ArticlePDF Available

The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave: How the economic situation will affect archaeological practice in universities and government

Authors:
  • Landward Research Ltd

Abstract

In the autumn of 2008, the effects of the late 2000s global economic crisis suddenly and seriously impacted commercial archaeological practice in the United Kingdom. With 93 per cent of all archaeological work in the UK being developer-led, initiated through the planning process and delivered by companies competing on the open market (Aitchison 2009a), the sudden slowdown in small- and medium-scale development led to a direct reduction in the amount of archaeological work being undertaken.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge - 26.1 - 2011
The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave:
How the economic situation will aect archaeological
practice in universities and government
Kenneth Aitchison
Executive Director, Landward Resea rch Ltd
kenneth.aitchison@landward.eu
Introduction
In the autumn of , the eects of the late s global economic crisis
suddenly and seriously impacted commercial archaeological practice in
the United Kingdom. With  per cent of all archaeological work in the
UK being developer-led, initiated through the planning process and de-
livered by companies competing on the open market (Aitchison a),
the sudden slowdown in small- and medium-scale development led to a
direct reduction in the amount of archaeological work being undertaken.
Previously, house prices in the UK had peaked in the summer of
 (Aitchison a), and the early eects of the economic crisis—
then referred to as ‘the credit crunch’—had already led to a slowing of
archaeological work over the year that followed. Between  and ,
new build housing completions decreased by  per cent, from ,
“The credit crunch of 2007 became the nancial crash of
2008 and the recession of 2009” (Gam ble 200 9b).
80 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
to , (DCLG : ). The eects of September and October ,
however, were an order of magnitude more severe, with hundreds of ar-
chaeologists losing their jobs and several archaeological companies go-
ing out of business.
The cover letter that accompanied the request for data for the most
recent comprehensive archaeological labour market intelligence survey
(Aitchison and Edwards : ) was dated the very day— September
—that the run on Northern Rock began, one of the landmarks of the
start of the decline. The data was requested as it applied on  August
, and so, this eectively means the data presented in that report were
gathered at the peak of the boom, at archaeology’s apogee.
Since then, The Institute for Archaeologists has gathered data on
the eects of the crisis on archaeological practice on a quarterly basis.
Signicant numbers of jobs were lost in late  and early ; capi-
tal investment led to a certain level of recovery in the sector during the
summer of , but by the start of  archaeological businesses still
remained uncertain about the future eects of the economic situation.
Outside the commercial sector, the number of people in archaeo-
logical employment providing advice to local government began to
decline, although not as sharply as in commercial archaeology; detailed
local government nance settlements are decided annually, but –
is the third year of a three-year overall settlement, after which serious cuts
are anticipated. Similarly, other agencies that are also primarily funded
from central government—the national heritage agencies and the uni-
versities—did not suer severe, immediate impacts, but these are also
anticipated in the period from –.
Schadla-Hall, Moshenka and Thornton () have written that the
archaeological sector has failed to secure socio-economic data that can
be used for eective lobbying against the threat of cuts. This article seeks
to briey review the information that has already been published re-
garding the eects of the crisis on commercial archaeology, and then to
81Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
concentrate on the areas of archaeological practice which have yet to be
seriously impacted upon but where adverse eects are expected in the
coming years. The dynamics of archaeological practice are already chang-
ing, and this paper will attempt to present informed foresight into how
this process will continue over the short- and medium-term.
Eects on archaeological contractors
By , commercial archaeology in the UK was operating in a crowded
marketplace. Whilst the market was not saturated, it was relatively small
with a high number of suppliers and little room for new entrants unless
existing providers dropped out. When the marketplace began to shrink,
the recession began to identify which businesses were commercially
strong and which were weak.
By  January , commercial archaeology had suered a net loss
of approximately  jobs (. per cent) from the August  high
(Aitchison : ). There has been a certain amount of market restruc-
turing, with a small amount of ssioning (as individual members of sta
leave one rm to establish another) and signicantly more consolida-
tion, as larger companies take over smaller, less-successful but poten-
tially viable organisations. For example, Headland Archaeology absorbed
Archaeological Investigations and ARCUS became the Sheeld oce
of Wessex Archaeology (although some former ARCUS sta established
ArcHeritage, under the aegis of York Archaeological Trust).
Spending by the state aimed at alleviating the worst of the economic
crisis has provided some opportunities for archaeological employers,
through unemployment relief/avoidance measures such as the Future
Jobs Fund and more signicantly through participating in infrastructure
projects funded as capital expenditure. Late in , the UK government
announced that it would bring forward  million in capital spending
for road and rail projects, and archaeology directly beneted from this
through the work that was carried out on the A in Nottinghamshire
(Aitchison d: –). Indeed, this one project contributed
82 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
signicantly to a temporary reversal of the job losses in the summer of
 (Aitchison c).
