A Materialist Framework for Political Geography
Author(s): Peter J. Taylor
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1982), pp. 15-34
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621909
Accessed: 16-07-2015 09:07 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/621909?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialist
framework
forpolitical
geography
PETER J. TAYLOR
Lecturer
in Geography,
ofNewcastle
University
uponTyne
RevisedMS received16 February1981
ABSTRACT. It is proposedto locatepoliticalgeography
The problemof
withinthe holisticapproachof politicaleconomy.
the'political'
is seenas crucialfordeveloping
andourconclusions
recentexcessive
defining
pointus awayfrom
politicalgeography
concentration
in termsofthethreescalesofanalysis
is identified
foundin manycurrent
uponthestate.A geographical
perspective
textbooks.
The political
andgeographical
arebrought
ina political
ofscalewheretheworld-economy
is thescaleof
together
economy
thestateandnationrepresent
thescaleofideology
andthecityis thescaleofexperience.
The materialist
framework
offered
reality,
thesegeographical
scalesas structurally
related
intheform
ofideology
from
specifies
separating
experience
reality.
The basic purposeof this paper is to describea new framework
forteachingand researchin
is
in
It
full
that
area
of
this
politicalgeography. presented
knowledge
geographyis alreadyoverwith
In
such
articles.
fact
the
classic
of
consistof
provided
papers politicalgeographytypically
in
most
textbooks--see
which
are
then
of
faithfully
reproduced
descriptions approaches
modern
forinstancereproduction
of,or discussionsofWhittlesey
(1939), Hartshorne(1950), Gottmann
(1952) and Jones(1954) in Kaspersonand Minghi (1969), De Blij (1967), Muir (1975) and
Bergman(1975). The decade of the seventieshas been markedby a seeminglyubiquitouscall
forthispaperis simplythatI findthese
foremployinga newsystemsframework.
My justification
as
to eitherteachingorresearch.
earlierstatements
guides
unsatisfactory
fundamentally
In his introduction
and politicsin a worlddividedCohen (1973) beginsby
to Geography
defininggeographybeforegoingon to definepoliticalgeographyout of the six past approaches
In thispaperwe shallconcentrate
moreon definingthe'political'
to thesubjectthathe identifies.
whichCohen, along withmostotherwriterson thistopic,ignores.
part of our subject-matter
Hence thefirstsectionis devotedto thequestionofwhatis the'political'in ourstudies,whichis
treatedas farmorefundamental
thanwhatis the geographybit. The second sectionthenoutlines our 'geographicalperspective'beforebothargumentsare combinedin the mainsectionof
the paper entitled'A politicaleconomyof scale'. This is our descriptionof the framework
presentedhereforpoliticalgeography.
POLITICAL GEOGRAPHYAND POLITICAL ECONOMY
The politicalgeographyframework
in thatit is explicitly
materialist
presentedhereis distinctive
in origin.In simplesttermsit is based upon thenotionthatpoliticalinstitutions
and ideas cannot
be understoodas separatefromthe underlyingmaterialneeds of society.This implies that
politicalstudiessuch as politicalgeographymustbe viewedas partof a widerconcernforthe
overallstructureof societyand economy.This materialistviewpointis usuallyidentifiedas
politicaleconomy.
Trans.Inst.Br.Geogr.
N.S. 7, 15-34(1982)
inGreatBritain
Printed
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16
PETERJ.TAYLOR
The ideas of politicaleconomyhave become popular in geographyas radical Marxist
in making
viewpointshave becomemorecommon(Peet, 1977). They have been instrumental
orientated.
This trendhas provedembarrassing
humangeographyas a wholemorepolitically
for
thetraditionally
fieldofpoliticalgeography(Taylor,1979). The paradoxto emerge
conservative
is thata 'politicalgeographywithoutpolitics'(Johnston,
1980) has evolvedto becomethe most
'apolitical'partofhumangeography(Taylor,1977). This contribution
maybe viewedas partof
an attemptto removethiscontradiction.
The argumentpresentedin this paper, however,goes further
than thoseof otherrecent
criticsof politicalgeography.It is notenoughsimplyto reorientate
politicalgeographytowards
1979b, 1980) so as
studyingconflicts(Cox, 1973, 1979) and theoperationofthestate(Johnston,
to make it in some sense more 'political'. The argumentdeveloped here startsfromthe
assumptionthat:
the classical lines of division within social science are meaningless.Anthropology,
divisions of the discipline
economics, political science, sociology-and history---are
anchoredin a certainliberalconceptionof the state and its relationto functionaland
geographicalsectorsofthesocialorder.(Wallerstein,1974a,p. 11)
Wallersteingoes on to call not for a multidisciplinary
approach,but for a unidisciplinary
This
is
termed
himselfseemsto avoid
approach.
usually
politicaleconomy,althoughWallerstein
thisname. The essenceofthepoliticaleconomyapproachis its holism-the tightintegration
of
thehistorical
withthesocial,economicand politicalin a singleframework,
so thatthetraditional
divisionsofsocial scienceare notrecognizedas separatebodiesofknowledge.Of coursehuman
geographymimicssocial science in its own divisionof knowledgeto produce'sub-disciplines'
such as politicalgeography,the topicof thispaper. Fromthe materialist
viewpointexpounded
heretherecan be no distinctivepolitical-geographical
theorybut onlya political-geographical
perspectivewithinthewidercontextof politicaleconomy:thereis no sub-disciplineof political
geography.
We havenowarguedourselvesintoa positionwherewe cannotuse thesocialsciencenotion
ofa 'natural'divisionofman's activitiesas a justification
forstudyingpoliticalgeography(or in
factany otherdisciplineor sub-disciplineof human activities).We can easily overcomethis
problemon pragmaticgrounds.Obviously a practicaldivisionof knowledgeis requiredin
This is acceptableas longas theoverall
teachingand researchforsimplereasonsoforganization.
holismis respected.Furthermore,
since we teach in institutions
of highereducationthat do
divideup knowledgeon socialscienceprinciples,we findourselvesallocatedto different
departmentsand withinthosedepartments
allocateddifferent
teachingspecialisms.To some degree,
this paper representsa personalsolutionto teachinga pre-existingcourse called
therefore,
are
politicalgeographyto whichI was 'assigned'some yearsago. Such pragmaticjustifications
not fullysatisfactory
howeverrealisticthey may seem in our daily work. The only truly
forpoliticalgeographyarisesif it can providea usefulperspectiveby
meaningfuljustification
organizingideas to suggestfreshinsightsforpoliticaleconomytheory.It is the thesisof this
paperthatsucha perspectiveis possible.
The problem of definingthe 'political'
Considerthefollowing
definitions
ofpoliticalgeography:
(i)
the studyof areal differences
and similaritiesin politicalcharacter'(Hartshorne,1954,
p. 178);
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialist
geography
forpolitical
framework
17
(ii) 'Politicalgeographyis concernedwithpoliticallyorganisedareas' (Pounds, 1963,p. 1);
(iii) 'thestudyofpoliticalphenomenain theirarealcontext'(Jackson,1964, p. 1);
of geographicalarea and politicalprocess'(NationalAcademy
(iv) 'the studyoftheinteraction
of Science-National ResearchCouncil 1965,p. 32);
(v) 'thespatialanalysisofpoliticalphenomena'(Kaspersonand Minghi,1969, p. xi);
(vi) 'thespatialconsequencesofpoliticalprocesses'(Cohen, 1973,p. 6);
(vii) 'a centralconcernof the politicalgeographeris "who gets what,where?"' (Cox, 1979,
p. 3).
In some ways they neatly encapsulate trends experiencedgenerallyin human geography
(Johnston,1979a) as they move fromareal descriptionthroughspatial analysis to welfare
geography.This sequence of concernsis not unlikethatwhichoccurredin politicalscience,
and thenmovingon to moreprocess-orientated
startingwithdescriptionof politicalinstitutions
studies
(Easton, 1968). Fromour perspectiveall
approachesrecentlyemphasizingpublicpolicy
of these definitionsand approacheshave one basic commondenominator-theyall treatthe
'political' as given. Whetherthe adjective political is attached to character,area, process,
it is assumedthatwhat is meantby 'political'is known.Hence the
phenomenaor institutions,
the
of
problem defining 'political'-the subjectmatterof thissection-does notexistfortypical
social science approaches. In contrast,in political economythe definitionof 'political' is a
fundamental
affectthesubsequentstudy.It is not
question,theanswerto whichwillprofoundly
and boundaries,capitalcitiesand administrative
areas, and,
enoughsimplyto allocatefrontiers
morerecently,electionsand referenda,
to thepoliticalpartof geographywithoutenquiringwhy
thesetopicsare consideredto be political.
Partof theproblemis thatwhatis and whatis notpoliticalvariesgreatlyovertime.In fact
Laclau (1975, p. 107) claimsthat'the separationbetweentheeconomicand thepoliticalhas not
been verifiedin modes of productionpriorto capitalism'.Certainlythe modernconceptionof
of feudal societyand the freeingof private
political only emergedwith the disintegration
This resultedin the separationof the economicand social
propertyfrompoliticalrestrictions.
the
spheresfromthepolitical(or, in earlyMarxistterms,civilsocietyfromthe state). Currently
scope of the politicalis a controversial
topicin termsof the on-goingdebate on the size of the
public sectorin westernsocieties.In fact the definitionsprovidedabove reflectthe growing
quantityof state activitiesin recentgenerations.Thus Cox's (1979) welfareapproachmay be
interpretedas less of a fundamentalchange in political geographyand more like a belated
in thefieldofthewiderscope ofthepoliticalwiththemoderngrowthofthestate.
recognition
The welfareapproach in geographyis, however,related to the only group of political
geographerswho do recognizethe questionof what is political.The 'public choice paradigm'
whatshould be individualdecisions
(Archer,1981) is explicitlyconcernedwithdistinguishing
and what should be collective(public) decisions. In this way Reynolds (1981) attemptsto
develop politicalgeographytheoryaroundthe conceptof 'A Geographyof Social Choice' and
Cox (1979) refersto his welfare-orientated
politicalgeographyas 'Location and Public Choice'.
