Call For Papers: Value Capture and its Dissents
AAG Annual Meeting 2020 (Denver, 6-10 April 2020)

Organizers: Hung-Ying Chen (Durham University) and Renee Tapp (Harvard 
University)
Sponsored by: Economic Geography Specialty Group, Urban Geography Specialty 
Group

For cities and states with big dreams but limited budgets, value capture is 
quickly emerging as a silver bullet strategy to finance urban development. The 
premise is simple: cities should recover the value generated by public 
expenditures from private property owners. Leveraging regulatory tools and 
public financing instruments-taxation, fees, permits, rights, options, bonds, 
trust, and local service agreements-cities unlock value in the under-utilized 
built environment, bolster demand for these assets in the private sector, and 
reclaim value at a later date. While value capture unites a wide range of urban 
actors from central and local states to think tanks, development banks, and 
Keynesian economists, critics argue that in practice value capture is a 
resource frontier to channel windfall gains. These critiques ultimately call 
into question the state's ability to wrestle value back from the private sector 
and financial markets. At both an empirical and conceptual level, the emergence 
of value capture interweaves fiscal geographies (Tapp and Kay 2019) with real 
estate financing (Chen 2019; O'Neill 2018; Tapp 2019; Weber 2016) as the 
cyclical imperative of devaluing and revaluing property (Knuth et. al 2019) 
becomes both the means and ends that drive urban futures (Dunning et al. 2019).

To explore the various linkages between public and private finances, this 
session seeks to bring together scholars and researchers working across the 
globe on issues related to the promises, operations, and pitfalls of value 
capture. We invite papers that empirical engagements and/or theoretical 
interventions
that examine the relationship between value capture and the built environment. 
Possible themes include but are not limited to:

* Public instruments and tools that connect local property markets, public 
finance, and financial and capital markets;
* Measurements for valuing infrastructure and real estate, and/or the 
limitations of these techniques;
* Phases and cycles of value capture, such as the processes and mechanisms that 
(de)valuate, monetize and 'recycle' captured value;
* Deal structuring and legal frameworks used in public-private arrangements;
* Consideration of how value capture operates at different scales and across 
political jurisdictions;
* Global policy transfer and local adaptation of value capture techniques among 
policy-makers;
* The political and economic limitations of value capture;
* Contested valuations, disruptions and dissents over value capture policies 
and projects.


Abstract Submission
Please send your abstract (max. 250 words) to 
hung-ying.c...@durham.ac.uk<mailto:hung-ying.c...@durham.ac.uk> and 
ct...@gsd.havard.edu by October 25th, 2019.

References
Chen, H.-Y. 2019. Cashing in on the sky: financialization and urban air rights 
in the Taipei Metropolitan Area. Regional Studies 0(0), pp. 1-11. doi: 
10.1080/00343404.2019.1599104.
Dunning, R. et al. 2019. Is there a relationship between planning culture and 
the value of planning gain? Evidence from England. Town Planning Review 90(4), 
pp. 453-471. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2019.29.
Knuth, S. et al. 2019. In value's shadows: Devaluation as accumulation 
frontier. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 51(2), pp. 461-466. 
doi: 10.1177/0308518X18806112.
O'Neill, P. 2018. The financialisation of urban infrastructure: A framework of 
analysis. Urban Studies , p.0042098017751983. doi: 10.1177/0042098017751983.
Tapp, R. 2019. Layers of finance: Historic tax credits and the fiscal 
geographies of urban redevelopment. Geoforum 105, pp. 13-22. doi: 
10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.016.
Tapp, R. and Kay, K. 2019. Fiscal geographies: "Placing" taxation in urban 
geography. Urban Geography 40(4), pp. 573-581. doi: 
10.1080/02723638.2019.1585141.
Weber, R. 2016. Performing property cycles. Journal of Cultural Economy 9(6), 
pp. 587-603. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2016.1212085.

Reply via email to