Concerning Absolute Rent

Sandemose, Jørgen

doi:10.1521/siso.70.3.360

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early in the period, Jorgen Sandemose (2006) wrote an excellent contribution on the topic of Absolute Rent, foreshadowing the way authors of the period would fixate on absolute rent (AR) more than differential rent (DR); Jager (2003) produced a regulationist take on ground rent theory, building on the 1990s preoccupations with “agency” and bringing in French scholars of GRT rarely cited in the anglophone literature. Economakis (2003), Ramirez (2009), Park (2013), Beitel (2016), Sandemose (2018), Manning (2020), Ehara (2021), and Basu (2022) also threw their hats in the ring of the internecine debates of ground rent theory, often honing in on the importance (or lack thereof, in the case of Basu) of Absolute Rent.…”

Section: Four: Millennial Abstractions: 21st Century Reassessments Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographies of ground rent: Periodizing ground rent theory, spatializing ground rent refusal

Manning¹

2023

Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an overview of ground rent theories from a historical and political vantage, analyzing chronological continuities and discontinuities, and hypothesizing about the historicopolitical motivations which spur certain approaches to ground rent. I begin with “Classical Marxist” approaches to ground rent theory in the decades after Marx’s death, followed by an analysis of ground rent theory from the 1970s to 2020s. While critical of some contemporary trends in ground rent scholarship, I note several important contributions the literature makes to our understanding of the world and argue that ground rent-based analyses yield a unique and essential interpretation of class relations, state–capital relations, and the complexity of embodied categories of capitalist social relations. I conclude by considering Demonic Ground/Rent in which the analysis of ground rent may lead us toward ascertaining how to most deeply and fundamentally challenge, refuse, abolish, the current state of things—if we allow ourselves to follow it there.

show abstract

Section: Four: Millennial Abstractions: 21st Century Reassessments Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographies of ground rent: Periodizing ground rent theory, spatializing ground rent refusal

Manning¹

2023

Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not the place to catalogue the details of this confusion (see Park, 2014; Sandemose and Economakis, 2006). For the sake of brevity and clarity, we follow Ward and Aalbers (2016) in treating CMR and AR as the same.…”

Section: Marxian Land Rent Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This distinction, however, is not always analytically clear in concrete situations, as King (1989) explicitly acknowledges, whereas Ward and Aalbers (2016) argue that AR and CMR essentially refer to the same thing. This is not the place to catalogue the details of this confusion (see Park, 2014;Sandemose and Economakis, 2006). For the sake of brevity and clarity, we follow Ward and Aalbers (2016) in treating CMR and AR as the same.…”

Section: The Question Of Class Monopoly Rentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Class monopoly rent and the urban sustainability fix in Seattle's South Lake Union District

Hansen

2022

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper contributes to the recent renaissance in Marxian land rent theory by examining the dynamics of rent in the context of contemporary urban sustainability policies and practices. It specifically examines the ways in which landowners, developers, and the local state work together to pursue class monopoly rent through a variety of policies and practices normally treated as separate, such as tax-increment financing, discursive-branding, urban growth boundaries, business improvement districts, and transfer of development rights. We implicate each of these practices as fundamentally linked insofar as they function as strategies for myriad invested actors in collaboratively pursuing class monopoly rent. In the process, we present a heuristic tool to conceptualize how these policies converge to the benefit of myriad rent seekers in the context of Seattle's rapidly redeveloping South Lake Union District. The study peels back the discursive and ostensibly progressive façade of urban sustainability to reveal a collaborative network of landowners, developers, and state actors whose goal is to increase rents. The multi-scalar dynamic of class monopoly rent is revealed as a constitutive feature of an urban sustainability fix embedded within wider processes of uneven neoliberal urbanization.

show abstract

“…The existence of the rent is due to the extra-economic power of the institution of modern landed property (Ball, 1985: 516; Evans, 1999: 2115; Houghton, 1993: 262; Sandemose, 2006: 362; Scott, 1976: 113).…”

Section: Theoretical Considerations Regarding Absolute Ground Rentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harvey and Chatterjee (1974) applied an interpretation of AR once. But Harvey (Harvey, 1974 2006 [1982]; also see Barnes and Sheppard, 2019: 207) soon opted for a reconceptualization of the notion of AR in terms of class-monopoly rent (CMR) that integrated notions of monopoly pricing and finance and avoided the intersectoral framework integral in Marx’s formulation of AR (Fine, 2019; Sandemose, 2006). Edel (1976: 105;;42 1992: 67), while being less critical of the original conceptualization of AR in Marx, landed on a similar conclusion empirically, that AR might not sufficiently explain capitalist urbanization as it belongs to the early stages of capitalist development.…”

Section: Theoretical Considerations Regarding Absolute Ground Rentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public housing, intersectoral competition, and urban ground rent: Iran’s first public housing program that never was

Farahani¹,

Yousefi

2021

Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the structural political economic drivers of the housing market in urban Iran and the ways in which social and economic dynamics of the housing sector are rooted in peculiarities of Iranian capitalism, characterized by a relatively small public economy, low productivity of capital, and an underdeveloped financial system. The paper examines these processes and mechanisms in the light of the illustrative case of the country’s first and largest state-led housing program, the Mehr Housing Program (MHP). The paper argues that the program’s failure is due primarily to the state’s market-oriented approach toward housing. The MHP’s units were sold at their market prices, and the state subsidized the land to the developers with low rent, facilitating investments. Utilizing an intersectoral and multi-scalar analytical framework, we further argue that what drives the investment is absolute ground rent present in the housing sector due to its labor-intensive character. The high level of rent is due to persistently low profitability in the manufacturing sector and, subsequently, excess profits in construction and housing. Thus, rent-seeking investors tend to invest in housing. These peculiarities of the Iranian economy determined the trajectory and the failure of the MHP as a public housing initiative.

show abstract

Concerning Absolute Rent

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Geographies of ground rent: Periodizing ground rent theory, spatializing ground rent refusal

Geographies of ground rent: Periodizing ground rent theory, spatializing ground rent refusal

Class monopoly rent and the urban sustainability fix in Seattle's South Lake Union District

Public housing, intersectoral competition, and urban ground rent: Iran’s first public housing program that never was

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About