The investigation of spatial inequalities in levels, trends and potentialities for economic growth and development has been a pervasive theme in social science research. Contributions have varied from those works which merely described the nature and form of the spatial differentials in particular socioeconomic variables, to those which searched for explanation and the derivation of prescriptions, in theories and models of quantified spatial structure which were informed by the principles of scientific method and positivism. Concurrently, others espoused perspectives which sought to understand how society is organized in space through an examination of the social relations of production in their spatial form. Recently it would appear that there has been a renewed interest in issues of uneven spatial developmentdefined here as '. . . the uneven progress of capitalist social relations and sectors across territories' (Markusen, 1979, 41). Whereas this has traditionally been examined in the context of the relationships between city and countryside or at the level of the world capitalist economy, the recent debate and the major focus of this analysis is upon uneven regional development w i t h advanced capitalist nations. The particular focus of this analysis is concerned with the examination of one of the several issues raised by Szelenyi (1981) -namely, the nature and significance of the relationship between, on the one hand, uneven spatial development, and on the other, the current restructuring of capital. This latter, following Massey (1978b, 39) is regarded as '. , . the reorganization of the ownership of capital, primarily through processes of centralization', which tends to be most in evidence during periods of crisis.Within this framework, the purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate in turn two distinctive viewpoints which can be identified in the recent development studies literature regarding the significance of uneven regional development upon and for the processes of capital accumulation and restructuring, The first viewpoint considered, and the one most often propounded by geographers, is that uneven regional development is a necessary precondition for continued capital accumulation. In this instance the role of space is crucial because the spatial form of development itself acts directly upon the reproduction of relations of production and capital accumulation. In the assessment of this viewpoint it is argued that it is underlain by a dependency paradigm and 'separateness of the spatial' notions,

A case study of the McLaren Vale wine industry is used to challenge four areas of the regulation debate. First, the uniqueness of some of the key features underpinning the periodisations of accumulation regimes and their associated modes of social regulation is questioned. Second, concern is raised over the extent to which ‘new industrial districts’ can really be described as engaging in ‘new’ practices. Third, the importance of local regulatory mechanisms is emphasised. Last, the importance of nonstate, nonlegislative forms of regulation are highlighted.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract