every possible kind of special interest group. Some, but by no means all, have a locational ingredient. This final chapter surveys the phenomenon of community action and some of the reason’; for its growth. However, the main concern is to locate the discus- sion of community concerns within the context of state and capital, and to bring t jgether the three actors in the arena. Thus, for example, the rela- tions between capital and state which most directly involve a community concer!l are identified as economic growth strategies (at regional, local authority and inner city levels), and land u;e planning (but what about housin;: policies and the building in- dustry’.‘), and the problem for com- munity and capital is to link commun- ity coni.erns to a workplace and male- domimlted labour movement. This attemp to integrate the roles of the three al:tors and to identify the effects one upl)n another is, it must be said, less than successful, though two veins of thought do emerge from the analy- sis (prclvided that the reader is pre- pared t I work them).

Shorr argues that the increased role of the state since the last war (and assuming current events are more symbohc than real), has led to the politicisation of the wide range of urban (sic) services that the state provides. Welfare provision has be- come the stuff of domestic politics - and hence the phenomenal growth of community concerns. However, the growth If state involvement in welfare (in its most general sense) long pre- dates tile emergence of widespread community action, and to attribute the latter to the former can only be partialI\ true. There must be other explanations. He is nearer the mark, I think, when he claims that the struc- ture of representative politics in the UK is <imply too coarse-grained to capture local issues and worries, and if this at least in part accounts for the growth of community action, then what we are seeing is a loss of faith in representative democracy. Indeed, there is an increasing desperation in the claims of the present government that the nution voted in 1983 for the abolition of the Greater London Council. The ‘nation’, of course, did

CITIES August 1985

no such thing, and the mandate of the manifesto package is more and more being exposed for the canard that it is.

The second vein concerns the prog- nosis for the future. If a spatial dimen- sion were to be read into Short’s analysis, it must be that the focus of political action has shifted from work- place to community realms. This assumes that community action is in some sense ‘spatial’ in a way that, for example, trade union action is not, and it is far from self-evident that this is the case other than in the uninterest- ing sense that some community con- cerns are locality-specific. But this is far from identifying an independent

spatial dimension. Be that as it may, Short sees the shift in locus of political action in positive terms and ends his book in a ringing exhortation for a fusion of the power of organized labour, the mass political representa- tion of the Labour party, radical com- munity groups, the women’s move- ment, and oppressed ethnic minor-

Book reviews

ities. What he does not give is a picture of what the implications of this might be. Well, if he is right, if the politics of the workplace are to be replaced by the politics of locality and community, centred on the getting of welfare, here is a choleric view of the consequences. It is a picture of numer- ous locality and interest-specific ‘ac- tion groups’ competing for scarce re- sources, with the more powerful, ar- ticulate and vocal gaining the prizes. It is a picture of increasing political impotence giving rise to a seething turmoil of simply affective, marginal and largely futile community action, while capital and the state (and the majority, who by and large do benefit from both), continue their relatively unruffled way.

John Edwards Department of Social Policy

and Social Science Bedford College

University of London, UK

Uneven city development

UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT

by Neil Smith

Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984, 198 pp, f7.50

GENTRIFICATION, DISPLACEMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD REVITALIZATION

J. John Palen and Bruce London

State University of New York Press, Albany, 1984,271 pp, $12.95 paper, $34.50 cloth

The fact that countries develop at different rates and in different ways, that every country has its affluent and depressed regions and that cities have declining and growing neighbour- hoods means that uneven develop- ment is a familiar idea. The books reviewed here address it in different ways.

Smith’s book is a theoretical treatise on uneven development in general,

written from a Marxist viewpoint. Every Marxist has a preferred choice among capital accumulation, class struggle and the state as the driving force of capitalism, and like his men- tor, David Harvey, Smith chooses the first of these. Many readers will be astonished that the state and class conflict receive such short shrift - Smith devotes five sentences to the state on p 142. The force of the book relies very much on exegesis of Marx- ian writings. The surprise here is that Smith finds these writings an unprob- lematic reference point. He is not troubled by the numerous thorough- going critiques of the internal con- sistency of Marxian thought in recent decades by writers such as Howard and King’ or Jessop.’

Claim

The claim of the book is that uneven development is unique to capitalism. To sustain this claim it would be necessary to demonstrate that on,y capitalism can generate uneven de- velopment. In fact Smith does less

Book reviews

than this; he argues that capitalism can generate uneven development. He ignores the apparently similar phe- nomenon in state socialist societies which I would argue is due to distinct processes rather than allegedly capi- talist elements in them.

