Apologies for multiple posts:
Call for Papers:
Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting,
29 March - 2 April 2016, San Francisco
Reestablishing a Relationship Between Heterodox Economics and Critical
Urban and Economic Geography
Session organizers:
Gary Dymski <mailto:[email protected]>(Leeds University, UK),
Marshall Feldman <mailto:[email protected]>(University of Rhode Island, USA)
Sponsored by the Economic Geography, Regional Development and Planning,
Socialist and Critical Geography, and Urban Geography Specialty Groups
Mainstream economics has been widely criticized for failing to predict
and adequately explain the current economic crisis (Beker 2010 <#Beker>;
Krugman 2009 <#Krugman>; Lawson 2009 <#Lawson>). In contrast, two other
branches of knowledge distinguished themselves by anticipating and even
predicting the crisis and by providing substantial insights into the
processes underlying it. One is based in critical variants of heterodox
economics, mainly drawing heavily from Marxist, institutionalist, and
post-Keynesian political economy, and to a lesser degree work descending
from Henry George (Bezemer 2011 <#Bezemer>; Goldstein and Hillard 2009
<#Goldstein>). The other is based in a subset of the overlapping areas
of critical urban studies and economic geography (Christophers 2011
<#Christophers>, 2014 <#Christophers>; Davies and Imbroscio 2010
<#Davies>; Harvey 2012 <#Harvey>).
Yet a remarkable gulf separates relevant heterodox economics and these
subfields of human geography. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s urban and
economic geography underwent a radical transformation, increasingly
rejecting “spatial science” rooted in neoclassical economics and turning
instead to geographical approaches related to various strains of
heterodox economics, particularly Marxist, institutionalist, Keynesian,
and neo-Ricardian variants (cf. e.g., Walker and Storper 1991 <#Walker>;
Sheppard and Barnes 1990 <#Sheppard>). In contrast to neoclassical
economics, with its methodological individualism and consequent
microeconomic focus on individual behavior, these heterodox strains
emphasized societal structures, social relations, and institutions,
leading to a more macroeconomic form of analysis. David Harvey’s (1978;
2006) <#Harvey> work was extraordinarily seminal in this transformation,
inspiring new areas in economic and urban geography, such as the
geography of money and finance (Leyshon 2013 <#Leyson>). On the other
side, prominent heterodox economists – such as Ann Markusen, Barry
Bluestone, Bennett Harrison, David Gordon, and Matthew Edel – brought
heterodox economic theory to bear on the concerns of urban and economic
geography, and in the process transformed heterodox economic analysis
itself by making the spatial dimension a fundamental component. If not
married, critical urban/economic geography and heterodox economics were
at least keeping company.
But in the following decades heterodox economics and critical urban and
economic geography drifted far apart. By 2009, when the AAG designated
Paul Krugman “an honorary geographer” for his theoretical work on
geographical trade patterns and the subsequent research it spawned, the
divorce was almost complete. Krugman (1998 <#Krugman>) described this
“new economic geography” as one employing models that are “fully
general-equilibrium and clearly derive aggregate behaviour from
individual maximization.” In other words, as unabashedly mainstream and
largely neoclassical. In a paper delivered at an AAG plenary, Krugman
(2011 <#Krugman>) recognized the distance between mainstream economics
and economic geography, attributing it to differences in methodology,
questions asked, and kinds of answers sought, while totally ignoring
heterodox critiques of these features of mainstream economics.
Today heterodox economics and critical urban/economic geography exist in
almost complete isolation from one another. For example, the index of a
collection claiming to serve “as the foundation for understanding the
structural and deep-seated nature of current macroeconomic events”
(Goldstein and Hillard 2009 <#Goldstein>) has no entries for “built
environment,” “capital switching,” “circuits of capital,” “cities,”
“race,” “rent,” and most other keywords found in discussions of the
crisis by geographers. Similarly, Duménil and Levy’s (2011) review of
heterodox explanations of the crisis follows Marx by distinguishing
between labor and capital, between finance capital and productive
capital, and between interest and profit; but despite the fact that
house-price inflation fueled the crisis and land, as a non-reproducible
asset, is the prime candidate for house-price inflation through
ground-rent capitalization, the review does not even mention what Marx
considered the third major class of modern capitalism, landlords, and
their distinct source of revenue, ground rent.
Geographers have been equally insular. For example, a recent review of
“geographies of money and finance” focusing on “financial circuits and the
‘real’ economy” (Hall 2013 <#Hall>) refers to no authors recognizable as
economists of any sort, while the closest it gets to recognizable
economics journals are The Economist and Financial Times.
This call for papers aims to begin to bridge the gulf between heterodox
macroeconomics and critical urban and economic geography. We seek
proposals for papers and panels that address this issue from various
perspectives. Its unifying principle is that proposals must somehow
involve both heterodox economics and critical urban and/or economic
geography. Possible topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Historical accounts and explanations for the chasm between heterodox
economics and critical human geography
•Comparisons of the two branches of knowledge, either general or with
respect to specific topics such as the current crisis, financialization, etc.
•Methodological assessments and/or critiques of the two branches,
possibly including skeptical assessment of the virtues of integrating
the two
•Synthesis of theories and findings drawing on both heterodox economics
and critical urban/economic geography
•Implications that combining the two would have for policy, politics,
and practice
•Integration of geographic work on racialialization of space with
heterodox economics work on the current crisis, labor market
segmentation, finance, etc.
•Critiques, reassessments, and reformulations of prominent heterodox
theories based on their omission of themes and findings from critical
human geography; critiques, reassessments, and reformulations of
prominent theories in critical urban or economic geography based on
their omission of themes and findings from heterodox economics
•Topics and themes absent from one or the other branch, possibly along
with explanations for the relative silences, assessment of the potential
for introducing the absence into the branch’s discourse, and/or attempts
to fill the void
•Synthesis of feminist economics’ contribution to macroeconomic analysis
of the current crisis (cf. e.g., Fukuda- Parr, Heintz, and Seguino 2015
<#Fukuda>)and insights from feminist work on economic geography (e.g.,
McDowell 2015 <#McDowell>; Pollard 2013 <#Pollard>).
•Empirical studies involving the two branches of knowledge, either in
combination or in contrast
•Specific themes present in both bodies of knowledge – such as money and
finance, labor and class relations, crises, or the state – and involving
both heterodox economics and critical urban/economic geography, either
in contrast or conjunction
•Examination of the role of geography in heterodox economics research,
for example research on the minimum wage
•Panel discussions involving heterodox economists and critical human
geographers and focusing on some aspect of their interface
•Discussion of institutional and cultural barriers to further
communication and cross-fertilization between the two bodies of knowledge
Again, we emphasize these topics are meant to be suggestive and not
restrictive.
Please send your proposal to Gary Dymksi ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>) or Marshall Feldman ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>) by Friday, October 29. Proposals should conform
to the conference guidelines
<http://www.aag.org/cs/annualmeeting/call_for_papers>, and you should
register and submit your abstract to the AAG via the normal conference
channels
<http://www.aag.org/cs/http://www.aag.org/cs/annualmeeting/how_to_submit_an_abstract>by
the conference deadline, also October 29. Please include your PIN when
you send us your proposal.
References
Beker, Victor A. 2010. On the Economic Crisis and the Crisis of
Economics. Tech. rep. 2010-18. Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Visited on 09/01/2015. http : / / www . economics - ejournal . org /
economics /
<http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2010-18>discussionpapers/2010-18
<http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2010-18>.
Bezemer, Dirk J. 2011. “The Credit Crisis and Recession as a Paradigm
Test.” /Journal of Economic Issues/ 45 (1): 1–18.
Christophers, Brett. 2011. “Revisiting the Urbanization of Capital.”