However, overall, a small number of business failures and very few
new start-ups meant that the market was less crowded at the start of 
than it was at the end of .
The second wave
The impact of the crisis on commercial archaeological practice is clear
and direct, but there are areas of archaeological practice which had yet
to be seriously impacted upon at the time of writing (in ) but where
adverse eects are expected in the coming years. This second wave of
the recession’s eects on archaeology will primarily impact sectors that
rely heavily on national funding sources, specically government services
(both local and national) and universities.
This is not yet the classic ‘double dip’ or ‘W-shaped’ recession, where
an immediate negative eect is fairly rapidly alleviated, then subsequent-
ly followed by a further crash when the policies that led to the recovery
are scaled back (Gamble a: ); however, in archaeology’s case the
sector may experience a ‘double dip’ following the end of the capital in-
vestment monies and the change of UK government in May . The
incoming government has focussed on addressing the decit through
reducing spending rather than Keynesian stimuli.
Eects on curators
Local government forms the lter through which archaeological practice
is mediated. Archaeological advisors to planning departments—
known as archaeological curators—make recommendations on what
archaeological work is required to inform the planners in the decision-
making process, and then on what archaeological work should be
undertaken as a condition of planning permission being granted.
This is not a statutory, legally protected service that local planning
authorities are obliged to provide, and with signicant funding cuts
83Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
anticipated over the next ve years, these archaeological services could
be under serious threat. If these ‘curatorial’ services are lost, there will also
be a second blow to commercial archaeology; if planners aren’t receiving
archaeological advice, they will not impose the conditions upon develop-
ment that necessitate eldwork being done.
The primary eects of the economic crisis to date on curatorial ser-
vices have been through the reduction in the amount of construction
work being undertaken, directly leading to a reduction in the number of
planning applications being scrutinised by local planning authority cu-
ratorial services. For instance, Swanson (in Aitchison and Swanson )
reported that the number of planning applications being seen by the
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS), a joint service providing
advice to twelve local planning authorities, had been dropping since the
eects of the recessionary period began in . The number expected
to be scrutinised in the nal quarter of  was expected to be half the
number seen in .
The situation reported at WoSAS has been replicated across the UK.
In England, there were , applications for planning permission in
the April to June  quarter; by October to December , this had
fallen by  per cent to ,, with the same number being reported a
year later in October to December  (DCLG : ; DCLG ). The
Archaeological Investigations Project has long demonstrated the direct re-
lationship between the number of planning applications made and the
number of archaeological investigations undertaken, as measured by the
number of reports deposited (Darvill and Russell ). An overall reduc-
tion in the amount of archaeological work was already being reported by
 (Aitchison a).
This has led to reduced incomes for local planning authorities,
as planning applications are supported by planning fees intended to
achieve cost recovery for the fee-paying element of their services—these
planning fees were frozen for a year in January  to help support the
recovery of the construction sector (Construction News ).
84 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
As well as providing advisory services, a small number of local au-
thorities also undertake eldwork on a commercial basis, and these are
being doubly aected both by the downturn as it has aected commer-
cial archaeology in general and by the pressures on local government.
Exeter Archaeology was founded in , and is “potentially the old-
est archaeological contractor in the UK” (Exeter CC nd). It failed to meet
its break-even target for –, leading to a reduction in core sta,
and after the rst ve months of – it was clear that income
was well below target for that year (Exeter CC a, b). Following
discussions within the council on potential options for the unit, includ-
ing closure and outsourcing, the organisation restructured again with a
smaller core, down to  sta by January  (Exeter CC ).
The situation at Exeter Archaeology is likely to be repeated and ac-
centuated across the few remaining local government contractor ser-
vices, with all facing the same dilemma and most likely some (if not all)
having to reduce in size and potentially to close.
Following on from these immediate eects of the economic crisis
is the potentially far more serious fact that the current local government
funding settlement only extends to – (DCLG ), and so from
April  councils will receive a dierent, and in most cases heavily re-
duced, nancial subvention from the state (DCLG c).
Cuts started to be made in local government early in  (Morris,
O’Grady and Morris ; BBC a) and with Historic Environment
Records (HERs) being non-statutory services, it is impossible to see the
forthcoming cuts not directly leading to the loss of posts within these
services. Even before the implementation of the new settlement, the
number of sta working in HERs fell between  and . The total
number only fell by around  per cent, but this follows a period of sus-
tained growth in this sector (EH, ALGAO and IHBC ; Ingle ).
85Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
This may well mean that provision of advice and the maintenance of
records will be put under further pressure, and the provision of separate
HERs may be on borrowed time. While the actual record is important, it
does not necessarily have to be physically under the safekeeping of the
local authority—it is the interrogation of the record that is important, and
so the provision of advice remains key. Currently, several authorities do
not have in-house provision of advice; there are many examples of shared
services being provided jointly to several authorities. A private company
either maintains the record or provides advice to three local authorities in
Scotland, and for several years Northamptonshire was seen as ‘toxic’ as it
had no advisory service at all (ALGAO/FAME/IfA ).
On  October , Nottinghamshire County Council announced
very signicant cuts to their conservation team, which includes the ar-
chaeological service and historic environment record, and budget (Notts
CC ) to save , over two years from – with a  per cent
reduction in stang—from . FTE sta to only six. This is likely to be the
pattern followed by many other local authorities in the immediate future.
With local authority services being the key pivot upon which almost all
of primary archaeological work (and thus employment) depends, the im-
pact of all of this on the rest of archaeology is potentially enormous.
Eects on universities
Universities can also expect to face funding crises—like local government,
they are funded from several sources but primarily from central
government grants. As the government deals with the budget decit
that has been generated by the economic crisis, grant reductions are
inevitable and have already been set out in the announcement of the
HEFCE budget for – (HEFCE ).
Aitchison and Edwards (: ) estimated that  individual ar-
chaeologists worked for universities,  of which were working to pro-
vide education and academic services;  of these individuals were iden-
tied as being “research-active” at the  higher education institutions
which submitted to the Research Assessment Exercise  (RAE ).
86 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
The anticipated future eects may be severe. From the summer of
, it was recognised that there was a strong chance of cuts to public
funding for universities, in the order of at least – per cent, which would
be very likely to lead to redundancies (Baty ; Hooley ).
Simultaneously, an alternative pressure provided by the changing
economic situation has seen the overall number of applications for uni-
versity places in – increasing by . per cent in comparison with
the previous year (UCAS a). Applications to study archaeology went
up, but not by as much as the aggregate gures—by . per cent (UCAS
b), leading to an increase in the number of students accepted on to
courses of . per cent (UCAS c). The numbers applying for places
continued to increase for the – intake by a further . per cent
(UCAS ).
By the end of , realities were becoming clear as the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills announced a cut in its grant per stu-
dent to HEFCE—the “unit of resource” (Mandelson ). Mroz () es-
timated that, overall, higher education was facing cuts of  million—
and that “the reality is that higher education seems set to take the biggest
cut of all in the public sector” (Mroz ). These cuts were conrmed
in February  when HEFCE announced the provisional distribution of
funding to universities and colleges in – (HEFCE ), and once
the gures had been fully calculated and appreciated—a real term cut of
 million (Harrison ) initial reaction was noisy but ineectual (Jack
).
There are potential further eects on funding, depending upon
where archaeology is placed for the forthcoming REF (Research Excellence
Framework—the replacement for the RAE), less might be allocated to the
subject. Previously it was placed with geography and architecture—if it
is placed with history and classics it is likely to lose out by being consid-
ered purely as a humanities subject rather than as part-STEM (science,
technology, engineering, mathematics) as many within the sector would
argue, having higher-cost eld and laboratory components. The Scottish
87Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
Funding Council has also investigated placing archaeology in band D—
its lowest funding band (Ralston ).
The immediate cuts, which can be aggregated up to an estimated
 million by , are anticipated to aect stang most heavily. In
, two universities—Manchester and Sheeld—closed their in-house
commercial eld units (Aitchison b; Cumberpatch ). It has been
reported that GUARD (the commercial arm of the University of Glasgow’s
Department of Archaeology) was also under threat “because it is not
meeting targets set for all departments to generate income” (Denholm
a, b). In the rst week of October  Birmingham Archaeology
(the commercial archaeological company within the University of
Birmingham) notied approximately  members of sta—eectively,
the entire Birmingham Archaeology Heritage Services eldwork team—
that their posts were being made redundant, and inviting them to apply
for  replacement posts (RESCUE ).
The commercial arms employ fewer individuals, on lower average
salaries, than the academic departments themselves, and so it will be
nancially easier for the universities to cut sta numbers here rst. But
given the scale of the impending cuts, it is very likely to aect academic
sta sooner rather than later—initially through natural wastage, as posts
opened up by retirement (which might be encouraged through oers
of voluntary severance, as happened at the University of Sheeld) are
not lled. The Department of Archaeological Science at the University of
Bradford has also reduced in size through retirements, with members of
sta accepting enhanced early severance packages and sta taking up
jobs elsewhere without these people being replaced (Ian Ralston pers.
comm.  July ). In May  the University of Bristol announced
proposals to cut four of the  teaching posts within the Department of
Archaeology and Anthropology (Pitts ).