In politicalscience these approachesare sometimesreferredto as 'the new politicaleconomy',
largelybecause theyapplyeconomicconceptsto politicalevents(e.g. 'buying'votes). (There is
no integration
of politicaland economicas in theclassicalpoliticaleconomyemployedhereand
the two approachesshould in no way be confused.)In its normativeand positivecontributions
thispublicchoiceparadigmusuallypostulatesminimalpublicinvolvement
on thebasis ofliberal
assumptionsabout individuals.These relativelyabstractformulations(e.g. Reynolds,1981)
definethe scope of the politicalbut in a completelyahistoricalmannerand withveryrestricted
assumptionswhichdo notevenfitcurrentpoliticalrealities.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18
PETERJ.TAYLOR
The politicaleconomyemployedin this paper uses collectives(classes, nations,states,
urban labour markets) as basic objects of interest.Liberal assumptionsare replaced by
neo-Marxistassumptionsand it is in this respectthat the problemof definingthe political
becomes acute. In Marxist thoughtpolitics expresses class dominationand this has two
important
implicationsforour argument.First,it givespoliticsan essentiallynegativefunction
in thattheculminationofMarxistpoliticsis theabolitionofpoliticsitself(Shaw, 1974, p. 434).
The revolutionis to be followedby the witheringaway of the state and the politicsof class
conflictis replacedby mereadministrative
functionsin a classlesssociety.Secondly,the linking
of the politicalto class conflictmakes the politicalall-pervasiveas, in fact,the termpolitical
economyimplies. In this sense all activitiesin capitalistsocieties relate to the power and
dominationinherentin the economicstructureand as such are all highly'political'.Of course,
such an argumentprecludesany activitiesbeingdistinctively
politicaland is one of thereasons
Miliband (1977) gives for the lack of developmentof political theoryin Marxist thought.
Recently,however,therehas been an upsurgeof Marxistinterestin the state. It is fromthe
framework
for
recentdebateson thisthemethatwe willdeveloptheprinciplesforour materialist
politicalgeography.
Recent Marxist debates on the state
The startingpointformostdiscussionofthepoliticalin Marxistthoughtis thesimpleeconomic
modelfirstfoundin the 1846 GermanIdeologybut mostexplicitly
base-politicalsuperstructure
in
1859
to
the
Preface a Critique
ofPoliticalEconomy.
developed
ofsociety,thereal base
These productiverelationsas a wholeformtheeconomicstructure
rise and to whichparticularformsof model
upon whichlegal and politicalsuperstructure
consciousnesscorrespond.The mode of productionof materiallifeconditionsthe social,
politicaland mentallifeprocessesin general.
It is the last sentenceof this commonlyquoted statementthat has generatedproblemsfor
Marxist political studies. As Miliband (1977, p. 7) points out, 'At its extremethis turns
whichdeprivespoliticsof any substantialdegreeof
Marxisminto an "economicdeterminism"
of
In
recent
Marxist
fact
much
politicaldebate has been concernedto refutesuch
autonomy.'
Miliband
ofeconomicstructure.
a merereflection
where
is
seen
as
economism
politics
simplistic
to
show
thatthey
of
Marx
and
on
other
statements
for
to
instance,goes
Engels
quote
(1977),
This viewpointpromotestherelativeautonomyofthe
determinism.
neverintendedany.extreme
politicaland is summarizedbyMiliband(1977, p. 8) as follows:
mustbe takenin Gramsci'sphrase,as elementsof an 'historical
'Base' and 'superstructure'
elementsthat make up that'block' varyin theirrelativeweight
block'; and the different
and humanintervention.
and importanceaccordingto time,place, circumstance
A similarargumentfortherelativeautonomyoftheeconomicfromthepoliticalis made by
Poulantzas (1973). Hence althoughthe Miliband-Poulantzasdebate on the nature of the
capitaliststate has receivedmuch attention(Gold et al., 1975; Dear & Clark, 1978), on the
matteroftherelationofthepoliticalto theeconomic,theyhold verysimilarpositions(Holloway
and Picciotto,1978, p. 4). This viewpointhas been recentlysummarizedby Scase (1980) and
consistsof two basic propositions:(i) 'the statein any capitalistcountrymusttryto meet the
needs of capital; it has to provideconditionsunderwhichthe accumulationprocesscan take
place', but (ii) 'althoughit has to cope withgeneralneeds of the capitalistmode of production,
the mannerand directionin which it does this will be highlyvariable,dependingupon the
conjectureofa widerangeofnotonlyeconomicbutalso social and politicalforces'(Scase, 1980,
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialist
framework
forpolitical
geography
19
whichcan becomethesubjectmatterofviable
p. 13). It is thisvarietyin politicalsuperstructure
politicalstudieswithina neo-Marxisttradition.
Althoughat firstsight the relative-autonomy
argumentis verypersuasive,it has been
criticizedfor takingthe separationof the politicalfromthe economic too far. The German
'state-derivation'school argues that the relative-autonomy
argument,like its economism
opponents,continuesthe generalfailureto specifypreciselythelinksbetweenthe politicaland
theeconomic.For therelative-autonomy
positionthisis a seriouscriticismbecause it meansthat
it has cut itselfofffromthe principalsourceof change in capitalistsociety,the contradictions
inherentin capital accumulation (Holloway and Picciotto, 1978, p. 6). One important
consequenceforoursubsequentdiscussionis that:
It is also verycharacteristic
of a 'Poulantzian' approach that.. . the global patternsof
capitalaccumulationare eitherignoredor grantedno real effecton thepolitical,so thatthe
bourgeoisnation-stateis always accepted as the de facto political field. (Holloway and
Picciotto,1978, p. 9)
This is clearlynot veryfarremovedfromthe generalsocial science positionof acceptingthe
politicalas givenwhichwe havecriticizedabove.
The fact that both Marxistand non-Marxistwritersgenerallyequate the politicalwith
activitiesofthestaterequiressomeclarification.
Such a positionmerelyacceptstheworldas it is
in
to
us
the
current
social
formation.
The
stateis certainlythe locus fora majorityof
presented
currentpoliticaldecisionsbut we shouldnotbe over-impressed
withovertdecisionsand explicit
more
social
have
decision-making.Many
perceptive
analyses
argued that non-decisionsand
are
at
if
least
as
not
more
important
non-decision-making
important,owing to theirhidden
nature(e.g. Bachrachand Baratz, 1970). One of the mostnotablefeaturesof the worldwe live
in is thelack of decision-making
on a globalscale, as is oftenbemoanedby ecologistsand other
scientistswhoworryabouttotalglobalresources.Clearlythefactthatglobalpoliticalinstitutions
are weak and globalpoliticaldecision-making
negligibledoes not mean thatthe global scale is
less
than
activities
that
on
within
theboundariesofseparatestates.Global non'political'
any
go
actors
is
a
characteristic
ofthe worldeconomywhichwe will
decision-making
by political
prime
The
later.
to
here
is
that
we
must
avoid beingdirectedawayfromthe
develop
point emphasize
activities
towards
the
state
overt
global
byemphasizing
politicalactivity.
The alternativeMarxistapproach to studyingthe politicalcan liberateour workfroma
on thestatealthoughthishas notalwaysbeen thecase in practice.The German
politicalfixation
schoolattemptsto derivepoliticalcategories,includingthestate,fromtheeconomicrelationsin
Marx's Capital.In thiswaythe unityofthe politicalwiththeeconomicis preservedwhilecrude
determinism
is avoided.This is notreferred
to as an economictheorybut as 'a materialist
theory
ofthestate'(Hollowayand Picciotto,1978,p. 14):
It followsthata studyof the politicalmustnotbe an attemptto developsome autonomous
'politicalscience', but should ratherbe a critiqueof politicalscience which attemptsto
decipherthepoliticalcategoriesas formsofsocial relations.(Hollowayand Picciotto,1978,
p. 17)
Hence theinteresting
questionis not'in whatwaythe"economicbase" determinesthe"political
but . . . whatis it about social relationsin bourgeoissocietythat makes them
superstructure"
appearin separateformsas economicrelationsand politicalrelations?'(Hollowayand Picciotto,
1978,p. 18).
It is thismaterialist
approachthatis appliedto politicalgeographybelowand it is important
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20
PETER J.TAYLOR
forour argumentto separateout this materialistpositionfromthe specificapplicationof the
approachwithinthe Germanschool. The latterhas been criticizedbothwithinand outsidethe
school but withoutunderminingthe basic theory.For instance withinthe German school
criticismhas centredupon the ahistoricalnatureand the continuinglack of appreciationof the
globaldimensionin the earlyattemptsat derivationof the state (Hollowayand Picciotto,1978,
p. 28-9). In fact the original derivationas a necessaryconditionof the self-destructive
tendencieswithincapitalismis strangelyreminiscent
of the public-choiceliberalderivationof
public decision-makingto regulatemarketfailure!Such criticismsare not of the materialist
positionper se but only if its earlyapplicationsand essays withinthe Hollowayand Picciotto
(1978) collectionbegin to correctthese deficiencies(e.g. von Braunmuhl,1978). In fact,
followingon fromour earliercomments,Barker(1978, p. 36) arguesthatit is a fundamental
mistaketo derivethe state onlyfromcapital relationswithinits boundaries.This criticismis
endorsedemphatically
in thispaper.