The book has five main chapters. The first two chapters, on ‘The ideolo- gy of nature’ and ‘The production of nature’, are only loosely related to the subject of uneven development. Smith identifies a dualism in prevailing ideologies of nature: nature is seen as external to humankind, yet also as including the latter. Marx is defended against his critic Schmidt who claims that he too held a dualist view. But I was left unclear why Smith considers this debate important. The chapter does have some interesting remarks about how nature was once seen as a negative (to be conquered by ‘civiliza- tion’) whereas now it is a source of virtue. The next chapter argues that nature (both human and physical) is a social product. Again Marx is credited with seeing the unity of nature and society and avoiding a dualism.

Chapter 3, entitled ‘The production of space’, gets closer to the book’s subject. It does not follow closely from the earlier chapters since Smith chooses not to stress the links between ideas of nature and ideas of space (p 66). This is a very interesting chapter.

Absolute space

Most of us have at some time used phrases like the ‘reflection of society in space’. Smith shows that this im- plies a non-spatial idea of human activity and an idea of ‘absolute space’- a dimension within which such activity is placed - both ideas having particular historical roots. He argues that human activity is necessarily spa- tial and that the common idea of a separation between society and space involves a category mistake. He pre- fers the term ‘relative space’ which treats space as the relation between human activities, which in turn result from capitalist development. (Why relative space should not exist in state socialist societies is not spelled out).

Uneven development is the theme of the final two chapters. Internation-

al, national and urban scales are dis- tinguished and uneven development at each is attributed to the ‘division of labour’ between departments of the economy, sectors, individual capitals, and within the firm. Smith argues for a ‘see-saw’ theory of uneven develop- ment in which different countries, regions and cities are successively developed and abandoned by capital. He is honest enough to admit that a tendency exists towards equilization as well as differentiation. (Indeed his assertion that ‘there is within capital- ism a real tendency towards equilib- rium’ (p 130) and his view of wage rate flexibility in making once developed areas attractive again are surprisingly neoclassical for a Marxist). But he does not face the question of why the equalization tendencies should not prevail over the differentiation ten- dencies. If they were to, this would suggest a painless path to socialism, since Smith sees the abolition of un- even development as a precondition for socialism (p 154).

Empirical examples

These final two chapters refer to empirical examples in a summary way to support the theoretical argument, but no single case of uneven develop- ment is analysed thoroughly. Their weakness lies in a lack of awareness of recent empirical work on urban and regional development. Smith’s emph- asis is on the advantages of spatial concentration of economic activity and residence in cities, led by produc- tive capital (p 123), with differentiaion within the city explained by ground rent.

This model was certainly appropri- ate in 19th-century Britain and the USA, but what has to be explained today is the decreasing attractiveness of traditional urban locations for manufacturing and the popularity of small town and semi-rural locations. Ground rent has a small role here (via its influence on commercial rents, housing costs and rates) but Smith’s analysis of the advantages of concen- tration is inadequate. He neglects class conflict which Marx showed long ago was an unintended effect of spatial concentration, an insight which

Gordon3 (whom Smith does not men- tion) has applied to the phases of US urbanization. He also ignores the more recent writers who have shown that the attraction of cities is as pools of labour and that interfirm inter- dependence is limited or negligible. For example, a recent estimate of the effects of closing the Merseyside car plants was that only 176 jobs would be lost in supplier firms in the area, compared with 13000 elsewhere in the country.”

Difficulty

In sum, the difficulty with this book is that it approaches uneven develop- ment from too narrow a theoretical basis. It is forced to ignore (or deny?) uneven development in state socialist societies, and its capital-centred Marx- ist approach is too restricted a pers- pective to cope with capitalist uneven development. The book is however very clearly and vigorously written and its exposition of an extreme posi- tion will help subsequent writers. It is well produced and has an excellent index.

The second book under review fo- cuses on gentrification, an aspect of uneven development within cities. The term refers to the residential displacement of working class by mid- dle class households, and by conven- tion this is seen as happening in inner city areas, though it may occur in suburban areas or. as Williams notes, in rural villages.

Contributions

The contributors to the Palen and London collection cover theoretical perspectives on gentrification (Palen and London, Allen, Smith and Lefaivre), the areal impact on gentri- fication (Henig, Baldassare), its eco- nomic effects (DeGiovanni) and the characteristics of the gentrifiers and the displaced (Spain and Laska, Lee and Hodge). An apparently unrelated chapter by Palen and Nachmias com- pares new and old residents in a working class neighbourhood not undergoing gentrification. All these chapters use US material. The book concludes with chapters on gentrifica-

CITIES August 1985

Book reviews

fication, together with that of Smith and Lefaivre, all point the way for- ward theoretically. All of them are concerned with the causal processes underlying gentrification. They stand out among the rest of the chapters in conveying a broad picture of social processes in the cities concerned, rather than treating cities as anony- mous points. They focus on housing and land markets, the occupational structure, and the role of the public authorities to explain why gentrifica- tion occurs and in which areas. This helps in understanding what type of gentrification is to be expected in a given city. A general conclusion, sup- ported in the US studies too, is that gentrification is particularly developed in service dominated cities where white-collar jobs are concentrated. Household characteristics are given secondary importance in answering the why and where questions but may be relevant in explaining which house- holds undertake gentrification.

tion in Canada (Ley), the UK (Wil- liams) and Australia (Kendig).

The main theoretical perspectives applied in the book attribute gentri- fication to changing occupational and household structure (the growth of white collar jobs, and affluent young childlec s households), a cultural pre- ference for urban living, and housing and land market processes. Allen sets out tht, cultural perspective, noting that gtntrifiers seek a ‘safe’ ethnic diversity around, rather than within, their nr:ighbourhoods’ (p 38). This is followed by Smith and Lefaivre’s Mar- xist acc~~unt which, in line with Smith’s argument in Uneven Development, sees gentrification as part of the see- saw movement of capital between parts of a city: it occurs in an area when a ‘rent gap’ has opened up, ie when housing conditions are de- terioratmg due to the gap beween current and potential land values and rents. They argue that public author- ities support gentrification and de- liberately underestimate the likely re- sulting displacement. They present data from Baltimore. Both theoretical chapter< are clearly argued and sug- gest nllmerous lines of research. Cultural factors may help explain which households within a given in- come and life cycle category move into inner city working class areas. Smith and Lefaivre’s rent gap explanation seems better directed to understand- ing in which areas gentrification takes place - a quite distinct question. Its weakness is to undervalue demand processt’s and assume gentrification involvei major investment. They admit that gentrification also occurs in areas a here the rent gap has not developed: this may be because major investment is not involved.

Data

The empirical chapters on US gentri- fication depend on data of varying quality. The best of these chapters are by DeGrovanni, and Lee and Hodge. The former shows that the conversion of rented to owner-occupied housing, and rising property tax assessments, are common to gentrifying and non- gentrifying areas; that in the former, renovation by new arrivals stimulates

renovation by existing households, and that households which do not renovate face similar increases in property tax assessments to those who do.

Analysis

Lee and Hodge make a careful analy- sis of data from 60 cities on those who have moved for ‘displacement’ reasons. The displaced are shown to be distinctive in having lower incomes and being older, but not in terms of race and sex. The conclusion holds among the subgroup who have moved from central city areas - those most likely to be gentrifying. Spain and Laska’s chapter reports on a study of gentrifiers. But by concentrating on a comparison of those who left the area between 1976 and 1978 and those who stayed, the authors miss an opportun- ity to explore their respondents’ atti- tudes to and involvement in gentrifica- tion itself, the role of cultural and life cycle factors, etc. Henig’s chapter claims to provide ‘some empirical support’ for the idea that the elderly are ‘currently and increasingly’ affected by displacement on the basis of a rise in ecological correlation coefficients from +.02 to +.12 be- tween 1974 and 1978 (p 181). Unfortu- nately, throughout this chapter cor- relation coefficients close to zero are grossly over-interpreted.

The chapters by Lee and Hodge, and Henig raise an important issue about what data are appropriate to explore gentrifiction. If it is only one cause of displacement then surveys of those moving for displacement reasons (as used by Lee and Hodge) will be poorly related to gentrification. Likewise, if gentrification is concen- trated in particular parts of census tracts, as Allen implies, then tract- level ecological correlations will be of little relevance. This makes the value of direct data on gentrifiers and those displaced by gentrification all the more indispensable. One suspects that the lack of usable official data is because gentrification is not seen by the authorities as a problem, but as a solution - ‘neighbourhood revitaliza- tion’.

Finally, the chapters by Ley, Wil- liams and Kendig on non-US gentri-

Coherent

In conclusion, this is a useful collec- tion which takes stock of existing research and points the way for future work. The book is well produced, coherent and fairly even in quality. Photographs would have made it more attractive to read. The greater utility of this, the more focused of the two books, suggests that future theorizing on uneven development will be better developed in relation to empirical material.

C. G. Pickvance Urban and Regional Studies Unit

University of Kent at Canterbury, UK

‘M.C. Howard and J.E. King, The Political Economy of Marx, Longman, London, 1975. ‘8. Jessop, The Capitalist State, Martin Robertson; London, i982. 3D.M. Gordon. ‘Capitalist development and the history of American cities’, in W.K. Tabb and L. Sawers, eds, Marxism and the Metropolis, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978. “P.J.M. Stoney and M. Bourn industrial Development in Merseyside, Gower, Aldershot, UK, 1984.

CITIES August 1985 271