This will have knock-on eects on the rest of the profession.
While academic archaeology is a relatively small part of the sector as a
whole— per cent of all archaeologists work for universities, two thirds
88 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
of them providing education and academic research services (Aitchison
and Edwards : )—given that eectively all the new entrants into
professional archaeology in the last two decades have been graduates,
reduced university resources might shape the kind of supply that the rest
of the profession receives.
Eects on national heritage agencies
Changes at the national heritage agencies—English Heritage, Historic
Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency—will
be driven by more than just economic factors. First and foremost, as
agencies of central or devolved government, they will be impacted on
by the eorts of the government to address the economic decit. Bigger
politics—particularly outside England, where heritage is often heavily
associated with particular identity agendas—will also come into play.
English Heritage receives approximately three-quarters of its fund-
ing from the Treasury to carry out its statutory role as the Government’s
adviser on the historic environment in England. The current Funding
Agreement covers the three-year period  April – March  (EH
b). The current Historic Scotland Corporate Plan also extends from
– (HS ).
None of the three principal UK political parties’  general elec-
tion manifestos made mention of archaeology, although all did refer to
heritage if not the historic environment (Heritage Alliance ). One
potentially very signicant policy—which didn’t make it to inclusion in
a manifesto—was contained within a Liberal Democrat document pub-
lished in September  identifying target areas for budget cuts, the
Liberal Democrats “identied at least  quangos that should be culled
or merged”, including English Heritage which would be merged with
the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) (Liberal Democrat Party : ). The
diering geographical remits of English Heritage (England) and the HLF
(UK-wide) notwithstanding, the economic situation that the post-
decit has brought into being highlights the temptation to politicians
who are faced with dicult decisions to cut at relatively easy targets, and
89Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
state-funded heritage agencies are on that list. Speaking in February ,
the then Conservative Shadow Minister for Culture, Ed Vaizey, appeared
to have a better grip on the roles of those two organisations but made it
very clear that his party planned changes for them both, and pointedly
emphasised that “we need to have a debate about the work and role of
English Heritage” (Action Planning : ).
This merger was identied in list of proposed changes leaked to
the Daily Telegraph in September  (Porter ), but when the
Government formally announced which quangos would be cut or con-
solidated on  October , there were no major consolidations of heri-
tage bodies. However, DCMS “asked English Heritage and the Heritage
Lottery Fund, as a matter of urgency, to identify and reduce any overlap
of activities” (DCMS ).
Prior to the  elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish
National Party (which subsequently formed a minority administration)
made a manifesto commitment to “reduce duplication” by merging
Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical
Monuments of Scotland (SNP : ). Subsequently, this did not come
to pass, but the issue was touched upon again in the Reid strategic re-
view of the National Trust for Scotland (NTS ) which recognised that
there are several agencies working in the eld of heritage in Scotland,
and while calling for more collaboration rejects the suggestion that the
NTS should merge with Historic Scotland.
With in-house stang a major part of the budgets of each of these
agencies, cuts or ‘eciency savings’ are very likely to impact on sta num-
bers. In the rst instance, this can initially be expected to be addressed
through ‘natural wastage’, as posts that fall vacant are not then lled.
There is a sense that this is already happening at both Historic Scotland
and English Heritage in particular, in the latter case because a signicant
level of sta unhappiness has been created by the relocation of many
posts from London to Swindon (English Heritage : ). In Northern
Ireland, the comparatively small historic environment team within the NI
90 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
Environment Agency may prove to be particularly vulnerable, as there
will be so little room for manoeuvre if sta cuts have to be made.
As employers, national heritage agencies are very denitely not in-
vulnerable to funding reductions and, as made clear by Leighton (:
), political parties try to be seen to protect ‘high priority’ services such as
health and education, which is likely to mean that “heritage is low priority
and will be cut…jobs are particularly at risk given the high proportion of
[DCMS] grants [to heritage bodies] spent on salaries”.
Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and
Sport told BBC’s Newsnight on  May  that “none of the Department
for Culture Media and Sport’s budgets are protected” and if the required
cuts were spread evenly between all government departments, his would
have to nd  million of savings (BBC b).