/Annals of the Association of American Geographers/
101 (6): 1347–1364.doi: 10.1080/00045608.2011.583569
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.583569>.
—. 2014. “Geographies of finance I Historical geographies of the
crisis-ridden present.” /Progress in Human Geography/ 38 (2): 285–293.
Visited on 11/13/2014. doi: 10.1177/0309132513479091
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132513479091>.
Davies, Jonathan S., and David L. Imbroscio. 2010. /Critical Urban
Studies: New Directions/. SUNY Press.
Duménil, Gérard, and Dominque Levy. 2011. The Crisis of the Early 21st
Century: A Critical Review of Alternative Interpretations. Paris:
Paris-Jourdan Sciences Économiques.
Fukuda-Parr,Sakiko, James Heintz, and Stephanie Seguino. 2015. “Critical
Perspectives on Financial and Economic Crises: Heterodox Macroeconomics
Meets Feminist Economics.” /Feminist Economics/ 19 (3): 4–31. doi:
10.1080/ 13545701.2013.806990
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.806990>.
Goldstein, Jonathan P., and Michael G. Hillard, eds. 2009. /Heterodox
Macroeconomics: Keynes, Marx and globalization/. Reprint. Routledge.
Hall, Sarah. 2013. “Geographies of money and finance III Financial
circuits and the ‘real economy’.” /Progress in Human Geography/ 37 (2):
285–292. Visited on 11/13/2014. doi: 10.1177/0309132512443488
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132512443488>.
Harvey, David. 1978. “The Urban Process Under Capitalism: A Framework
for Analysis.” /International Journal of Urban and Regional Research/
2:101–131.
—. 2006. /The Limits to Capital/. New Edition. London: Verso.
—. 2012. “The urban roots of financial crises: reclaiming the city for
anti-capitalist struggle.” /Socialist Register/ 48:
1–35.http://newleftproject.org/Harvey_final.pdf.
Krugman, Paul. 1998. “What’s new about the new economic geography?”
/Oxford Review of Economic Policy/ 14 (2):
7–17. Visited on 07/01/2009. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/14.2.7
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/14.2.7>.
—. 2009. “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” /The New York Times/,
Sept. 2: MM36. Visited on 01/15/2013. http://www.nytimes.com/
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html>2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html>.
—. 2011. “The New Economic Geography, Now Middle-aged”. /Regional
Studies/ 45 (1): 1–7. Visited on 09/03/2015. doi:
10.1080/00343404.2011.537127
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.537127>.
Lawson, Tony. 2009. “The Current Economic Crisis: Its Nature and the
Course of Academic Economics.”
/Cambridge Journal of Economics/ 33 (4): 759–777. Visited on 05/24/2012.
doi: 10.1093/cje/bep035 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep035>.
Leyshon, Andrew. 2013. “The Limits to Capital and Geographies of Money.”
/Antipode/ 36 (3): 461–469. doi: 10.1111/
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00425.x>j.1467-8330.2004.00425.x
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00425.x>.
McDowell, Linda. 2015. “Making a drama out of a crisis: representing
financial failure, or a tragedy in five acts.” /Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers/ 36 (2): 193–205.doi:
10.1111/j.1475-5661.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00434.x>2011.00434.x
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00434.x>.
Pollard, Jane. 2013. “Gendering capital Financial crisis,
financialization and (an agenda for) economic geography.” /Progress in
Human Geography/ 37 (3): 403–423. Visited on 10/05/2015. doi:
10.1177/0309132512462270 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132512462270>.
Sheppard, Eric S., and Trevor J. Barnes. 1990. /The capitalist space
economy: geographical analysis after Ricardo, Marx and Sraffa/. Unwin Hyman.
Walker, Richard, and Michael Storper. 1991. /The Capitalist Imperative:
Territory, Technology and Industrial Growth/. Wiley-Blackwell.
CFP: Reestablishing a Relationship Between Heterodox Economics and
Critical Urban and Economic Geography
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
