Uneven Development - Report Example

Uneven development Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Introduction Uneven development is a well-researched piece of work done by the Marxist geographers concerning the restructuring of the natural world by the capitalisms. The main concern of Neil smith in the study of uneven development is that capitalism has not only transformed people’s perception about the social relation with nature but also the natural world in unprincipled manner. Smith argues that we ought not only to concentrate on the dominating of the human society to the nature but also the complexity of the process by which nature is produced (Mackinnon and Cumbers (2007). This paper seeks to show that the uneven development is the acne of the capitalist geography. Various illustrations and evidence have been drawn from Neil smith insights concerning the notion of uneven development Global scale production of nature and the world system creation In his explanation Neil Smith, starts with a kind of abstract discussion of how the nature transforms space over time. By this notion of production of nature and space, Smith aims at establishing the relationship amongst nature, space and society as a historic human creation process. (Smith 1984) Smith argues that nature and space are not a matter of accident rather it is as a result of direct involvement material production. This creation has been achieved through the actual activity of bringing capital together till the desired results are attained implying that matter, substance and the space are as a result of material conditions. It is by the same sense that capitalism develops. In his book Smith posits that “capitalism entails the progressive universalization of value as the form of abstract labour. This involves not just the production of geographical space through the development of transportation networks but the progressive integration and transformation of absolute space into relative space”. (Smith 1984) In nutshell Smith points out that there is a continuous move starting from the formation of a world-scale mode of market to the formation of a world-scale production mode. In this case it is clear that Neil Smith’s aim is to bring out a clear understanding of uneven expansion of capitalist in a theoretical framework. Capital, division of labour and territory Smith postulates that once the partitioning or division of the globe by the colonialism ended, creating the limits of total geographical expansion, production space was achieved through international differentiation of global space, that is, via the production of absolutely differentiated spaces within the relatively large space context. The need of having given spatial scales for social organization resulted to the formation, “islands of space in the sea of relative space.” Due to the high abstract and the lengthened presentation of Smith’s argument on uneven development, one may think that it is a product of several universal forces that may result from division of labour and territory between the countryside and the town. The author however, describes that the understanding of spatial patterns is provided by the explanatory force resulting to the differences between the processes of equalization and that of differentiation of capital which ought to be framed within the capitalist’s mode of production (Bond 1999). He states that uneven development is concerned with very specific processes by capitalists and development patterns of spatial. From the Smith’s insight about uneven development it is clear that according to him division of labor is based on the uneven development fundamental motion of equalization and differentiation of capital. “The spatial or territorial division of labour is not a separate process but is implied from the start in the concept of division of labour”. (Smith 2008)The early division of labour was also based upon differentiation of natural conditions such as gender and sex. Labourers with different natural conditions, under equal pay would generate different quantities of the commodity being produced. This meant that in one section there would be surplus while the other would not. This would result to quantitative and qualitative societal organization differences. Due to such differences spatial separations or divisions would be created based on natural differences. Generally Smith examines the connection that exists between the division of labour and the aspects of division of capital and then considered the two together. Both capital and labour divisions he set them so as to function under four different scales in which the differentiation process took place. This included; general societal labour division and various departments of capital, different particular sectors of both capital and labour, different social division of capital and detailed workplace labour division (Marx 1967). Geographical implications of division of labour and capital These divisions had varied effects or implications on the geographical settings. Under the detailed facet of division Smith considered it vital in analyzing labour productivity especially in organizations that are highly structured. However, this division shows very minimal contribution to the social differentiation. This resulted to uneven development. General societal division on the other hand has largely contributed to world economy differentiation among production and the marginal points of consumption. The differentiation also had little importance since the marginal consumption is still part of central production. Differentiation of social capital amongst various individual capital led to centralization and concentration to given places while leaving out others. This also led to uneven development in those places. Division of capital and labour into various different particular sections caused a notable geographical space due to the rates of profit cycles. Furthermore equalization process due to those sections that drew capital in the process of looking for increased rates of profit would coincide with the geographical expansion needs or change of location so as to supply the space for the growing production activities. The opposite would similarly be possible and large quantities of capital would be lost as a result of their low rates of profit suffered and loss of value of their environmental building (Smith 1989). The see-saw theory and the key spatial scales Spatial pattern of uneven development is all about the revolving logic of driving capital movement. Smith referred to this revolving capital movement as the see-saw theory (Smith 1989). Build environment and productive capital, cyclically expanded and contracted spatially leading to the development and underdevelopment of absolute places. See-saw theory helps n the understanding of how uneven landscape formed under capitalism rather than the historic uneven formations. The main concerns of Smith’s study were based on production of geographical space within the world space as well as the formation of internal differentiations of geographical space into specific absolute spaces within various scales. This theory it not only shows the general movement of capital but also helps in showing how it works in various scales. Smith considered three spatial scales in explaining how the see-saw theory worked; the urban, nation state and the global scale (Breathnach 1988). He noted that the urban space is not only for commodities production but also reproduction of labour and consumption. Smith concluded therefore that the urban development is as a result of centralization of the productive capital and is controlled and managed through a ground-rent system. Ground rent system is whereby the city state is leveled and homogenized in sectors of exchange-value and at the same time leading to differentiation and unreasonable speculation. Capital development and underdevelopment in this sense would leave major imprint. Smith (1996) posits that, nation-state scale imposes a critical barrier for the movement of labour and capital freely a state that smith argues that it made it impossible to circulate as a commodity, in the global-market. He thus states that the nation is crucial in ensuring the behaviors of the working class is well looked at so as to take care of the intermittent and destructive behavior of individual capitalists. The nation is also charged with the mandate to carry out large-scale projects e.g. highways, harbors as well as railroads which the capitalists cannot be able to deliver. Global scale is regarded as the key scale for capital geographical limit and its development. Smith argues that the global scale is a kind of world-market that ought to transform so as to become a production place. In the global scale, great emphasis is on equalization and universalization of the relationship between the wage and labour as well as transformation from the formal integration to real integration through exchange and production of commodities respectively. (Zarembka 2000) Summary From this study and critical evaluation of the Smith’s insight on uneven development it can be concluded that, indeed uneven development is the hallmark of geography of capitalism. This has been evidenced in a various cases in this paper. The abstract derivation of the understanding of how the notion of uneven development is considered the dogma of capitalism geography is clearly put across by Neil Smith. Here he concludes that there is a continuous move starting from the formation of a world-scale mode of market to the formation of a world-scale production mode. Furthermore, the idea of relating division of labour and capital helps show how these fundamental factors work together to enhance growth in all sectors. The division of economic world into various spatial scales whose functioning connects from one to the other leading into the formation of a global market is a great knowledge that can’t be left out. References Zarembka, P 2000 ‘Accumulation of Capital, Its Defi nition: A Century after Lenin and Luxemburg’, in P Zarembka ed Value, Capitalist Dynamics and Money: Research in Political Economy, xviii Stamford and Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevere. Smith, N 1989 ‘Uneven Development and Location Theory: Toward a Synthesis’, in R Peet and N Thrift eds New Models in Geography, I London: Unwin Hyman. Marx, K 1967 Capital, i New York: International Publishers. Bond, P 1999 ‘Uneven Development,’ in P O’Hara ed Encyclopaedia of Political Economy London: Routledge. Smith, N 2008 Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space University of Georgia Press. Smith, N 1984 Uneven Development: Nature Capital and the Production of Space. Smith, N 1989 Uneven development and location theory: towards a synthesis New models in geography, 1, 142-63. Smith, D A 1996 Third World cities in global perspective: the political economy of uneven urbanization. Breathnach, P 1988 Uneven development and capitalist peripheralisation: the case of Ireland Antipode, 202, 122-141. Mackinnon, D, & Cumbers, A 2007 An introduction to economic geography: globalization, uneven development and place Pearson Education. Read More

The author however, describes that the understanding of spatial patterns is provided by the explanatory force resulting to the differences between the processes of equalization and that of differentiation of capital which ought to be framed within the capitalist’s mode of production (Bond 1999). He states that uneven development is concerned with very specific processes by capitalists and development patterns of spatial. From the Smith’s insight about uneven development it is clear that according to him division of labor is based on the uneven development fundamental motion of equalization and differentiation of capital.

“The spatial or territorial division of labour is not a separate process but is implied from the start in the concept of division of labour”. (Smith 2008)The early division of labour was also based upon differentiation of natural conditions such as gender and sex. Labourers with different natural conditions, under equal pay would generate different quantities of the commodity being produced. This meant that in one section there would be surplus while the other would not. This would result to quantitative and qualitative societal organization differences.

Due to such differences spatial separations or divisions would be created based on natural differences. Generally Smith examines the connection that exists between the division of labour and the aspects of division of capital and then considered the two together. Both capital and labour divisions he set them so as to function under four different scales in which the differentiation process took place. This included; general societal labour division and various departments of capital, different particular sectors of both capital and labour, different social division of capital and detailed workplace labour division (Marx 1967).

Geographical implications of division of labour and capital These divisions had varied effects or implications on the geographical settings. Under the detailed facet of division Smith considered it vital in analyzing labour productivity especially in organizations that are highly structured. However, this division shows very minimal contribution to the social differentiation. This resulted to uneven development. General societal division on the other hand has largely contributed to world economy differentiation among production and the marginal points of consumption.

The differentiation also had little importance since the marginal consumption is still part of central production. Differentiation of social capital amongst various individual capital led to centralization and concentration to given places while leaving out others. This also led to uneven development in those places. Division of capital and labour into various different particular sections caused a notable geographical space due to the rates of profit cycles. Furthermore equalization process due to those sections that drew capital in the process of looking for increased rates of profit would coincide with the geographical expansion needs or change of location so as to supply the space for the growing production activities.

The opposite would similarly be possible and large quantities of capital would be lost as a result of their low rates of profit suffered and loss of value of their environmental building (Smith 1989). The see-saw theory and the key spatial scales Spatial pattern of uneven development is all about the revolving logic of driving capital movement. Smith referred to this revolving capital movement as the see-saw theory (Smith 1989). Build environment and productive capital, cyclically expanded and contracted spatially leading to the development and underdevelopment of absolute places.

See-saw theory helps n the understanding of how uneven landscape formed under capitalism rather than the historic uneven formations. The main concerns of Smith’s study were based on production of geographical space within the world space as well as the formation of internal differentiations of geographical space into specific absolute spaces within various scales.

Read More