East central European urbanization: a political economy of the world‐system perspective

Abstract

What is the nature of urbanization in eastern Europe, historically and in the present day? Has it followed a single path related to other macrostructural changes? Is the contemporary pattern of urbanization the result of the region's 'noncapitalist' political economy? Is it a function of these societies' 'level of development'? What effect has the region's role in the world-system had on its urban trajectory?In an attempt to provide satisfactory answers to these questions, we develop a synthetic perspective on urbanization and social change which emerges from the confluence of two streams of social scientific inquiry: the 'new urban sociology' (Walton, 1979; and the dependency/world-system approach to comparative development. Others have brought together these traditions in order to examine urban patterns and processes in light of regional roles in the world system (Walton, 1982; Chase-Dunn, 1984;Timberlake, 1985). We extend this effort in several ways.Our focus on east central European urbanization from the long sixteenth century through to the second half of this one is an important departure for theoretical reasons from the perspective's main focus on dependent urbanization in the third world. It enables us to sharpen the concepts of semi-periphery and periphery. In particular, it shows the importance of transcending economistic biases of some world-system formulations by theorizing the role of the state in guiding urban outcomes.We begin with a review of literature on the semi-periphery and periphery, urbanization and the state. We then turn to an examination of contemporary urban patterns in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Because these patterns *Coauthors have contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order. We thank Lianne

Comparative Urbanism: New Geographies and Cultures of Theorizing the Urban

“…Alongside these theoretically driven trends in thinking different cities together in an interconnected global economy, urbanists have had many moments when a more deliberately composed comparative perspective seemed helpful to advancing understanding of urban processes. These include Castells' (1979;1983) explorations of urban social movements across quite a diverse array of urban contexts (Santiago de Chile, Madrid, Glasgow, Paris, San Francisco), Susan Clarke's (1995) exemplary comparison of local-government responses to economic restructuring across the US, Hank Savitch and Paul Kantor's (2004) innovative analysis of urban regimes across 10 US-Canadian and European cities, and more macro-theoretically driven reflections across Western and socialist contexts (Murray and Szelenyi, 1984;Kennedy and Smith, 1989). The opportunity to think cities through elsewhere has generally drawn on shared features of cities to stimulate creative theorization across diverse outcomes.…”

Return to the road of capitalism: Recapitulating the post-socialist urban transition

“…and Ránki, Gy. (1976) but later, a more explicitly Wallersteinian reasoning is featured in the investigation of Kennedy and Smith (1989), or as recently as in the analyses of Melegh, A. (2006) or Bohle, D. and Greskovits, B.…”

Third World Urbanization: Dimensions, Theories, and Determinants

“…On the other hand, some have noted that the socialist and capitalist urban systems do differ in important ways, and more research needs to be done on this topic (Bradshaw & Fraser 1989, Kennedy & Smith 1989, French & Hamilton 1979, Stark 1989. Moreover, as modernization/ecological theorists seek to become less naive themselves, a dependency/world-systems theory that has made developmental theory sensitive to international/economic con texts should benefit all theories.…”

“…While synthe sis is possible and has been attempted in limited ways (Meyer 1986, Nemeth & Smith 1985a, Kennedy & Smith 1989, Bradshaw 1987, London 1987, such marriages of theoretical families may not be particularly bappy unions. First, modernization/ecological theory does not stress class relations or capitalism per se, but rather the inevitable tensions created by the shifts in social organization encouraged by industrialism .…”