Outside the Germanschool Scase (1980) has arguedthatstatederivationis incapableof
adequately explainingthe wide varietyof state responses which the essays in his volume
describe.This positionis an exampleofconfusingtheissue oftheseparationofthepoliticalfrom
theeconomicwiththerelativeautonomyofthestatefromcapitalistclasses. On thefirstissue the
materialistpositionis clear-the unityof the politicalwiththe economic.On the second issue
the relativeautonomyof the state can be shown to be quite compatiblewith the materialist
position.Althoughthismay not be the case in the originalGermanarguments,Barker(1978,
natureof capitalistsocial relations.
p. 20) is able to derivestateautonomyfromthe competitive
Hence the materialistposition,far fromprecludingthe relativeautonomyof the state, can
actuallyincludeit as a basic partofitstheory.
A materialist position forpolitical geography
The followingconclusions are drawn fromthe above debates to formthe guidelinesfor
forpoliticalgeography.
developingthenewframework
at
most
level we accept the fundamentalmaterialistargumentforthe
the
abstract
First,
theessentialholismofthepolitical
basic unityofthepoliticalwiththeeconomic.This reinforces
there
an
It
follows
that
cannot
be
independentpoliticalgeography,but
economyapproach.
ratherwe seek to develop a criticalperspectiveon the topics commonlystudied by political
geographyand to set thesetopicswithina widerpoliticaleconomystructure.
Second, at a more concretelevel we accept the relativeautonomyof the state. This is
Barker(1978), theautonomyofthe
compatiblewiththefirstmaterialist
positionsince,following
stateis derivedfromthe inherentdisunityof thecapitalistclass. Hence, as originally
arguedby
Millband (1977) and Scase (1980), the varietyof stateresponsesto capitalistneeds will be a
forpoliticalstudiessuchas politicalgeography.
majortopicforconsideration
in
terms
of
our materialistpositiondirectsus awayfromthe stateas
Finally
methodology
our startingpoint and towards the fundamentalpolitical economy dynamic of capital
accumulation.This is in keepingwithMarx's advice thatthe concrete(i.e. whatappearsto be)
shouldnotbe our startingpointbut shouldratherbe theresult,the objectto be explained.Our
argumentis simplythat since 'capitalism,fromits beginnings,presupposeda worldmarket'
should be the
(Barker,1978, p. 19) it followsthat 'Properly,analysisof the world-economy
startingpointfortheanalysisofthenation-state'(Barker,1978, p. 33). This willbe our starting
framework
forpoliticalgeography.
pointfordevelopinga materialist
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE
Now thatwe have agreedupon how we interpret
the politicalin our politicalgeographywe can
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialistframework
forpolitical
geography
21
turnto considerthe geography.Strangely,because geographyitselfhas traditionalclaimsto an
holistic approach, the incorporationof this part of our subject into a political-economy
framework
entailsnone of the problemsof specializationdiscussedin the previoussection.It is
conceded
thatthereare no uniquely'geographicalfacts'so thathumangeographydoes
generally
notfitintothe'natural'divisionofsocial scienceas politicsdoes. Rather,geographyis a pointof
view, a perspectiveupon topicswhichare also dealt within otherdisciplines.This is entirely
consistentwith our conclusions that political geographycannot be an independentsubdiscipline.Instead we sought a criticalperspective;we now merelyadd thatwe will build a
criticalgeographicalperspective.
Whatis thisgeographicalelementofourperspective?
Traditionallygeographyhas soughta
synthesiswithinareas (regionalgeography)but such static,descriptiveapproacheshave now
givenway to an emphasisupon locationalor spatial attributes.This spatial perspectiveclearly
runs the danger of attemptingto generatean independentgeographyas a spatial discipline
(Bunge, 1966). In factsomecriticshave arguedthatforgeographers
'space' has becomea fetish
obscuringthe trueprocessestheyexamineby guidingtheirexplanationstowardsverylimited
spatial'solutions'.In factwe willargueherethatourgeographicalperspectiveis indeedspatialin
orientationbut we will avoid searching for explanationsin abstract spatial terms. Our
explanationswill be groundedin the materialistic
positionwe developedin the last section,so
thatthespatialperspectiveis merelya wayoforganizingourmaterialist
ideas.
The next question concernshow we can use a spatial perspectivewithinour materialist
framework.
because the geographyschoolassociated
Initiallythisseemsto raisesomedifficulties
with spatial approaches has been largely inductive as epitomized by the emphasis upon
quantitativespatial analysis. This runs counter to our materialistposition that concrete
situationsshould be the resultof our deliberationsratherthan the startingpoint. Our spatial
organizingprinciplewill not be based therefore
upon such commonlyused featuresas typesof
or dimensionalelementsofdistributions,
bothofwhichhavebeen appliedto
spatialdistributions
politicalgeography(Cole and King, 1968, pp. 621-36 and Soja, 1971, p. 6). The materialist
and this
positionadopted here has alreadyspecifiedour startingpoint as the world-economy
existsat the largest
gives us the clue to devisingour spatial organization.The world-economy
our acceptance of relativeautonomyof the state
geographicalscale, the global. Furthermore
means thatmuch of our subject-matter
will be at the scale of the nation-state.We will add a
furthercommonlyidentifiedgeographicalscale, the urban,to produce a spatial organization
using scale as the basic principle.We will showthatthisorganizationfitsin verywell withour
materialistpositionalthoughwe must alwaysrememberthatthe ultimatetest is whetherany
freshinsightsareprovidedforpoliticaleconomy.
Recent uses of scale in political geography
ofpoliticalgeographyis
Identifying
geographicalscale as a wayof organizingthe subject-matter
hardlyoriginal.In facttheuse ofthisprinciplehas becomealmostubiquitousin recentpolitical
and welfaregeography.The mostintriguing
thingaboutthisdevelopment,however,is the lack
of any attemptto justifythis form of organization.The implicationis that the three
scales-global, nationaland urban-are as 'natural'as social science'sdivisionof activitiesinto
economic,socialand political.This spatialorganizationis simplygiven.
Let us documentthis situation.If we startin 1975 withthe two new textbooksentitled
Modernpoliticalgeography
we findthatthe Americanversionemploysscales to divide the book
intopartsbut the onlydiscussionmerelystatesthatthe 'partsof thisbookfollowa hierarchy
of
political-territorial
organizationfromthe mostlocal level of politics,involvingsmall areas and
affairsand globalconcerns'(Bergman,1975, preface).In contrast
populations,to international
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22
PETER J.TAYLOR
the Britishversionconcentratesmoreon the scale of the statebecause 'The greatmajorityof
political-geographical
enquirieshave been made withreferenceto the state', but a sectionis
added entitled'PoliticalRegionsand Scale' because 'A valuableminority
of studieshave dealt
with political-geographical
phenomenaoperatingat intra-and supra-nationallevels' (Muir,
1975, p. 191). These simple statementsexhaust the 'theoretical' ( = non-substantive)
discussion of scale within each book and they have proved to be typical. Cox's (1979)
'contemporarypolitical geography'provides a conceptual scheme which 'is applied to an
ofpublicproblemsofsuccessivelysmallerscales: international,
and
intranational,
understanding
or intra-urban'
metropolitan
(Cox, 1979, p. 15), thewholeidea beingthattheschemebe equally
validat all scales. In welfaregeographySmith(1979, p. 11) organizeshis materialintothethree
scales but onlytellsus thathe 'seeks to revealthenatureand extentofplace-to-placevariations
at different
geographicalscales: among nations,amongregionsand citieswithinnations,and
withinindividualcities.' In factthe onlydiscussionofchoiceof scales is to be foundin another
recentwelfaregeographybookwherewe are informed
that:
The selectionof spatialscales at whichto operateis a criticalquestion.Here, attentionis
focusedon threemain levels whichhave been foundelsewhereto provideusefulframeworksforexaminationof spatialpatterns,spatialstructures
and spatialsystems'.(Coates,
and
Johnston Knox, 1977, p. 2)
The onus ofansweringthe'criticalquestion'is shiftedelsewhere,in factto an earlierbookofone
of the co-authors,wherethe threescales werejustifiedas 'providinga relativelyclosed or selfsufficient
systemthe majorityof whose interactionsremainwithinits boundaries'(Johnston,
1973, pp. 13-14). Here at least we findsome justification-thethreescales representthree
spatial systems-global, nationaland urban.This argumenthas the meritof being consistent
withrecentemphasisupon systemsapproacheswithinpoliticalgeography,but it stilltreatsthe
three'systems'simplyas given.There is no attemptto querywhythese'systems'existat these
threescales or what is the relationshipbetweenthem.In factthe mostfeebleaspect of all the
to above is thewayin whichinter-relations
betweenthescales are largelyignored
booksreferred
is presented;all we are givenis threeseparatehooksupon whichto
so thatno overallframework
scales ofoccurrence.
hangsetsofideas at different
The mostrecentdiscussionof the contentof politicalgeography(Johnston,1980) comes
closestto meetingour criticism,wherewe find'a generalplea fora morepolitically-orientated
politicalgeographyat all spatial scales'. In thiscase relationsbetweenscales are discussedbut
approachleads himto locate
onlyin termsofthestate.By emphasizingthe'political',Johnston's
state relationsand
state activitiesas the core of politicalgeography.In this way international
the twootherscales but no overallframework
as representing
local stateactivitiesare identified
theglobalscale,
approachidentifies
linkinglocal to globalis provided.In contrastourmaterialist
the level at which capital accumulationis ultimatelyorganized,as our startingpoint. This
in our explanation,and studyof nationaland urban
indicatesthatthe global scale has priority
scales will requireto be set withinan overallglobalperspective.Beforewe developtheseideas,
however,we continueour reviewof the use of geographicalscale as an organizingprincipleby
consideringotherhuman geographytreatmentsand finallyhow these scales appear in other
socialsciences.
