The political economy of land value capture in the UK: Rent and viability in Salford's new municipalist turn (original) (raw)
Related papers
Property, politics and the neo-liberal revolution in urban Scotland
Progress in Planning, 2000
This paper is written in the context of current debates about the extent to which business coalitions are shaping the political agendas of the contemporary city. With a growing critique of the use of North American frameworks as a basis for the interpretation of business politics in the British city, we make a contribution towards the development of a more theoretically informed account of capital's involvement in local politics in Britain. Our research design takes analysis beyond the confines of what we term a 'state-centred perspective' insofar as we focus on the political behaviour of one key fraction of capital, property, in a range of urban areas in one political system, Scotland. Through the first survey to be conducted in Scotland of the political activities of property agents, the paper draws out conclusions about the extent to which new forms of neo-liberal urban governance are serving to construct an environment within which contemporary property politics are being played out. Our results point to a politically engaged fraction of capital but one which is largely oblivious to the changes in governance taking place around them. In an effort to further understanding property politics, we conclude that more attention needs to be given to capital and its trajectories. In calling for an epistemological shift towards a capital-centred perspective, we conclude that an understanding of property politics might profitably draw upon both a rehabilitated version of neo-Marxist frameworks and more recent institutional perspectives. ᭧
Change in the political economy of land value capture in England
Town Planning Review
Variations in the character, performance and impact of policies and practices to capture land value for the community are usually examined by analysing experience in different countries. Such international comparative research is cross-sectional and does not cover the evolving relations between systems of land value capture and the economies, polities and societies within which they are set. The paper examines the relations in England between the extant political economy and supporting ideologies, and the distinctive forms of land value capture that they produced. It traces the shift from a top-down, strategic approach in an era of corporatist government before 1979 to the subsequent extension and consolidation of bottom-up practice set within the context of neoliberalism. The analysis highlights the evolution of the idea of land value capture and the policies and practices associated with it, especially the contestation that informed such changes.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2004
A somewhat overlooked aspect of the geography of ‘after-Fordist’ regulation concerns the precise role of different branches of the state in managing tensions between local economic development and the collective provision of social and physical infrastructure. In the United Kingdom, the state's reluctance to manage or spatially redistribute growth in the South East has resulted in localised pressures on housing markets, the land-use planning system, infrastructure, and the environment, intensifying struggles between progrowth and antigrowth factions in certain places. In this paper the authors examine conflicts arising from the rapid growth of new economic spaces in and around the Cambridge subregion and explore various attempts by different branches of the state and locally dependent factions of capital to overcome barriers to further growth within existing and proposed frameworks for territorial management. A key arena of conflict in this instance centres upon land-use plannin...
The new enclosure: the appropriation of public land in neoliberal Britain
Urban Geography, 2019
only a few months before this review, Christophers's The New Enclosure has already garnered praise in The Guardian, The Financial Times, and the London Review of Books; from vaunted academics to grassroots organizations.. For good reason. Its accolades speak to the book's scholarship and timeliness in an under-examined area of research: public land and its privatization in neoliberal Britain. The book not only uncovers, it also critiques the privatization of land for its contradictory, misleading, or otherwise ineffective and deleterious logics (Chapter 3), techniques (Chapter 4), and consequences (Chapter 5). It draws on theoretical elaborations of land and capitalism by combining wide-ranging works of political economy from the likes of George, Harvey, Massey, Marx, Polanyi, and Smith (Chapter 1). It historicizes its project by refreshing readers on how public land in Britain came to befrom the 1066 Norman invasion and establishment of feudal land arrangements, to the string of liberal-capitalist maneuvers that more directly define contemporary issues of public land via eighteenth/nineteenth century enclosures, twentieth-century public ownership, and subsequent post-1979 privatization (Chapter 2). Christophers calculates that public land privatizations since Thatcher amount to roughly 8% of the British landmass, or nearly half of all public land (p. 322), and yet, as the author asks readers to consider in the Introduction: why did I [they] not know this before? (p. 3). His answer, elaborated in various ways