Despite a cascade of corruption scandals over the last decade, the role of political corruption has yet to be accounted for in the scholarship on Spanish urban entrepreneurialism. This is an omission that extends to the broader literature on the topic as well. This paper looks at the theoretical causes of this neglect and explores ways of integrating corruption into the study of urban entrepreneurialism. To do so, it offers a systematic analysis of the role of clientelism in the political economy of Spanish interurban competition. Contrary to the existing literature, which at best explains away corruption as a logical outgrowth of intensified competition for real estate capital, this paper argues that corruption is rooted in a political structure that precedes the emergence of urban entrepreneurialism. This structure is identified as an "iron triangle", a complex of colluding interests formed by the state, the real estate industry, and political parties.

Buried in the footnotes of his famous 1976 essay, Robert Brenner left the remark that Catalonia had experienced an agrarian transition to capitalism in parallel to England. This important claim has been completely forgotten by his followers of the political Marxist tradition, who since then have developed his views on the origins of capitalism. Building on the specialist literature, this article revisits the question of the Catalan transition through the prism of political Marxism and teases out its implications. In particular, it argues that the Catalan case illustrates the centrality of agency and subjectivity in the process of capitalist change. Contrary to Brenner's claim, this paper will argue that pre‐capitalist social property relations persisted in agriculture throughout the period of transition. Instead, the region's capitalist breakthrough was prompted by sociocultural struggles in its 18th‐century proto‐industry.

Knafo and Teschke’s provocative essay ‘Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism’ has prompted considerable debate. From a position of critical support, the present article intervenes in this debate by making three interrelated points. First, the structuralist–historicist divide that Knafo and Teschke identify is misleading and should be reformulated. Though the duality is real, this divide is best understood as a continuum between two kinds of historicism: a structural and an institutional historicism. Second, the article contextualises Knafo and Teschke’s intervention against the backdrop of their own intellectual development. Rather than returning to the tradition’s historicist origins, they have in fact stretched Political Marxism’s institutional tendencies to new limits. Third, the article concludes with a revision of their critique of the concept of market dependence. It is argued that the concept can be salvaged for the purposes of institutional historicism provided that it is rearticulated.

No abstract