Obesity and excess weight cost the UK economy around £31 billion a year in lower productivity. Over a third (about £12 billion) of this sum comes from lower levels of participation in the labour market – in other words, higher unemployment and more economic ‘inactivity’ among people living with excess weight.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong per se with people being ‘economically inactive’. Economists use this slightly clunky term to describe all manner of very normal circumstances. Retirement, going to university, and taking time away from paid work to care for a family member all count as being economically ‘inactive’.

That being said, the main reason for economic inactivity in the UK is long-term sickness – accounting for about a third of cases. And for many people, the medical conditions behind their worklessness are preventable. Lost productivity caused by people who are too unwell to work, but could contribute to the economy if only they were healthy enough, is a missed opportunity. And given the human cost as well as the current fragile state of the country’s economy and public finances, policymakers must focus on ways to reduce these costs.

According to the latest labour market data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 21% of working age (16-64) adults in the UK were classified as inactive. This is not uniform across the country. If we narrow our focus and look at England’s regions (called ITL1 areas), the rate of inactivity varies – from about 18% in the South East and East of England to as high as 26% in the North East. In terms of the current direction of travel, over the past year inactivity has increased in the North East but held steady or fallen elsewhere, with the largest year-on-year decrease found in Yorkshire and The Humber.

But as noted, inactivity itself doesn’t tell the whole story. We need to zoom in and evaluate the causes of inactivity, exploring how worklessness varies across England, and how this might be linked to factors like health – in particular, obesity and its associated conditions – and economic output.

To do so, we can use recent analysis from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID). The latest report (published in December 2025) gives us a more detailed picture of how economic inactivity varies across England. Although the data itself only runs up to June 2025, the interactive dashboard still provides useful context about the medium-term trends in inactivity across England’s regions, what might be causing people to drop out of the labour market, and how these reasons change depending on where exactly they live.

What follows are four insights from the latest figures.

1. Over the past decade the rate of economic inactivity has varied across England – as has the direction of travel

Between 2023 and 2025, inactivity increased in the North East, East Midlands and South East. Elsewhere the rate fell slightly. Across most regions, there was notable increase in inactivity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some areas, including Yorkshire and The Humber and the East of England also saw inactivity spike during 2023-24.

In total, the OHID data shows that for the 2024-25 period there were about 7.4 million people classified as economically inactive.

But what about the causes of inactivity?

2. A greater share of people are economically inactive due to long-term sickness in the North East and North West

Long-term sickness (defined as being absent from work for more than four weeks because of illness) is one of the main reasons for economic inactivity in England. In fact, in six of the nine ITL1 regions in this dataset, it’s the top ranking cause. In most cases, those who are inactive due to long-term sickness are classified as having some form of disability.

Across England, a higher share of people in the North East and North West are out of work due to long-term sickness compared with the rest of England. The highest absolute number is in the North West, where 330,000 people are inactive because of long-term sickness – equivalent to the combined population of Bolton and Warrington. In total, just under 2 million people in England were inactive due to long-term sickness as of June 2025.

3. The prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions is highest in the North East of England

What type of sickness or condition renders people unable to work for four weeks or more? According to recent research published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions – like osteoarthritis or tendinopathy – is one of the main types of long-term sickness that lead to economic activity. As of June 2024, 23% of those who were off work due to long-term sickness cited an MSK condition as the reason.

Crucially, MSK conditions are also associated with obesity and excess weight. In fact, research shows that BMI is positively correlated with musculoskeletal issues like knee, hip and back pain. While by no means a perfect measure (there will certainly be cases where someone has an MSK condition while also having a healthy weight), we can use MSK prevalence as a loose proxy for a region’s rate of ‘being off work long-term in part because of excess weight’.

MSK prevalence varies across England. The highest rates are found in the North East, where the average rate is 23%, climbing as 26% in Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland. So, there are parts of the country where about one-in-four people have some form of musculoskeletal condition. (note: the prevalence data for MSK conditions is only covered up to 2024, so there is a slight lag between these figures and OHID’s inactivity and long-term sickness data).

4. As well as having lower obesity rates, richer regions also have lower MSK prevalence and a smaller share of economic inactivity

Although MSK prevalence only offers an indirect indicator of worklessness through obesity-related illness, comparing it with metrics like obesity prevalence and GDP per capita paints a picture of the regional imbalance across England: there is higher MSK prevalence in poorer regions or regions with higher rates of obesity and overweight, versus relatively lower MSK rates in more affluent parts of the country where obesity is less common.

This supports the conclusion that the economic and health burden of obesity and overweight – at least in terms of lost productivity through higher economic inactivity – is not spread evenly across England’s regions.

Imagine a situation where policymakers had been able to cut obesity and overweight prevalence in the North East (currently 68%) down to levels found in the South East (61%). Assuming all else is held equal and that obesity isn’t the only factor driving MSK cases, this would imply a ‘new’ predicted MSK of around 20% in the North East – a three percentage point improvement. This in turn would imply a share of economic inactivity from long-term sickness of approximately 30%, down from 33% – equivalent to a 9% drop. This would then translate to almost 3,000 fewer people out of the labour force because of a long-term MSK condition.

While only a very rough calculation, this hypothetical scenario highlights the economic case for tackling obesity. Closing the gap in obesity prevalence implies a fall in things like MSK conditions, as well as other comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This could, at least in theory, reduce the number of people currently economically inactive due to poor health. Not only would this bring regional economic benefits in terms of labour participation, but it could also boost mental health outcomes for the people in question, while helping the government address health inequalities.

Indeed, the health gap in England tells a shocking story: between England’s regions, there's almost a seven year difference in how long people live in good health. Having a long-term health condition is one of the biggest drivers of self-reported poor health. This includes MSK conditions, where prevalence is higher in more deprived parts of England.

MSK conditions are just one example of obesity-related comorbidities. But as identified by the DWP, they are one of the main categories of long-term sickness that lead to economic inactivity – accounting for about a quarter of cases. And given that long-term sickness is itself the main cause of inactivity in England, it’s clear that tackling obesity (and its comorbidities) could help the wider economy. The regional story strengthens this case.

Lowering obesity makes economic sense. A healthier population means a healthier workforce, and a healthier workforce is a more productive one. Of course, there are many additional factors driving regional inequality in England, and bringing down obesity levels won’t solve everything on its own. However, lowering the rate of economic inactivity through long-term sickness could bring major benefits to the wider economy, improving the lives and livelihoods of people living throughout England’s regions.

Author's note: labour market data from the ONS Labour Force Survey should be interpreted with a reasonable degree of caution following recent concerns about low participation.

Additional contributors: Clare Brennan (Principal Data Scientist)