throughout the book, and made explicit in the Conclusion, is fourfold: land privatization has been rendered largely invisible through obscure bureaucratic-technocratic policies ("death by a thousand cuts"), misleading schemes like the Right to Buy (a strategy of benumbment), dwindling academic research on landownership (post-Massey), and the checkered legacy of oft anti-democratic public land ownership (TINA?). Knowing more implies being able to do more, like protecting and enhancing remaining public land through political struggle and alternative ownership structures. Seeking to go beyond what has already been said of The New Enclosure elsewhere, I provide three aspects of analysis in this reviewgrounding, making, and moving landas means of suggesting areas of future research urged on by Christophers's stellar analysis of public land and its privatization in Britain. Grounding land: selectivity Christophers is keenly aware of history and nuance yet selects an intentionally limited scope. The book lands on a very specific type of legally constructed land: public land. Land owned by public bodies, both central and local, are of issue, not the Crown Estate or common land that equally make up land's broader landscape in Britain; not buildings or equipment that improve or spoil land; not the public enterprises that extensively own(ed) land like electricity producers, railways, and waterworks; and neither is there any specific consideration of rural-urban distinctions (though council housing is given more direct URBAN GEOGRAPHY
Political Geography, 2009
The analysis of neoliberalism has become a key point of departure in critical urban studies and political geography. Its application in theorising new forms of residential environments is no exception. Common interest developments, gated communities and, in the Australian case, masterplanned residential estates (MPREs) are cast as vehicles of neoliberalist privatisation, extending private property rights and embedding market logics and neoliberal modes of privatised governance. This paper is a critical theoretical and empirical engagement with the interpretation of these residential developments as iconic expressions of urban neoliberalisation. We bring poststructuralist thinking on neoliberalism as an assemblage of diverse practices and projects together with poststructuralist conceptions of the public and private as contextual and enacted political constructions, to provide an alternative analyticdan analytic of assemblagedfor investigating putative pathways of neoliberal privatisation. We suggest the purchase of this extended framework through an exploration of MPRE development by Sydney's largest MPRE developer. In this framework, MPREs become contingent productions in which multiple and overdetermined projects, practices and paradigms of governance are at work including, amongst others, social sustainability and interventionism. Rather than producing neoliberal privatisation, we explore how MPRE developments involve the complex constitution of new forms of public and private that exceed coding as neoliberal. We conclude that the framework engaged with here can enable productive advances for urban theorising. Its emphasis on practice, enactment, multiplicity and assemblage can resist a tendency to reify urban neoliberalism and nurture the development of new conceptions and discourses of urban governance less bound to the neoliberal imaginary.
In this paper we argue that 'assetisation' has been a central axis through which both neoliberalisation and financialisation have encroached in the post-Fordist era. We focus on the mobilisation of land as a financial asset in northwest England's former industrial heartlands, offering an account of how property developer 'The Peel Group' came to dominate the land and port infrastructure of the region through aggressive debt-led expansion and, in particular, a hostile takeover of the Manchester Ship Canal for its land-bank. In doing so, we illustrate how the capture of local resources by private corporations has shaped both substance and process of neoliberalisation from the ground up. By focusing on transformative struggles over land we contribute to research agendas attempting to understand the systemically dispossessive nature of assetisation, its relationship to fictitious capital formation, and the way in which such neoliberalising transformations are produced through grounded and situated socio-spatial struggle.
This paper examines two potential lacunae in understanding how low income residents experience contemporary state-led gentrification using a case study of neighbourhood restructuring in Salford, UK 2004 -2014. The first derives from the symbolic politics preparing the ground for neighbourhood 'redevelopment' and housing demolition. The second relates to the blighted social landscape which emerges with the subsequent stalling of this project. A focus on 'before' and 'after' is adopted in order to disrupt the linear policy and 'effects' temporalities that much qualitative gentrification research tends to reproduce. We see how state-led neighbourhood restructuring does not simply displace, but carries residents from 'empowerment' to abandonment and transfers their struggle into limbo. As such, the paper demarcates challenges and opportunities for resident mobilisation inherent in a vacillating urban renewal programme, powerful in its inception but which has since 'hit the buffers' (Lees 2013) in light of global and municipal fiscal crises.