Following an announcement by David Laws, Chief Secretary to the
Treasury on  May  (HM Treasury ), English Heritage had to im-
mediately identify  million savings from their – budget. Simon
Thurley, the EH Chief Executive, claimed to have anticipated and planned
for these cuts (English Heritage ), which led to an immediate halt to
recruitment to several EH training projects and the closure of their Future
Jobs Fund project. In addition to this, the plans for a Stonehenge Visitor
Centre have been put into abeyance (BBC News Wiltshire ).
When further cuts were announced following the Comprehensive
Spending Review on  October , English Heritage’s grant from the
Government for the four years from  was reduced from the
– levels by  per cent (EH b). This led to an announcement
from English Heritage on  October  that this would lead to a one-
third reduction of grants given, and the loss of at least  jobs (EH c)
from a workforce of  in –.
91Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
Conclusions
With the May  UK coalition government rmly wedded to reducing the
decit through spending cuts (Conservative Party and Liberal Democrat
Party ), many of the potential impacts on archaeological practice
envisioned above now seem very likely to come to pass. However, further
political developments may yet alleviate the situation.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
(DCLG ) was published and adopted as government policy on 
March . This document replaced PPG  (DoE ) as the basic text
for how archaeological remains have to be treated in the planning pro-
cess in England—reconrming that it is the responsibility of potential de-
velopers to fully inform local planning authorities with all of the informa-
tion the LPA needs to decide on whether or not planning permission will
be granted, and if so, with what conditions attached. The fundamental
place of archaeology as an element to be considered within the sustain-
able development process seems secure.
Had the Heritage Protection Bill reached the statute book—it was
dropped from the Queen’s Speech on two occasions, in December 
and July  (Fulcher ), as the economic crisis sidelined this pro-
posed legislation—the position of the local planning authorities advisers
could have been much more certain. At present, they remain non-stat-
utory services. However, in the run-up to the  General Election, the
Conservative Party (from the comfortable vantage point of opposition)
were able to say that they would bring this Bill back in the rst Parliament
if they were elected (Action Planning : –).
One opportunity to secure this advice (in Scotland) might be
through the Histo ric Environment (Am endment) (Scotland) Bil l 2010 (Scottish
Parliament ). As introduced to the Scottish Parliament on  May 
the Bill makes no mention of statutory requirement for local authorities to
have access to archaeological advice within the planning process, but this
may potentially be introduced through amendments in debate.
92 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
The political opportunities that exist all rely on the vicissitudes of co-
alition or minority governments reaching agreement on issues that may
not hold politicians’ attention as easily as the stark realities of job losses and
tax rises. Forecasting is a risky business; in , at a time when there were
only  people earning a living from archaeology in the whole country
(Thomas ), Chris Musson wrote that “it is dicult to imagine the inde-
pendent consultancy becoming a major force within British archaeology”
(Musson : ). Within thirty years, there were more than thirty times
as many professional archaeologists, and it was the private sector that
boomed with the public sector having to expand to keep up.Commercial
archaeology has been an economic canary—one of the rst sectors to
suer the impacts of the recession—and it has not yet recovered from
the economic downturn. Non-commercial, government-funded archae-
ology is only just beginning to suer directly from the changed economic
conditions, but extensive and severe impacts are imminent and what the
ultimate results of this will be cannot be condently predicted.
References
Action Planning. . Funding the Future 2010. Website: http://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/ct/
c//r//l/, accessed on  May .
Aitchison, K. a. Archaeology and the global nancial crisis. Antiquity (). Website:
http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/aitchison, accessed on  March .
Aitchison, K. b. Archaeology is changing—forever. British Archaeology July/August
: – .
Aitchison, K. c. Job Losses in Archaeology—July . Report for the Institute for Ar-
chaeologists and the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers. Website:
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/JobLossesJuly.
pdf, accessed on  May .
Aitchison, K.d. After the ‘gold rush’: Global archaeology in . World Archaeology
(): –.
Aitchison, K. . Job Losses in Archaeology—January . Report for the Institute for
Archaeologists and the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers. Web-
site: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/JobLosses-
January.pdf, accessed on  May .
93Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
Aitchison, K. and Edwards, R. . Archaeology labour market intelligence: Proling the
profession –. Institute for Archaeologists. Website: http://www.archaeolo-
gists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/lmi/Archaeology_LMI_re-
port_colour.pdf, accessed on  December .
Aitchison, K. and Swanson, C. . Scottish Group IfA AGM and recession seminar. The
Archaeologist : .
ALGAO/FAME/IfA (Association of Local Government Archaeology Ocers / Federation of
Archaeological Managers and Employers / Institute for Archaeologists). .
Working together in the recession: Notes of ALGAO England/FAME/IfA meeting,
Monday,  March . Website: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icon-
tent/inPages/docs/ALGAOFAMEIfA--.pdf, accessed on  February .
BBC. a. Nottin ghamshire council plan threatens , jobs. BBC News. Website: http://
news.bbc.co.uk//hi/england/nottinghamshire/.stm, accessed on  Febru-
ary .
BBC. b. London  Olympics not protected from budget cuts. BBC News. Website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk//hi/england/london/.stm, accessed on  May
.
BB C N ews Wilt shir e.  . Government funding for Stonehenge visitor centre axed. BBC News
Wiltshire. Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/, a ccess ed on  July .
Conservative Party and Liberal Democrat Party. . Conservative Liberal Democrat co-
alition negotiations. Agreements reached  May . Website: http://www.con-
servatives.com/~/media/Files/DownloadableFiles/agreement.ashx?dl=true,
accessed on  May .
Construction News. . Planning fees frozen for  months. Construction News  Janu-
ary . Website: http://www.cnplus.co.uk/sectors/housing/planning-fees-fro-
zen-for--months/.article, accessed on  May .
Cumberpatch, C.G. . The end of eld archaeology in universities? Rescue News  : .
Darvill, T. and Russell, B. . Archaeology after PPG: Archaeological investigations in
England –. Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences Research
Report .
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). . Fair and aordable
funding to keep down Council Tax. Website: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.
gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/, accessed on
 February .
94 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
DCLG. . Housing and Planning Statistics . Website: http://www.communities.
gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/.pdf, accessed on  May .
DCLG. a. Planning Applications: December Quarter  (England). Website: http://
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/planningapplication-
sq, accessed on  May .
DCLG. b. Planning Policy Statement : Planning for the Historic Environment. Lon-
don: The Stationery Oce. Website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/
planningandbuilding/pdf/.pdf, accessed on  March .
DCLG. c. Formula Grant from - and Statutory Notice of Data Collection. Web-
site: http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/nance//augdatlet.pdf, accessed
on  October .
DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport). . Improving eciency and trans-
parency: DCMS cuts quangos. Website: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_
releases/.aspx, accessed on  October .
Denholm, A. a. Academics face axe as university looks to cut costs. The Herald. Web-
site: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/academics-face-axe-as-uni-
versity-looks-to-cut-costs-. accessed  April , accessed on  April
.
Denholm, A. b. Axe threatened uni service given reprieve. Evening Times. Website:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/axe-threatened-uni-service-given-re-
prieve-., accessed on  April .
DoE (Department of the Environment). . Planning Policy Guidance: Archaeology and
Planning. London: HMSO.
EH (English Heritage). a. Annual Report and Accounts /. Website: http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Annual_Report_and_Accounts_.
pdf?, accessed on  March .
EH. b. English Heritage Funding Agreement /–/. Website: http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/upload/doc/English_Heritage_Funding_Agree-
ment_-.doc?, accessed on  May .
EH. a. Chief Executive welcomes conservation of Chapter House. Website: http://
www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/eh-chief-executive-welcomes-chap-
ter-house-conservation/, accessed  February .
EH. b. Statement in response to CSR from Baroness Andrews OBE Chair of English
Heritage. Website: http://relaunch.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/eh-re-
sponds/Public-sector-cuts/, accessed on  October .
95Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
EH. c. Public sector cuts. Website: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/
eh-responds/Public-sector-cuts/, accessed on  November .
EH, ALGAO and IHBC (English Heritage, the Association of Local Government Archaeo-
logical Ocers and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation). . Imple-
menting the Heritage Protection Reforms: A Report on Local Authority and English
Heritage sta resources. Website: http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Imple-
menting_HPR_-_ Sta_Resources_ .pdf?, accessed on 
May .
Exeter City Council (Exeter CC). nd. Exeter Archaeology. http://www.exeter.gov.uk/index.
aspx?articleid=, accessed on  February .
Exeter CC a. Archaeological Advisory Committee, Thursday th September 
agenda and minutes. Website: http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.
aspx?CId=&MID=, accessed on  February .
Exeter CC b. Executive, Tuesday th September . Website: http://committees.
exeter.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=&MID=AI, accessed on 
February .
Exeter CC. . Meeting of Archaeological Advisory Committee, Thursday th January
 . pm (Item ). Website: http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/mgAi.
aspx?ID=, accessed on  February .
Fulcher, M. . Heritage Protection Bill lef t out—again. The Architects’ Journal. Website:
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/heritage-protection-bill-left-out-
again/.article, accessed on  March .
Gamble, A. a. Th e Spectre at the Feast: Capitalist Crisis and the Politics of Recession. Bas-
ingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gamble, A. b. Review of Reinhart, C.M and Rogo, K. S. This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries
of Financial Folly. New Statesman  December . Website: http://www.newstates-
man.com/print/, accessed on  January .
