Economic processes and urban change: an analysis of contemporary patterns of residential restructuring

Abstract

This article examines questions of explanation in urban geography throughconsideration of the gentrification process. Particular attention is given to the problems of 'structural' analyses and the need to develop alternative political economy perspectives.Questions related to the ways urban areas form and change are important aspects of contemporary urban geography. In recent years, concerns with the decline of the inner city, infrastructural decay and shifting social and racial balances have attracted considerable attention although it should be said that explanation of the processes at work remains a source of considerable contention. Despite this, it has become commonplace to state that we should view so-called urban processes in the context of wider social and economic forces and many analysts, whether liberal or radical, would rapidly concede the importance of the economic structure and structural change in such assessments (for example, see Hall, 1981; Johnston, 1980).A recognition of the importance of structure and the broader context is in itself uncontentious and a position many would claim to have adopted in their own work. Indeed, we have only to cast our minds back to what might be seen as the classical theories of urban structure, as exemplified by the Chicago School, to see that such work was very clearly directed towards an exploration of the impact ofeconomic development and rapid urban growth upon social groups in cities. While ecological analyses and much subsequent work, whether in the behavioural or institutional traditions, have clearly identified the distributional patterns present in urban areas, such as socio-economic groups, shopping facilities and housing, they have had much less success in developing acounts of the causal mechanisms underlying them. In that regard, recent contributions from marxist political economy perspectives have had profound impacts not only by providing cogent critiques of earlier conceptualisations but also with respect to the insights this work has offered into the nature of underlying mechanisms within the structure ofcapitalist society as a whole. In a sense this work, in its multiplicity of forms, has legitimised reference toThe Institute of Housing, 12, Upper Belgrave Street, London, SWlX 8BA.Australian Geographical Studies 22, April 1984.

Gentrification and the Rent Gap

“…Two distinct approaches have tended to dominate the literature on gentrification: first, there has been a highly empirical approach, at times verging on the empiricist, that emphasizes the collection of descriptive information about specific cases of gentrification and occasionally the comparison of results from different studies; second, and partly in response to the empirical approach, there has been a more theoretical approach concerned with explaining underlying causes of gentrification rather than describing its instances. A number of researchers have stressed the need to bridge the gap between empirical and theoretical approaches (Hamnett 1984;Rose 1984;Williams 1984;Smith and Williams 1986). and so we should applaud Ley's (1986) recent attempt to confront a series of theoretical propositions-both his own and those of othcrs-with empirical evidence from the Canadian ccnsuses of 1971 and 1981.…”

Urban Social Movements and the Built Environment: An Analysis of Housing Provision in North Australia*

“…Harvey's approach has been criticized by several writers (see Mingione, 1981;Cooke, 1983;and Williams, 1984). The common denominators of their critique are first, that Harvey's approach artificially segregates the city from the remainder of the accumulation process, much of which has its own built environment; and second, that its economistic reductionism underplays the role of class relations and urban social movements in shaping the city through, for example, the medium of the planning process.…”

“…much of the radical debate is by inclination pitched at a mori theoretical level; partly because the components of the debate arc still not consistently defined; and partly because it is often difficul to reconcile broad conceptual approaches with the real worlc complexities of urban empirical investigation (Williams, 1984) However, it must be noted that urban social protest and activitj have long been reported but not necessarily within the conceptua framwork of social movements (see Gurr, 1968;Mathiason, 1972, Oberschall, 1970.…”

Reply: The Rent Gap Revisited

“…The discussion of the rent gap thesis occupied only a sinall portion of my paper, but understandably as the author of the thesis, Professor Smith is anxious to defend it, particularly as his thcoretical framework has not fared well in recent reviews (Hamnett 1984;Rose 1984;Williams 1984). The thesis has been presented in several papers as a purely theoretical concept; almost tcn years after its first presentation it has still not been made e npirically accountable.…”