Liberal theories of geographical scale
ofgeographicalscale. In
Otherpartsofhumangeographyhavebeen less naivein theirtreatment
scale organization
where
functional
central
urban
place theory
particular
geographyincorporates
We willdiscuss Philbrick's(1957) more
is an integralpartof the derivationof spatialstructure.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialistframeworkfor
political
geography
23
general economic geographyderivationof functionalscale organization,which essentially
extendsideas fromcentralplace theoryto nationaland global economicpatterns,because this
treatment
ofscale in moderngeography.
representstheonlycomprehensive
to a 'regionalhumangeography'and so is in
claims
to
be
Philbrick
contributing
Although
no sense overtly'political',our politicaleconomystandpointinclinesus nevertheless
to findthe
to
his
'economic'
basis
In
fact
Philbrick's
is
an
extreme
paper
argument.
political
ubiquitous
liberaltheoryofgeographicalscales. He startsbyaskingtherhetorical
question:
is it not a basic principleof social sciencethatthecriticaldevelopments
in theevolutionof
thepatternand functional
of
are
human
most
understandable
as the
organisation
occupance
of
creative
choice
in
a
frame
human
of
the
total
of
resources
and
culture
outgrowth
setting
in space and time?(Philbrick,1957, p. 300)
This leads Philbrickto starthis searchforfunctionalorganizationwith'The simplestunit of
occupance... the single establishmentoccupied by a person or small group of persons'
(Philbrick,1957, p. 303). Hence he startsat the individualscale and then builds up his
functionalorganizationthroughlocal centralplace systemsto theworld-economy.
The resultis
the completeopposite to the materialistapproach adopted here. Philbrickbuilds up to the
we will startat this scale and workour way down to individualexperiencein
world-economy,
urban areas. For Philbrickthe determiningscale is the individualthrough'human creative
and theconstraints
choice',forus it is theworld-economy
imposedby theneeds formaintaining
capital accumulation.Here we have a classic contrastof approaches,liberalversusmaterialist.
Since Philbrick'saim is to provide'a generallyacceptedbodyof principlescapable ofservingas
the basis forregionalanalysisof worldsociety'(Philbrick,1957, p. 300), one interpretation
we
can makeforthepresentpaperis thatit offersa longoverduematerialist
alternative
to his wellestablishedliberaltheoryofgeographicalscales.
One of the 'findings'of Philbrickis his derivationof seven scales of organizationas he
buildsup to theglobalscale (Philbrick,1957, Table V, p. 331). As faras I am awarethisfinding
has not been used by other researchers.As our discussion of modernpolitical geography
textbookssuggests,thereseemsto be a distinctpreference
forjustthreescales despitethelackof
anyarticulatedtheoryon thematter.They do seemto be 'natural'and thisviewpointis bolstered
by referenceto othersocial sciencesbeyondhumangeography(Taylor, 1981b). This generally
reflectsa concentration
on the scale of thestatewith'sub-disciplines'dealingwithglobalaffairs
(internationalpolitics, comparativesociology) and urban studies (urban politics, urban
sociology). The latterhas reallybeen a twentieth-century
phenomenonas social science has
becomepositivistly
orientatedand has used citiesas 'laboratories'(Taylor, 1981b). Furthermore
the recent revival of Marxist thought has incorporatedthese three scales with global
(world-economy),national(theoriesof the state) and urban scales (Tabb and Sawers, 1978)
being represented.The point of bringingup this seemingagreementamong a wide range of
researchersis to suggest that this threefoldarrangementhas an importantgeneralfunction
withinmoderncapitalism.We need a politicaleconomyofscale to unravelthissituation.
A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SCALE
We shall referto our interpretation
of the three-scalestructureas a politicaleconomyof scale.
This is consistentwiththe factthatwe are not developingany specificallygeographicalframeworkemphasizingso-called spatial processesbut ratherthat our approachis both holisticin
scope and materialistin orientation:the three-scalestructurewill be derivedin termsof basic
politicaleconomyconcepts.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24
PETERJ.TAYLOR
We can beginour discussionby askingtworelatedquestions.First,whydo we seem to be
concernedwiththreescales? Whynot twoor four,or elevenforthatmatter?Secondly,ifthere
are to be threescales,whytheseparticularthreescales?Obviouslytheanswersto thesequestions
will need to be intimately
relatedand we shall findthatour answerto the firstquestionleads
oftheparticularthree-scalesidentified.
to
our
interpretation
directly
Ideology between realityand experience
Wallerstein(1975) identifiesthreebasic elementsof the modernworld-economy--the
single
worldmarket,a fragmented
and
politicalstructure
The thirdessentialelementof a capitalistworld-economy
is that the appropriationof
surpluslabor takes place in such a way that thereare not two, but three,tiersto the
exploitativeprocess. . . Such a three-tieredformatis essentiallystabilizingin effect,
whereasa two-tiered
formatis essentiallydisintegrating.
(Wallerstein,1975,p. 368)
The political argumentis simply that forcesfavouringthe statusquo promotea threefold
structure
whereastheiropponentsattemptto polarizethesituationintojust twosides. This is, in
Wallerstein's(1975, p. 368) terms,'the core issue aroundwhichthe class struggleis centred'.
He gives several examples of such three-tieredarrangementsand his argumentis most
developed for the spatial structureof the world-economyinto core, peripheryand semirun smoothly'
periphery.The purpose of the latteris 'to make a capitalistworld-economy
so
that
its
role
'is
less
economic
than
(Wallerstein,1974b,p. 403)
political'(Wallerstein,1974b,
p. 405):
The existenceofthethirdcategorymeanspreciselythattheupperstratumis notfacedwith
theunifiedoppositionofall theothers.(Wallerstein,1974b,p. 405)
This is a formof controlbased upon separation.In Wallerstein'sspatial model of the worldeconomy this separationis by area horizontally.Here I propose the existenceof another
structure
butorganizedin termsofgeographicalscale vertically.
separationusinga three-tiered
is the nation-statewhich 'separates' our daily
The middle categoryin our framework
of
accumulation
at the globalscale. In thissense our
in
from
the
urban
life
reality
experience
of
an
structure
the
state
is
as
ideological
(Althusser,1971). The purposeof thisideology
theory
is simplyto separateexperiencefromreality.Hence the threescales becomethescale of reality
(global), thescale ofideology(state) and thescale ofexperience(urban). These threecategories
division.Clearlythe main
are illustratedin Figure 1 and comparedwithWallerstein'sthreefold
whichwe mayterm
is thatWallersteinpresentsa singlepatternoftheworld-economy
difference
an absolute spatial structurewhereasour structureis a relativespatial structureseparating
variousexperiencesfromrealitybyideology.Hence we do notproposethreeprocessesoperating
of capitalistaccumulationwithinwhichthe
at threescales but simplya single manifestation
of threescales is functionally
important.For instance,the needs of accumulation
arrangement
will be experiencedlocally(e.g. closureof a hospital)and justifiednationally(e.g. to promote
nationalsolvency)forthe ultimatebenefitsorganizedglobally(e.g. by multi-national
corporationspayingless tax).
we will illustratethe argumentin
Because the previousstatementsdo need amplification,
concretetermsrelativeto personalexperiencesof the author.In politicaldiscussionin the
in north-eastEnglanda majortopicofconcernhas been thehealthofthe
WallsendConstituency
shipbuildingindustry.This is to be expected since the Swan Hunter yards are the major
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
25
A materialistframework
forpolitical
geography
(i) Vertical Division by Scale
1
E 9 P WE
-r
gEALI
(ii) HorizontalDivision by Area
?;E
LO G Y
I f.
xoEO
CORE
EXPERIENCE
UrbanExploiter
Urban
nSri
tion-St0
0rld-Econ0
and\
o0
1i
te
andcontrol
ofseparation
1. Alternative
formats
three-tiered
FIGURE
willaffectthewholetown,
employerin thearea. If theyardsclose, theresultingunemployment
the
of
It is at thescale of
This
is
scale
of
the
the
Wallsend
experience.
Eighties'.
making
'Jarrow
forthe Labour
local
was
The
to
however.
that
pressures
response
policy emerges,
ideology
Governmentto nationalizeBritishshipbuildingincludingSwan Hunter. This is ideological
since it reflectsonlya partialviewof thesituation.It mayprotectjobs and ease theflowof state
subsidiesinto the area, but it does not tackle the basic problemaffecting
shipbuilding.Both
demand and supply in the industryare global. The currentproblemsin the industrycan be
directlytracedto the fallin demandfollowingthe 1973/74oil pricerise and the emergenceof
is a
suppliersfromsuch countriesas SouthKorea. Clearlya policyofnationalization
competitive
long way away fromsolvingthe problemof Wallsend'sshipyards.Neverthelessthis is a basic
responseof thoseexperiencingthe problemand representsa nationalideologicaldistortionof
(potentially)progressivepoliticswhichwill not challengeaccumulationof capital at the global
scale.