Harrison, A. Universities facing ‘rst budget cuts in years’. BBC News. Website: http://
news.bbc.co.uk//hi/education/.stm, accessed on  March .
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). . HEFCE announces funding
for universities and colleges in -. Website: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/he-
fce//grant/, accessed on  February 
Heritage Alliance. . General Election . The Heritage Alliance analysis of main Par-
ty manifestos. Website: http://www.heritagelink.org.uk/wp/wp-content/up-
loads///Manifestos-THA-analysis-.pdf, accessed on  May .
96 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
HM Treasury. . Speech by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rt Hon David Laws MP,
announcing . billion savings. Website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/
press__.htm, accessed on  July .
HS (Historic Scotland). . Historic Scotland Corporate Plan –. Website: http://
www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/corporate-plan--.pdf, accessed on  May
.
Ingle, C. . ALGAO Stang and Casework survey 2006: Preliminary analysis of gures
from members in England. Unpublished internal ALGAO report.
Jack, M. . University of Sussex cutbacks: Protests, riot police and strike action. The In-
dependent. Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/
news/university-of-sussex-cutbacks-protests-riot-police-and-strike-ac-
tion-.html, accessed on  March .
Leighton, A. . “Cuts…and more to come!”, Prospects for Heritage.. February .
(brieng for Prospect members working in the heritage sector).
Liberal Democrat Party. . A Better Politics for Less. Website: http://www.libdem-
voice.org/wp-content/uploads///A-better-politics-for-less.pdf, accessed on
 March .
Mandelson, P. . Higher Education Funding -–. Website: http://www.bis.gov.
uk/higher-education-funding--, accessed on  January .
Morris, N., O’Grady, S. and Morris, S. . Cash crisis hits town halls from Truro to Aber-
deen: Councils warn , workers will face redundancy this spring. The Indepen-
dent. Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cash-crisis-
hits-town-halls-from-truro-to-aberdeen-.html, accessed on  February
.
Mroz, A. . Leader: get used to life on the edge..Times Higher Education. Website:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=, accessed
on  January .
Musson, C. . Digging all the time. In Rahtz, P.A. (ed.), Rescue Archaeology. Harmond-
sworth: Penguin, –.
Notts CC (Nottinghamshire County Council). . Summary Proposal. Service Area—
Conservation: Restructure of Services. Website: http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.
uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=&type=full&servicetype=Attach
ment, accessed on  October .
NTS (National Trust for Scotland). . Fit for Purpose: Report of the Strategic Review of
the National Trust for Scotland. Website: http://www.nts.org.uk /about/downloads/
review/t_for_purpose.pdf, accessed on  October .
97Kenneth Aitchison
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
Pitts, M. . Archaeology at Bristol University threatened? British Archaeology July/Au-
gust : .
Porter, A. . Quango cuts:  bodies to be scrapped under coalition plans. Daily Tele-
graph. Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics//
Quango-cuts--bodies-to-be-scrapped-under-coalition-plans.html, accessed on
 September .
RAE (Research Assessment Exercise). . Panel H: Archaeology. RAE 2008 Subject
Overview. Website: http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs//ov/MainPanelH.zip, accessed
on  May .
Ralston, I. . Archaeology in the Scottish Universities. Presentation made to Scottish
Group of the Institute for Archaeologists’ AGM,  October .
RESCUE. . Redundancies at Birmingham Archaeology. Website: http://www.rescue-
archaeology.org.uk/beta////redundancies-at-birmingham-archaeology/,
accessed on  November .
Schadla-Hall, T., Moshenka, G. and Thornton, A. . Editorial. Public Archaeology ():
.
Scottish Parliament. . Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill . Web-
site: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s/bills/-HistoricEnvironment/bs-in-
trod-pm.pdf, accessed on  May .
SNP (Scottish National Party). . Manifesto . Website: http://www.snp.org/sys-
tem/les/manifesto+programme.pdf, accessed on  May 
Thomas, C. . Archaeology in Britain . In Rahtz, P.A. (ed.), Rescue Archaeology. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin, –.
UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service). a. Applications and Accep-
tances by Subject. Website: http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/stat_services/stats_
online/data_tables/subject/, accessed on  December .
UCAS. b. Latest university application gures show . rise. Press release  July
. Website: http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releas-
es//--, accessed on  December .
UCAS. c. Provisional nal gures for . press release  October . Website:
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releas-
es//--, accessed on  December .
