Monday, March 19, 2018
Week 9 - Globalization and Uneven Development
In Space of Hope, David Harvey outlines some of the characteristics of post-1970s global capitalism, what we have also come to describe as "neoliberalism". Describe some of these features. In chapter 8, Harvey focusses more specifically on the city of Baltimore and describes the transformations of the city and its urban geography. What are some of the historical transformations that have impacted the deterioration of Baltimore city? How do broader changes in the economy effect these changes in Baltimore as well as other postindustrial cities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One thing that Harvey discusses pertaining to neoliberalism is the idea of capitalism being the force that "builds and rebuilds geography in its own image". He asserts that the production of geographic space can be attributed to capitalism and the drive for accumulation and production. Some neoliberal phenomena that he brings into play with this idea are development of underdevelopment, unequal exchange, and dependency theory. Each of these are geopolitical and, really, geo-economic issues with the global capital system at play today. His goal is to demonstrate "globalization" and "neoliberalism" through a spatial lens, allowing us to see how space operates within the accumulation of capital, and to make us question what we may have thought to be inherent aspects of geographical distinctions. He discusses how this process is carried out by giving three components of capitalism creating notions of space: (1) reduction of cost of technological innovation such as transportation, (2) capital being embedded in the land and resources, and (3) The creation of State-governed territorial organization. Each of these serve to create a notion of inherent physical space that binds a people, but is somewhat invisibly controlled by the drive for capital accumulation.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in Chapter 8, Harvey discusses how global industry forced manufacturing jobs out of cities like Baltimore, which pushed unemployed workers to go to low-wage service jobs, entrenching families in a cycle of poverty. The movement of manufacturing industry out of the city and the subsequent deficits within the urban community created the desire for spaces outside the cities for the affluent to reside in their "bourgeois utopia" or suburbs. This barrier between urban poor and suburban elites create an uneven geographical distribution of money. In the name of aiding the inner-city, public/private investments were made to projects that were said to bring more wealth into the city. However, as Harvey argues, the wealth brought into the city really only went into the pockets of the corporations, rather that the citizens that were funding the projects with their tax dollars. All of this, he says, was done under capitalist free-market rhetoric, and worked to perpetuate the marginalization of low-income minorities in Baltimore, as well as other post-industrial cities.
In chapter eight, Harvey gives a historical overview of the city of Baltimore and some of the reasons for its degradation. He explains how there are 40,000 vacant and abandoned houses, and 300,000 homeless. People line up to get free meals outstretching the charity missions. Inequality in the city is a major concern as educational resources are not offered to all children in the area. Since most of the schools are private. There are high rates of disease and infection due to poverty. The affluent are leaving the city to suburbs in search of jobs. Projects have been launched to revitalize the growth of the city. Meaning, the public sector takes the risks while the private sector takes the profit. The city gets $ 2 million dollars in tax breaks to forestall bankruptcy, while the impoverished working class get nothing. In order to be on the safe side, two people in a household need to get meager jobs to sustain the home. Segregation and marginalization has worsened as people with money live in gated communities. The geography of the city shows division, as the poor remain poor, while the rich remain rich.
ReplyDelete