David Harvey's adaptation and redeployment of Marx's notion of ‘primitive accumulation’–under the heading of ‘accumulation by dispossession’–has reignited interest in the concept among geographers. This adaptation of the concept of primitive accumulation to different contexts than those Marx analyzed raises a variety of theoretical and practical issues. In this paper, I review recent uses and transformations of the notion of primitive accumulation that focus on its persistence within the Global North, addressing especially the political implications that attend different readings of primitive accumulation in the era of neoliberal globalization.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent work by geographers has highlighted attempts by local groups to ‘jump scales’ in their efforts to contest the power of global capital. Sometimes such ‘scale jumping’ is also seen as part of an effort to bypass the nation-state. This paper explores a particular case of scale jumping, which illustrates some of the complexities of the process. Building on the anticorporate globalization momentum generated during the ‘battle in Seattle’ and the demonstrations during the February 2000 United Nations Commission on Trade and Development meetings in Bangkok, local antidam activists from Ubon Ratchathani province in Thailand scaled up their activities during 2000, utilizing various international connections to improve their visibility and strengthen their prospects for success. Rather than simply bypassing the nation-state, however, they have had to use both local and international resources to try to combat the policies of the nation-state, a project in which they have had real but still contested success. The case of antidam activism in Ubon Ratchathani illustrates some of the nuances of ‘globalization from below’, as well as the continuing power and relevance of the nation-state as a site of struggle.

The literature on global production networks (GPNs) has made important contributions to our understanding of globalization, overcoming much of the state‐centrism of other kinds of political economic approaches. It has also extended effectively beyond the relatively narrower focus of its predecessors, the global commodity chains and global value chains approaches, to analyze not only the direct process of production but also various social activities that are crucial to the overall process of commodity (and value) production. Yet in spite of opening a potential space for interrogating political processes as integral aspects of production, most work on GPNs has avoided the discussion of political issues that speak to the messiness, contestation, and violence that often accompanies globalization. This article shows that GPN approaches can and should encompass geo‐political aspects of the production process that range from labor struggles to inter‐state competition and even war. As examples from South Korea show, a geo‐political economy approach to GPNs that includes examination of war and geo‐politics can extend our understanding of the process of globalization.