Search

This article discusses the recent resurgence of interest in capitalism in social sciences and humanities fields. Scholars are reexamining capitalism and its relationship to uneven development and social difference. The article brings together papers from various disciplines, including geography, sociology, anthropology, and global political economy, to explore how these concepts intersect. The papers highlight the importance of understanding capitalism as an overdetermined whole and emphasize the role of spatial and social difference in its development. The authors also emphasize the importance of struggle and concrete social interventions in shaping the geographies and temporalities of uneven development. [Extracted from the article]

This article contributes to the growing literature on the relationship between local governments and financial markets by demystifying the municipal bond rating process. Since the Great Recession, the dynamics of municipal debt have moved to the forefront of American urban politics and the pursuit of high bond ratings has become a key mechanism constraining local policy autonomy. However, we know little about the actual practices of the rating agencies. Drawing on interviews conducted within these organizations, the article examines the criteria, processes and organizational practices that produce ratings. In conversation with calls for bridging the divide between political economy and techno-cultural approaches to markets, the paper shows how bond rating is structured by an ever-present tension between the need to understand localized investment risk in all its place-specific complexity while striving to fit that risk within the standardized grid of the rating scale. Further, the analysis highlights the imperative of budget flexibility through which indebted local governments are pushed into self-disciplining of their finances. As such, the article unpacks a particularly opaque area of local politics and furthers ongoing conversations between financial geography and urban political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the unevenness of the 2007–08 crisis by examining the literature of England's North–South divide. From the 1980s this longstanding divide was exacerbated as a result of promoting London as a global financial hub, so when the crisis hit many expected some regional economic convergence as redundancies spread throughout the financial sector. This has, however, not taken place and previous patterns of uneven development have rather been reinforced. Attempts have been made to explain this deepening of established geographical patterns as the result of different regions’ degrees of economic resilience, but this approach is, however, problematic because it naturalizes crises, downscales responsibility and neglects politics. Inspired by Martin Jones’s concept of the ‘spatial selectivity of the state’, the paper will rather argue that to understand the uneven geography of the economic crisis, one has to look beyond localized resilience to how the state’s austerity policies have displaced the crisis’s impacts away from its origins in a London-centred financial sector. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]