The scale of reality
The scale ofrealityis theglobalscale and we have previouslyderivedtheprimacyofthislevelas
the basic materialistposition. In a previous paper (Taylor, 1981a) I have argued that
Wallerstein's(1976) world-economyapproach should formthe basis of a global political
of a dynamicspatialstructurein termsof historically
geography.This providesthe framework
fromabout 1780 onwards,
concretesituations.Possiblyfromthesixteenthcentury,butcertainly
ofthe
the'world-system'
has experienceda cyclicgrowthpatterngeneratedbythecontradictions
are
the
ones
accumulationprocess.At thisscale themostinteresting
(Kondratieff
cycles
50-year
cycles) which have been traced back throughthe nineteenthcenturywith the possibilityof
equivalentbut longercycles earlier.From this materialistbase Wallersteinand his research
associatesare able to derivesuch additionalsets of processesas the changingpatternof the
spatial division of labour and the changingpatternof political power with its relationto
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26
PETERJ.TAYLOR
mercantilistpolicies and imperialism(Research WorkingGroup, 1979). The political nonand decision-making
associatedwithbothsetsofprocesseswillforman intregal
decision-making
of
a
materialist-based
part
politicalgeography.
One pointshould be brieflymentionedat thisstage of the argument.Wallerstein'swork,
and thatof Frank (1969) and Baran (1957) fromwhichit derives,is part of a debate within
Marxistcircleson the natureof capitalismand its relationto theworld-market
(Taylor, 1981a,
and see Bergesen, 1980). This has been introducedinto the geographyliteratureby Harvey
(1975) but I do not wantto enterthisdebatehereexceptto pointout thatit is not the scale of
of accumulation,the basic drivingforce
analysisthat is criticized.The global characteristic
behindcapitalism,is notdoubted:theglobalis theultimatescale orthescale ofreality.
But whatexactlydo we mean by 'reality'in thiscontext?It is obviouslyprovocative,since
all geographersultimately
claim to be studyingthe'real world'.In our usage of the termwe are
not emphasizingour empiricalcredentialsbut ratherthenotionthatthisis the scale that'really
matters'.We will theoretically
refinethisargumentby equatingrealitywithtotalityusing the
discussionofJakubowski(1976). This followsour previousidentification
of a holisticpolitical
economyand neatlyencompassesnationalideologywithintheglobalargument.
Jakubowski
(1976) developstheargumentthatwe can distinguishrealityfromideologyby
itstotality:
a historicalunderstandingof social relationships,of reality,is only possible if factsare
broughtout of the isolated positionin which they appear to superficialconsideration.
Apparentlyisolated factsmust be looked at in theirrelationshipto the whole, if their
1976, p. 102)
supra-historical
appearanceis to be penetrated.(Jakubowski,
This is the basic politicaleconomypositionand is the justification
forits holism.Jakubowski
'the categoryof theconcretetotality'as 'the actualcategoryofreality'.From
goes on to identify
our geographicalperspectivethisconcretetotalityis equated withthe world-economy,
so that
thegloballevelbecomesourscale ofreality.
of our realityenablesus to go on and discoverthe ideology,or as Jakubowski
Identification
(1976, p. 103) putsit:
It allows us to verifyhow farconsciousnessaccords withreality,and how farit has an
ideologicalcharacter.Ideologyis false,partialconsciousnessto the extentthatit does not
locateitsobjectwithintheconcretetotality,
and thusto theextentthatit is notadequate to
thewholereality.
Now that we have set out the realitywe can confrontit with ideology.From our political
geographicalperspectivewe will equate partialconsciousnesswith nationalismand statism,
wherebythe globaltotalityis filtered
throughnation-centred
ideologies.It is thisargumentthat
allowsus to identify
thegeographyofnation-states
as ourscale ofideology.
The scale of ideology
In political studies ideologies are usually equated with political systems of thoughtconservatism,liberalism,social democracy,etc.--often espoused by political parties in
forcontrolof government.
Each ofthesepoliticalideologiesare similarto theextent
competition
thattheyaccept the statesystemas the basic spatialorganizationof the worldand devotetheir
energiesto operationswithinthissystem.We willtreatall suchideologiesas merelysubdivisions
of theoverarching
ideologyof statismand nationalism.This is an ideologyin theMarxistsense
offalseconsciousnessarguedabovein thatitmakesthefundamental
mistakeoftreating
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialist
framework
geography
forpolitical
27
the world marketas a sum of national markets,a sum of nation-states,ratherthan
and treatingeach nationalsegmentand each nation-state
within
beginningwiththetotality
it as a particularfieldwithinthewhole.(Barker,1978, p. 36)
The overwhelming
strengthof this ideologyis such that it is normalforboth popular and
academicdiscussionto viewthe divisionof theworldintoabout 150 sovereignstatesas literally
'natural'.I have arguedelsewherein some detail (Taylor, 1981a) thatthereis nothing'natural'
about the modernstate since it is man-made,reflecting
past victoriesand defeatsin social
conflicts.However the point is so importantto our argument,particularlyfor countering
of politicalgeographyaroundstateactivities,thatwe will
Johnston's(1980) recentreformation
presentfurther
debatingpointson thistheme.
The developmentofthemodernstatesystem,likecapitalism,is usuallydated as beginning
aroundabout 1500. At thattimeEurope had a culturalhomogeneity
involvingthe Romanlegacy
familiesand a shared
oflaw and language,a commonsocial systemruledby a set of interlocking
was a
cultureemanatingfroma centralizedchurch (Tilly, 1975). In this societysovereignty
of
From
this
basic
states (Gottmann,1973).
personal matterand not a definition territorial
which
can
in
that
were
at
least
five
alternative
'futures'
there
position 1500, Tilly (1975) argues
and the resultingstate
be postulated.As well as some formof continuedfeudalarrangements
or empirelooselycontrolledfroma single
systemitself,thesealso includea politicalfederation
and
an
withno centralauthority.
This is
a
theocratic
federation
intensive
centre,
tradingnetwork
not to arguethatall wereequallylikely,of course. Wallerstein(1974a, pp. 124-5) arguesthat
1557 marksa keydate whereboththeFrenchKings and theSpanish Hapsburgswentbankrupt
in theirfutileattemptsto converttheemergingworld-economy
intoa world-empire:
The year 1557 marked,if you will,the defeatof thatattempt,and the establishment
of a
balanceofpowerin Europe whichwouldpermitstateswhichaimedat beingnations(let us
call themnation-states)to come intotheirown and to battenon the stillflourishing
worldeconomy.
The particularstatesystemthatwas legitimizedin theTreatiesofWestphaliain 1648 represents
a patternofsurvivors
and victorsdependingon suchfeaturesas availability
ofresources,patterns
of local conditionsbetweenprinces,landownersand merchantsand otherspecificitems. In
resultwas thestatesystemitselfand Wallerstein(1974a) argues
general,however,theimportant
thatit is concomitant
withthegrowthofcapitalismas a world-economy:
It is thepeculiarity
ofthemodernworld-system
thata world-economy
has survivedfor500
not
to
thatis the
and
has
come
be
transformed
into
a
yet
world-empire--apeculiarity
years
secretofits strength... Capitalismis based on theconstantabsorptionofeconomicloss by
political entities,while economic gain is distributedto 'private' hands. What I am
arguing. . is that capitalism as an economic mode is based upon the fact that the
economicfactorsoperatewithinan arena largerthan that whichany politicalentitycan
based. It
totallycontrol.This givescapitalistsa freedomof manoeuvrethatis structurally
has made possible the constanteconomicexpansionof the world-system,
albeit a very
skeweddistribution
ofitsrewards.(Wallerstein,1974a, p. 230)
Wallerstein'sanalysescoverthe sixteenthcentury,but we can easilyrelatethese ideas to the
twentieth
in thefragmented
world
centuryand thedominantroleofmulti-national
corporations
oftodaywithits politicalnon-decision-making
describedpreviously.It is thisfragmented
world
whichis justifiedbytheideologiesof statismand nationalism.We willbriefly
linkthesetwosets
ofideas to thedevelopmentoftheworld-economy
and ourscale ofreality.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28
PETERJ.TAYLOR
In thesixteenthcenturytheideologyof absolutism,or the divinerightofkings,developed
as a meansof legitimating
the newlyemergingcentralizedstates.HoweverWallerstein(1974a,
that:
p. 102) argues
it mightbe perhapswise to de-emphasizethe concentration
on thepersonof thekingand
state,or more'stateness'.We mightbettercall the ideology
simplytalkof a strengthened
'statism'.Statismis a claimforincreasedpowerin thehandsofthestatemachinery.
In the
sixteenthcenturythismeantpowerin thehandsoftheabsolutemonarch.
This should not, of course, be confusedwith the rise of nationalismwhich formeda very
different
as sovereignty
fromthe personof the kingto
became transferred
typeof legitimation
the people in thewakeof the FrenchRevolution(Gottmann,1973). In factWallerstein(1974a,
p. 102) pointsoutthat:
At an earlypoint,statismcould almostbe said to be anti-nationalistic,
since theboundaries
of'nationalist'sentiment
wereoftennarrower
thantheboundsof themonarch'sstate.Only
muchlaterwould the managersof the statemachineryseek to create'integrated'statesin
whichthedominantethnicgroupwould'assimilate'theoutlyingareas.
