In defence of class analysis: a comment on R.E. Pahl.

The article comments on R.E. Pahl's paper on the adequacy of theory in urban and regional research. The paper displays all the characteristics usually associated with that particular mode of argumentation. Sweeping charges are leveled against targets who are never clearly identified. All of the substantive propositions are asserted rather than demonstrated. Many of his detailed allegations are actually open to empirical test although most of the evidence known contradicts Pahl's conclusions. His account of class analysis is alternately misleading and fanciful. And finally, the paper is impenetrably vague about what, if anything, provides a more satisfactory alternative.