98 The Economic Crisis and the Coming Second Wave
Archaeol ogical Re view from C ambridg e 26.1: 79–98
UCAS. . Application numbers hit record highs for the fourth year running. Website:
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases//,
accessed on  April .
... State funding for national and local government archaeological agencies in the United Kingdom then fell considerably from 2010, with numerous individual archaeological advisers losing their jobs and the effective levels of protection for archaeological sites and landscapes being reduced (Aitchison 2011). ...
... State funding for national and local government archaeological agencies in the United Kingdom then fell considerably from 2010, with numerous individual archaeological advisers losing their jobs and the effective levels of protection for archaeological sites and landscapes being reduced (Aitchison 2011). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Applied archaeological practice, as a means of investigating and protecting archaeological sites, landscapes, and material, is a young profession that emerged across the world during the twentieth century. As a practice that has become increasingly linked to land-use change and development expenditure, it has been impacted upon by all of the crises that the global economy has gone through in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
... The most recent predecessor study (Aitchison & Edwards 2008) captured data from employers in August 2007, immediately before the effects of global economic changes had serious and adverse effects upon archaeological practice and employment in the UK (eg Aitchison 2009bAitchison , 2011a. ...
Book
Full-text available
Comprehensive Labour Market Intelligence for the archaeological profession has now been gathered for the fourth time in the series of Profiling the Profession studies. This baseline survey used the same fundamental methodology that was previously employed in 1997-98, 2002-03 and 2007-08, and consequently a time-series dataset has been compiled which allows trends to be identified with increasing confidence. The previous labour market intelligence gathering exercise for the sector (in 2007-08) was undertaken immediately before the effects of significant global and national economic changes began to affect archaeological employment. The economic transformation since 2007-08 significantly affected employment in archaeology, resulting in the sector being considerably smaller in 2012-13 than it was in 2007-08. With an overall response rate of 224 from a population of 511 potential respondents contacted, at a confidence level of 95% this level of response is accurate to +/- 4.9%.
Book
Full-text available
Comprehensive Labour Market Intelligence for the archaeological profession has now been gathered for the fourth time in the series of Profiling the Profession studies. This baseline survey used the same fundamental methodology that was previously employed in 1997‐98, 2002‐03 and 2007‐08, and consequently a time‐series dataset has been compiled which allows trends to be identified with increasing confidence. The previous labour market intelligence gathering exercise for the sector (in 2007‐08) was undertaken immediately before the effects of significant global and national economic changes began to affect archaeological employment. The economic transformation since 2007‐08 significantly affected employment in archaeology, resulting in the sector being considerably smaller in 2012‐13 than it was in 2007‐08. With an overall response rate of 224 from a population of 511 potential respondents contacted, at a confidence level of 95% this level of response is accurate to +/‐ 4.9%.
Article
Full-text available
The Scottish Group of IfA held its AGM on 23 October, followed by a seminar on the effects of the recession on Scottish archaeology. At the AGM John Sode-Woodhead handed over the position of Chair to Ellen McAdam, and Daniel Rhodes was elected Hon Secretary.
Article
Full-text available
Es un lugar común afirmar que el mundo (desarro-llado) está saliendo de la peor crisis financiera y la más intensa recesión desde los años treinta. Es menos consensual afirmar que las respuestas de política macroeconómica y de rescate financiero —cierta-mente las más intensas, rápidas e internacionalmente coherentes que se han dado en la historia económica global— evitaron que esta Gran Recesión se transfor-mara en otra Gran Depresión. Pero es nuevamente de consenso decir que estas políticas extraordinarias de emergencia engendran sus propios riesgos macroeco-nómicos y financieros (como los que se materializaron parcialmente en la zona euro en el segundo trimestre del 2010), si no son revertidas y seguidas de reformas financieras y fiscales profundas.
Article
Full-text available
Archaeology in 2009 is being adversely affected by a global economic crisis. This has followed a period of successful expansion of practice in many countries, and is now leading to reductions in budgets and job losses. Countries that have adopted a market-facing, commercial system to deliver archaeological management have been more seriously affected than those where the state has retained control over this process. In many states, capital expenditure by governments on infrastructure projects is supporting some archaeological practice. Government commitment to funding archaeological practice is likely to be unsustainable in the long-term, and post-crisis a return to private-sector funding of flexible commercial archaeological practice can be expected.
Job Losses in Archaeology—January 2010 Report for the Institute for Archaeologists and the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers. Website: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules
  • K Aitchison
Aitchison, K. 2010. Job Losses in Archaeology—January 2010. Report for the Institute for Archaeologists and the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers. Website: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/JobLossesJanuary2010.pdf, accessed on 17 May 2010.