Since 1789, however,our scale of ideologyhas been dominatedbyvariousformsofnationalism
in 1914 and the acceptanceof
culminatingin the crushingdefeatof socialistinternationalism
national self-determination
as a prime criterionat Versaillesin 1919 (Cobban, 1969). The
twentieth
centuryhas seen thepoliticaltriumphof the nation-statein Europe and its imitation
all othercontinents.It is fairlyeasy to derivea materialist
throughout
argumentlinkingstatism
in the
withits mercantilist
but it is farmoredifficult
policies to the emergingworld-economy
case ofnationalism.
We require a materialistformulationof the nation-stateto fitinto our new political
ofTom Nairn(1977). He
This has been recently
geographyframework.
providedin thewritings
beginswiththe simpleassertionthat'The theoryof nationalismrepresentsMarxism'sgreatest
failure'arguingthat the Marxist debate on nationalismbefore 1914 was doomed to errors
because thefulldevelopmentofnationalismwithincapitalismhad notthenrevealeditself:
'nationalism'in its most general sense is determinedby certainfeaturesof the world
political economy,in the era betweenthe French and IndustrialRevolutionsand the
presentday. We are stilllivingin thisera. (Nairn,1977,p. 332)
themeaningof nationalismthanthe
However,at thepresentday we are moreable to interpret
classical Marxistsand the resultis thatnationalismis broughttowardsthe centreof the world
stage-'Nationalism is a crucial,fairlycentralfeatureof the moderncapitalistdevelopmentof
worldhistory'(Nairn,1977,p. 331).
Nairn's discussionis entirelyconsistentwithour argumentconcerningnationalismas a
generalideologywithintheworld-economy:
whichis ofanyutilityhereis worldhistoryas a
My beliefis thattheonlyframeofreference
whole . . . Most approachesto the questionare vitiatedfromthe startby a country-bycountryattitude.Of courseit is theideologyofworldnationalismitselfwhichinducesalso
thisroad by suggestingthathumansocietyconsistsessentiallyof severalhundreddifferent
and discrete'nations',each of whichhas (or oughtto have) its own postagestampsand
nationalsoul. The secretoftheforestis thetrees,so to speak. (Nairn,1977,p. 332)
The world-economy
is the 'forest'whichwe should studyand it is capitalism'sgenerationof
uneveneconomicdevelopmentat theglobalscale in whichwe lookfortheoriginsofnationalism.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialistframeworkforpolitical
geography
29
reactionto core economicdominance.It
In effectnationalismis a peripheralor semi-peripheral
is thedefensivemechanismoflocal bourgeoisiesto mobilizelocal populationsin theireconomic
of
conflictswith core bourgeoisies(Wallerstein,1974b, p. 402). They use the particularities
form
domination.
The
for
and
to
an
alliance
culture
language
against'foreign'
provingground
this developmentwas the reorganization
of the geographicalareas of Germanyand Italyinto
nation-statesin the middle of the nineteenthcentury,whence this strategyhas diffusedto
disruptthe old empiresof easternEurope and finallyto become global in its operationas a
of decolonizationmovementsin the middleof the twentiethcentury.
ubiquitouscharacteristic
The resultis the contradiction
betweencapitalismspreadingover the worldto unifysociety
whileconcomitant
nationalismhas fragmented
society:
The socio-historicalcost of this rapid implantationof capitalisminto worldsocietywas
nationalism. . . The worldmarket,worldindustriesand worldliteraturepredictedwith
such exaltationin The Communist
Manifestoall conducted, in fact, to the world of
nationalism.(Nairn,1977, p. 341)
This nationalismis a mixtureof idealistpopulismwithhard-headedeconomicprotectionism.
There is a continuity
withthe pre-1789situationifwe thinkof thisnation-building
as popular
mercantilism
of the state-builders.Between them
followingthe earlysovereignmercantilism
statismand nationalismhaveproducedourscale ofideology.
The scale of experience
In our framework
the urbanis designatedthe scale ofexperience.Quite literallythisis thescale
at whichwe liveourdailylives. In Wallerstein'sargumentit is impliedthatexperienceshouldbe
in relationto the term'world'. For Wallersteina 'world'scale is a scale wherethe
interpreted
divisionoflabourdefinesa socialformation
largerthantheimmediateexperiencesofindividuals.
Hence theworld-economy
was notinitially'global' in extentand onlybecame globalin the late
nineteenthcentury.Neverthelessthereexistedbeforethattime a worldsystem,the capitalist
whichoverlayand indeeddominated,theexperiencesofindividuals.Hence the
world-economy,
ofindividualscales ofexperience.
is bydefinition
an aggregation
world-economy
In modernsocietieseconomicactivitiesmaybe viewedgeographically
as beingdividedup
into sets of dailyurbansystems.Withinthesesystemsthe inhabitantsexperienceemployment
opportunitiesdependingupon the historicalindustrialmix of the area and its survivalin the
worldof accumulation.During recessionsunemployment
is an 'urban problem'as investment
curtailment
is reflectedin cutbacksin employment
at particularurbanlocations.
opportunities
Converselyan investmentboom may give particularurbandwellersnew shoppingcentresin
whichto yieldtheirwagesand incomes.The pointis thattheeffects
ofaccumulationand investmentor disinvestment
are experiencedin localized formwithindaily urban systems.This is
cutsso that
perhapsmostclearlyseen whenprivateaccumulationneeds lead to stateexpenditure
hospitalclosures,cut-backsin house buildingprogrammes,and reductionsin educationand
social servicesbudgetsare all ultimatelyexperiencedas local effects.The daily urbansystem,
therefore,definesthe opportunitiesand servicesavailable to the individualwhich are often
summarizedby thephrase'qualityoflife'.In factHigerstrand(1975) has explicitlydefinedthis
withindailyurbansystems.
conceptin termsofaccess to opportunities
ofurbanstudieswithinpoliticaleconomy:
Strangelytherehas been no majortradition
whilecitieswereconsideredto be the site of class struggle,the space itselfhardlyseemed
orworthy
ofspecialstudy.(Tabb and Sawers,1978,p. 5)
important
This is despitethe factthattheconcentration
in citieshas longbeen a source
of theproletariats
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30
PETER J.TAYLOR
of concernforcapitalistinterests.The bringingtogetherof large numbersof individualsinto
close proximity,
withtheirsharingof common,unpleasantexperienceswas thoughtof as the
for fermenting
ideal environment
class conflictand developingclass consciousness.Gordon
has
(1976)
developeda 'socialist'locationtheoryaroundthis themeto explainchangesin the
location of industryfirstto the suburbsand then to the 'Sunbelt' in the U.S.A. His work
representspartof a new awarenessof the urbanphenomenonin Marxiststudiesin the wakeof
the'urbancrises'ofthelate 1960s and 1970s. Of coursefromourperspectivesuch crisesare not
'urban'in cause but reflectwiderglobalprocessesthatare manifestin cities.The currentglobal
crisis followsa period of expansionof state activityespeciallyin the realm of consumption
(O'Connor, 1973) whichhas been concentratedin urbanareas. As the problemsof the worldeconomyinduce stateexpenditurecuts theseare feltlocallyin urbanareas. Hence we are living
in an age of 'urbanproblems'withwesterngovernments
devisingurbanpoliciesalongsidetheir
cuts!
expenditure
Modern urban political geographyhas been concernedwith conflictsin the city over
and administrative
externalities
boundaries(Cox, 1973) and directconsumptionissuesover'who
of
what
where?'
(Burnett,1981). Fromourperspectivethesestudiesall have thelimitation
gets
in
urban
as
and
with
no
areas
isolated
it
time
as
territories
were, space
suspended,
treating
of recentMarxisturbanstudiesis theway
spatialcontextor timehorizon.The majorattraction
withinthecurrentdevelopmentofworld
theyovercomethisproblemand set urbanissues firmly
capitalism.
It is in theworkof David Harveythatwe findthemostexplicittreatment
ofurbanismas an
of
within
the
accumulation
capitalism:
expression
process
of thesocial process... The
Urbanismmaybe regardedas a particularformofpatterning
be
as
a
can
therefore
built
tangible,
city
regarded
environment--anenvironment
whichis a socialproduct.(Harvey,1973, p. 196)
This themehas been developed(Harvey,1977 and 1978) bylinkingitdirectlyto thecirculations
of capital described by Marx in Capital. The purpose of the second circuit of
capital is to syphon off surplus accumulation generated from the primaryproduction
of
cycle. This is achieved throughfixedcapital investmentincludingthe built environment
urbanism.This processcan thenbe linkedto the globalscale of accumulationby showinghow
between
investments
is exploitedby transfer
uneven economicgrowthin the world-economy
between
U.S.A.
in
of
for
the
as
instance
occurred
areas,
pattern buildingcycles
complementary
and Britain in the nineteenthcentury(Harvey, 1978, p. 118). In the twentiethcentury
can be similarlyequated withHarvey'ssecond
and centralarea redevelopment
suburbanization
to accumulationat theworld-scale
circuitof capital. This linksthe cityas a builtenvironment
and so definesthe arena in whichurbanexperienceoccurs. We now need to link the human
framework.
activitiesthatarecarriedout in thisarenato ourmaterialist
the
in
an
class
urban
contextoverissues surrounding
also
considers
(1978)
struggle
Harvey
of labourpowerand showsthatsuch consumptionsas housingand healthservices
reproduction
mustbe consistentwithaccumulationin thelongterm.This themeis mostexplicitlydeveloped
Manuel Castells.In Castells's (1977, 1978) work
urbanMarxisttheorist,
by themostinfluential
we findthe urban scale explicitlylinkedto the state. Modern states are typifiedby massive
provisionof servicesand subsidiesto providethe servicesrequiredby the labourforce.In this
sense the stateis takingover privatecapital'srole of reproducinglabourpower.This process
Castellstermscollectiveconsumption,whichhe thenidentifies
withtheconceptof 'urban'as a
residentialunit:
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialistframework
forpolitical
geography
31
An urbanunitis nota unitin termsofproduction.On theotherhand,it possessesa certain
in termsof residence,in termsof 'everydayness'.It is, in short,the everyday
specificity
of
a
fraction
ofthelabourforce.(Castells,1977,p. 445)
delimited
space
This definitionincludes much of the meaningof our notionof the scale of experience,but it
our consideration
to issues of collectiveconsumption.Productionissues,
restricts
unnecessarily
such as redundancies,produce localized unemploymentpatternswhich are part of urban
experience.We continueto use a widerconceptofurbanhere.
