One of the less recognised costs of economic growth has been the geographical separation of families. Parents, children, grandparents and siblings may remain affectionate and concerned about one another, yet live too far apart to provide everyday help.

This separation did not happen at one particular moment. It developed over several centuries. Industrialisation accelerated it during the nineteenth century. Further changes in employment, housing, education and transport encouraged it after the Second World War.

There is an important historical distinction. Families in England did not universally live in large households containing several generations. Cambridge research shows that households consisting of parents and their children were common long before industrialisation. Separate households, however, could still belong to a wider network of relatives living nearby. Living in different houses is quite different from living at opposite ends of the country.

Work began to determine where people lived

As factories, mines and industrial towns expanded from the late eighteenth century, they drew workers from other places. A young person’s livelihood increasingly depended on going where an employer needed labour. Family connections became one consideration among several, rather than the foundation around which a working life could be built.

Changes in agriculture added to these pressures. Enclosure altered access to land and common resources, although historians disagree about how much it directly caused migration to towns. It should therefore be understood as one influence among several, rather than a complete explanation.

Migration did not always separate families permanently. Relatives sometimes followed one another and established new networks in industrial neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, the growing economy created a recurring expectation: people should move to obtain work.

Separation acquired new momentum after 1945

Post-war rebuilding offered better homes and relief from overcrowding. The New Towns Act of 1946 enabled new settlements, many intended to accommodate people moving out of London. These were valuable improvements, but moving a household could also increase its distance from relatives who stayed behind.

Higher education provided another route away from home. Leaving to study could become the first stage of a permanent move, followed by employment elsewhere. ONS research has documented the relationship between educational attainment and migration, including a net loss of graduates from rural English areas in its study.

Career advancement could require further moves. Two partners might have to reconcile jobs in different places. Cars and improved transport made greater distances manageable, allowing families to maintain contact without remaining close enough for ordinary daily involvement.

Housing added another constraint. Someone might find work near their parents but be unable to afford a home there. The House of Commons Library identifies young people and families being forced away from their local areas as one consequence of insufficient affordable rural housing.

These changes were driven by opportunity as well as necessity. Moving could bring better pay, education, independence and escape from restrictive circumstances. The difficulty was that the benefits were visible immediately, while the loss of nearby support might become apparent only years later.

The costs emerge when help is needed

Distance matters most when circumstances change.

A grandparent may be willing to help with children but live three hours away. An adult child may want to support an ageing parent but have a job and household elsewhere. A short visit becomes a journey requiring planning, expense and time off work.

Small needs can consequently become larger problems. Collecting a prescription, preparing a meal or noticing that someone is becoming unwell is relatively straightforward when a trusted person lives nearby. At a distance, each task may require a separate arrangement.

Geographical separation does not explain every case of loneliness or pressure on care services. Bereavement, illness, poverty and difficult relationships also matter. Nor does living alone necessarily mean being lonely. Nevertheless, the scale of potential need is substantial: the 2021 Census recorded 3.3 million people aged 65 and over living alone in England and Wales.

My argument is that an economy organised around mobility has underestimated the practical value of proximity. It counts the earnings gained by moving more readily than the everyday support lost through separation.

How localism could reverse the pressure

Localism could change the reasons people have for staying, leaving and returning.

If more livelihoods develop around local essentials, including food, repairs, care, building maintenance and small-scale production, more people could earn a living within reach of their families. Young adults would have greater scope to establish independent households nearby.

This is a possible direction of change, rather than an automatic consequence of economic shrinkage. The loss of employment could also force people to move. Localism would need practical foundations: access to land and premises, affordable housing, useful training and dependable local services.

The aim would be to make proximity a realistic choice. Several generations could live in separate homes while sharing meals, tools, transport, knowledge and occasional care. Older people could contribute experience and companionship. Younger people could help with physically demanding tasks. Support could flow in both directions.

The same principle applies in towns. Localism could strengthen neighbourhood economies and allow people to build working lives closer to existing relationships.

Family support would still need to sit alongside professional care. Responsibilities should be shared, rather than falling by default on one woman or one already exhausted relative. People without nearby family would need equally strong networks of friends, neighbours and local services.

A shrinking economy may make long journeys and purchased services harder to afford. That would increase the value of dependable relationships close to home. But rebuilding those relationships requires time, suitable homes and opportunities to work locally.

For generations, economic advancement has often meant leaving. Localism could make staying, or coming back, a practical way to build a worthwhile life. Families would then have more opportunity to be present in one another’s lives when their presence matters most.