delivery. In some neighbourhoods, this may mean supporting the technical skills and capabilities required to manage and own a multi-million-pound programme. In others, community development could help uncover existing strengths, networks and resources, find local connectors and start with small hyper-local changes to build a shared sense of momentum and trust.

The work to sustain momentum is ongoing, not bound by project end dates or evaluation deadlines. It can be messy and slow. It requires trusting relationships, genuine time, the right mix of ambition, tenacity and practical skills, working with difference and resolving conflict, listening without judgement, innovation and risk-taking, engaging with power dynamics, not giving up when progress feels impossible. Financial investment plus enabling infrastructure is the path to the policy being able to bolster economic security in a sustained way.

Conclusion

Social infrastructure is a vital contributor to supporting economically secure households and communities. Community spaces, activities and services plus networks of local people generate social connection, provide localised support and catalyse place-based power and agency. With social infrastructure, individuals and communities are more resilient to life’s challenges and able to get back on their feet.

The Government must confront all facets of economic insecurity head on, bringing together structural, financial and social components. A bolder policy agenda for communities would shift from time-limited political programmes with winners and losers, to sustainable interventions that raise expectations and standards for social infrastructure across the board, whilst targeting resource to the people and places that need it most. We all deserve to live in a neighbourhood with strong social infrastructure that is community-powered, supports economic security and builds collective resilience.