Overt politicalconflictssurroundingurban experiencecan be interpreted
in two contraof
The
the
'local
state'
a
on
rise
as
influence
major
dictoryways.
(Cockburn,1977)
people's lives
can be seen in hindsightto be instrumental
in diverting
theblameforthereductionsin collective
consumptionfromthecentralstateto thelocal arena.In thiswaytheglobalcrisisis regionalized
withinstatesand hencepotentialprotestis fragmented
(Dear, 1981). On theotherhand Castells
intervention
that
this
state
has
(1977) argues
politicizedissues to such an extentthat
increasing
it can lead to newclass conflict,
whichhe termsurbansocial movements,
based uponcommunity
alliancesto combatreductionsin collectiveconsumption
whenthreatened
bytheneeds of capital
accumulation.Whichinterpretation
of urbanconflictsprovescorrectwillvaryby circumstances
(Saunders, 1979). We can equate thisvarietyof urbanresponseswithMiliband'sidentification
of varietyof stateresponsesto the needs of capitalaccumulation.In a similarway we can now
this'autonomy'of theurbanas beingthesubject-matter
ofurbanstudieswithits spatial
identify
in
manifestations
with
dealt
urban
It
politicalgeography. mustbe emphasized,however,
being
thatthisautonomyis relative;thereare severeconstraints
on thevarietyofresponsescompatible
withthe developmentof the world-economy.
The best illustration
of thisbasic pointremains
Ambroseand Colenutt's(1975) studyof'planning'in Brightonand Southwark.
One finalcommentis necessarybeforewe concludediscussionof the politicaleconomyof
scale. The scale of experience discussed above obviously reflectsthe author's personal
experiencesin Britainand NorthAmerica.We know,however,thatThirdWorldurbanizationis
occurringwithin the overall context of a very differentprocess normallytermed underdevelopment.Castells (1977) explicitlydistinguishesbetweendeveloped and underdeveloped
processesof urbanization,and studyof thelatterwillobviouslysuggestdifferent
topicsof study
to those reviewed above. From our political geographyperspectivethese should produce
different
experiencesforstudyat thislocal scale.
BEFORE THE WORLD-ECONOMY
The politicalgeographyframework
we have describedabove is designedto apply to the social
our framework
are
systemwe are currently
livingthrough:capitalism.The conceptsunderlying
verygeneralones, however,and theyare applicableto othersocial organization.The concepts
will staythe same but theirrelationshipwithone anotherwill alter.In thisshortsectionI will
illustratethisfeatureby applyingthe threeconceptsunderlying
our scale organizationto other
modesofproduction.
Wallerstein(1976) identifiesthreebasic modes of production,each of whichgeneratesa
specific'entity'forstudy.We have dealtwiththecapitalistmodeofproductionand theentityof
the world-economy.The othertwo are the reciprocal-lineagemode leading to small minimode leading to world-empires.
All threemodes and
systemsand the redistributive-tributary
theirentitiesare shownin Figure2, wheretheyare relatedto experience,ideologyand reality.In
each case the realityis definedmaterialistically
in termsof the scope of the overalldivisionof
the
is
the
labour,
ideology specifiedby
major systemof thoughtand the scale at which it
operates,whileexperienceremainsthe'everyday'scale ofthemassofthepopulation.
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32
PETERJ.TAYLOR
Mode of
Production
RECIPROCALLINEAGE
REDISTRIBUTIVETRIBUTORY
CAPITALIST
Entity
MINI-SYSTEM
WORLD-EMPIRE
WORLD-ECONOMY
Experience:
Experience:
Experience:
KinshipGroup
Village,Estate
Daily Urban System
Political
Geography
SEPARA TION
SEPARA TION
Ideology:
Ideology:
Ideology:
Animism
State Religion
Statism,Nationalism
SEPARA TION
Framework
Reality:
Reality:
Reality:
Territory
Universal
Empire
World-Economy
andreality
FIGURE2. Experience,
bymodeofproduction
ideology
In mini-systems
we can see thatall threeconceptsoccur at the same scale definedby a
The divisionof labouris based upon age and sex and the egalitarian
territory.
kinship-group's
whichsustainsthesystem.
societyonlyhas animismas a religion,reveringthelocal environment
Godelier (1977) describeshow as mini-systems
develop into world-empires
specialized
religiousroles appear in the divisionof labourculminatingin a highlyinegalitarianstructure
withthehead (e.g. Inca, RomanEmperor)eitherbeinga god orhavinguniquepowerstocontact
and interpret
celestialwishes.This is veryclearlyillustratedby theearlyhistoryof Christianity
whereit became transformed
froman oppositionalideologyto the dominantideologyof the
Roman Empire, as the orthodoxchurchreflectedthe secular imperialhierarchy(Gascoine,
1977). In this situationsocietyis much morecomplicatedand ideologyoccurs at the scale of
reality,the universalempire,which is organizedas a single divisionof labour. Experience
remainslocal, however,at estateorvillagelevelforslavesand peasants,so thatherewe have the
firstseparationofourconceptsbygeographicalscale.
Finallywiththecapitalistmodeofproductiona secondseparationoccursbetweenideology
in theworld-economy
and realityreflecting
nation-states
as previously
discussed.
Hence the three concepts apply in different
modes of productionbut have different
relationsto one anotheras we have suggested.In summary,theseare experience,ideologyand
realitycombinedin mini-systems;ideologyand realityimposed over experiencein worldempires;and ideologyseparatingexperiencefromrealityin theworld-economy.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
One of the mostexplicitfeaturesof recentattemptsto 'reform'politicalgeography(e.g. Cox,
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A materialistframework
forpolitical
geography
33
the
1979; Johnston,1980) has been the wayin whichtheyhave largelydismissedas irrelevant
of
the
field
is
It
is
ironic
that
this
1981, particularly
past heritage
(Johnston,
dismissive).
attempt
to revolutionizepolitical geographyby puttingit on a materialistbase should be more in
withtraditional
sympathy
approachesin termsofthetopicstheycovered.This is partlybecause
the researchesof Cox and Johnstonreflectthe recentrise of state activitiesin theirchoice of
whichenables themto dismisspast studiesas 'old-fashioned'(see also Taylor,
subject-matter
In
fact
this
is a verylimitedperspectiveemanatingout ofan ahistorical
viewoftheworld.
1979).
In contrast,by treatingthedynamicevolvingworld-economy
as oursubject-matter,
manyofthe
issues thatconcernedpast politicalgeographersreappearin our historicalperspective.Basic
are called forto be sure,butHartshorne's(1954) 'stateidea' and raisond'etreof
reinterpretations
states immediatelyspringto mind as relevanttopics, while the studyof frontiers
(between
'universal'world-empires)and boundaries(between'competitive'nation-states)(Jones,1959)
can easilybe fittedintotheframework
themaincontrastcomesat
presentedabove.Interestingly
the globalscale itselfwherethe traditional
politicalgeographyemphasison East-Westconflict
is
more
fundamental
North-Southconflict(Taylor,1981a).
the
(Mackinder,1904) replacedby
In conclusionthispaper has attemptedto achievetwo majorobjectives.One has been to
utilizegeographicalscale as an organizingprinciplein such a wayas to emphasizetherelations
betweenthe scales, while the otherhas soughtto place politicalgeographywithina political
The resulthas
based on the capitalistworld-economy.
materialistically
economyframework,
been thepoliticaleconomyofscale describedabove.
REFERENCES
andother
inALTHUSSER, L. Leninandphilosophy
L. (1971)'Ideology
andideological
stateapparatuses',
essays
(London)
machine
B. (1975) Theproperty
P. andCOLENUTT,
AMBROSE,
(London)
studies
in BURNETT,
A. andTAYLOR, P. J.(eds) Political
inpolitical
from
ARCHER,
geography',
J.C. (1981) 'Publicchoiceparadigms
(Chichester)
spatial
perspectives
andpractice.
andpoverty:
P. andBARATZ,
M. S. (1970)Power
BACHRACH,
(NewYork)
theory
P. (1957)Apolitical
BARAN,
(London)
economy
ofgrowth
Socialism
International
2(1), 16-42
BARKER, C. (1978) 'The stateas capital',
world
inBERGESEN,
A. (ed.)Studies
toglobology',
A. (1980)'Fromutilitarianism
system
(NewYork)
BERGESEN,
ofthemodern
E. F. (1975)Modern
BERGMAN,
(Dubuque,Iowa)
political
geography
in HOLLOWAY,
within
theworldmarket
ofthebourgeois
nation-state
C. VON(1978) 'On theanalysis
context',
J.and
BRAUNMUHL,
a marxist
debate
PICCIOTTo, S. (eds)Stateandcapital:
(London)
NewLeftRev.104,28-92
ofneo-Smithian
a critique
R. (1977)'The origins
ofcapitalist
Marxism',
BRENNER,
development:
SeriesC, 1 (2ndEdn)
LundStudiesinGeography,
W. (1966) Theoretical
BUNGE,
geography.
andresearch
inBritish
cities:a review
andAmerican
oflocaloutputs
andoutcomes
A. (1981) 'The distribution
agenda'in
BURNETT,
studies
P. J.(eds)Political
A. andTAYLOR,
spatial
perspectives
(Chichester)
from
BURNETT,
M. (1977) Theurban
CASTELLS,
question
(London)
classandpower
M. (1978) City,
CASTELLS,
(London)
andinequality
R.J.andKNox,P. L. (1977) Geography
B. E., JOHNSTON,
COATES,
(London)
state
A. (1969) Thenation
andnational
COBBAN,
(London)
self-determination
C. (1977) Thelocalstate(London)
COCKBURN,
ina world
divided
andpolitics
S. B. (1973) Geography
COHEN,
(NewYork)
COLE,J.P. andKING,C. A. M. (1968)Quantitative
(Chichester)
geography
inthecity(NewYork)
andpolitics
Cox, K. R. (1973) Conflict,
power
andpublic
problems
(Chicago)
Cox, K. R. (1979)Location
studies
P. J. (eds) Political
A. and TAYLOR,
of thelocal state'in BURNETT,
fromspatialperspectives
DEAR, M. (1981) 'A theory
(Chichester)
Plann.A 10,173-83
review'
Environ.
G. (1978)'The stateandgeographic
DEAR,M. andCLARK,
process:a critical
DE BLIJ,
H. J.(ed.) (1967)Systematic
geography
(NewYork)
political
Vol. 12(NewYork)pp. 282-98
D. (1968) 'Political
science',inInternational
oftheSocialSciences,
EASTON,
Encyclopaedia
inLatinAmerica
andunderdevelopment
(NewYork)
FRANK,A. G. (1969) Capitalism
GASCOINE, B. (1977) TheChristians
(London)
M. J. (eds) The
an evolutionary
M. (1977) 'Economyand religion:
GODELIER,
opticalillusion',in FRIEDMAN,J. and ROYLANDS,
evolution
ofsocial
systems
(London)
ALTHUSSER,
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34
PETERJ.TAYLOR
E. 0. (1975) 'Recentdevelopments
in Marxisttheories
ofthestate',Mon.Rev.,27(5),
GOLD,D. A., Lo, C. Y. H. andWRIGHT,
29-43and27(6), 36-51
atanalysis',
ofourworld:anattempt
GOTTMAN,
J.(1952)'The political
partitioning
WldPolit.4, 512-19
GOTTMAN,
(Richmond,
Va)
J.(1973) Thesignificance
ofterritory
D. M. (1976)'Capitalist
andsocialist
Mon.Rev.28(3), 19-39
GORDON,
efficiency',
efficiency
on Theory
andPractice
on thequalityoflife',FifthInternational
in
HAGERSTRAND, T. (1975) 'The impactoftransport
Symposium
Economics,
Transport
pp. 1-51
inpolitical
Ann.Ass.Am.Geogr.
R. (1950)'The functional
40,95-130
HARTSHORNE,
geography',
approach
andprospect
inJAMES,P. E. andJONES,C. F. (eds)American
HARTSHORNE, R. (1954)'Political
(New
geography:
inventory
geography',
York)pp. 167-225
HARVEY,D. (1973) Socialjusticeand thecity(London)
D. (1975)'The geography
ofcapitalist
a reconstruction
oftheMarxian
accumulation:
HARVEY,
7(2), 9 and21
Antipode
theory',
inadvancedcapitalist
D. (1977)'Labour,capitalandclassstruggle
aroundthebuiltenvironment
societies',
HARVEY,
Polit.andSoc.
6, 265-95
D. (1978)'The urbanprocessundercapitalism:
a framework
foranalysis'
Int.J. Urban
HARVEY,
Reg.Res.2(1), 101-31
HOLLOWAY,
J. and PICCIOTTO, S. (eds) (1978) Stateand capital:a Marxistdebate(London)
W. A. D. (1964)Politics
andgeographic
Cliffs,
JACKSON,
relationships
(Englewood
N.J.)
F. (1976)Ideology
andsuperstructure
inhistorical
materialism
(London)
JAKUBOWSKI,
S. B. (1954)'A unified
fieldtheory
ofpolitical
Ann.Ass.Am.Geogr.
44, 111-23
JONES,
geography',
inthesetting
S. B. (1959)'Boundary
ofplaceandtime',Ann.Ass.Am.Geogr.
49,241-55
JONES,
concepts
R.J.(1973)Spatialstructures
(London)
JOHNSTON,
R.J.(1979a)Geography
andgeographers
JOHNSTON,
(London)
R.J.(1979b)Political,
andspatial
electoral
(London)
JOHNSTON,
systems
R.J.(1980)'Political
without
4, 439-48
JOHNSTON,
geography
politics',
Prog.hum.Geogr.
P. J. (eds)
R. J. (1981) 'Britishpoliticalgeography
a critical
A. andTAYLOR,
sinceMackinder:
review',in BURNETT,
JOHNSTON,
Politicalstudies
fromspatialperspectives
(Chichester)
R. E. andMINGHI,
KASPERSON,
J.V. (eds) (1969) Thestructure
(Chicago)
ofpoliticalgeography
E. (1975)'The specificity
ofthepolitical:
thePoulantzas-Miliband
debate',Econ.andSoc.4(1), 87-110
LACLAU,
H. J.(1904)'The geographical
MACKINDER,
23,421-44
pivotofhistory',
GeogrlJ.
andpolitics
MILIBAND, R. (1977)Marxism
(London)
MUIR,R. (1975)Modern
(London)
political
geography
NAIRN,T. (1977) Thebreak-up
ofBritain
(London)
NATIONAL
ACADEMYOF SCIENCE- NATIONAL
RESEARCH
COUNCIL (1975) Thescience
(Washington,D.C.)
ofgeography
O'CONNOR,
J.(1973) Thefiscalcrisis
ofthestate(NewYork)
PEET,R. (1977)Radical
(Chicago)
geography
A. K. (1957)'Principles
inregional
Econ.Geogr.
ofarealfunctional
humangeography',
33, 299-366
PHILBRICK,
organisation
N. (1973)Political
andsocialclasses
POULANTZAS,
(London)
power
N.J.G. (1963)Political
POUNDS,
(NewYork)
geography
RESEARCH
WORKING
ofthecapitalist
worldeconomy'
GROUP
andseculartrends
Review
2, 483-500
(1979)'Cyclicalrhythms
D. R. (1981) 'The geography
P. J. (eds) Political
studies
of socialchoice'in BURNETT,A. and TAYLOR,
REYNOLDS,
fromspatial
perspectives
(Chichester)
P. (1979) Urbanpolitics(London)
SAUNDERS,
R. (ed.) (1980) Thestate
in Western
SCASE,
(London)
Europe
M. (1974)'The theory
ofthestateandpolitics:
a central
Econ.andSoc.3, 429-50
SHAW,
paradoxofMarxism',
thegrassisgreener
SMITH,D. M. (1980) Where
(London)
SOJA,E. W. (1971) Thepolitical
D.C.)
organization
ofspace(Washington
L. (eds) (1978)Marxism
andthemetropolis
TABB,W. K. andSAWERS,
(NewYork)
P. J.(1977)'Political
TAYLOR,
1,130-5
geography'
(Progress
Report),
Prog.hum.Geogr.
P. J.(1979)'Political
TAYLOR,
geography'
(Progress
Report),
Prog.hum.Geog.3, 139-42
TAYLOR
P. J. (1981a) 'Politicalgeography
in BURNETT,A. andTAYLOR,
P. J. (eds) Political
andtheworld-economy',
studies
from
spatial
perspectives
(Chichester)
P. J.(1981b)'A noteongeographical
TAYLOR,
scales',forthcoming
in Western
onthehistory
ofEuropeanstate-making',
inTILLEY,C. (ed.) Theformation
TILLEY, C. (1975)'Reflections
ofnation-states
Europe
(Princeton,
N.J.)
worldsystem
WALLERSTEIN, I. (1974a) Themodern
(New York)
Stud.
demiseofthecapitalist
forcomparative
WALLERSTEIN,
I. (1974b)'The riseandfuture
analysis',
world-system:
concepts
Comp.
Hist.Soc.16,387-418
in the capitalistworld-economy'
I. (1975) 'Class formation
Polit.and Soc. 5, 367-75
WALLERSTEIN,
I. (1976) 'A world-system
WALLERSTEIN,
perspectiveon the social sciences' Br.J. Sociol.27, 345-54
WALLERSTEIN, I. (1979) Thecapitalist
world-economy
(London)
WHITTLESEY,D. S. (1939) Theearthand thestate(New York)
This content downloaded from 194.128.227.202 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions