The paper "Uneven Development of Capitalism" is a great example of a literature review on politics. The perception of spatial praxis is resolutely on the intellectual program in human geography, and the making of the social, as well as economic landscape in a certain manner, is at the moment acknowledged as being elemental to the political power articulation (Williams & Round, 2010, p. 54). Even though during the last twenty years economic geographers have developed significant literature that aspires to comprehend how capital endeavors to make the capitalism geography in certain ways to ease accretion as well as the procreation of capitalist communal relations, Smith (2008) posit that there has been minimal work which analyses and endeavors to theorize clearly how people dynamically form uneven development as well as economic landscapes.
The role of labor in creating the capitalist economic geography has been rendered largely imperceptible through the reviews both of conventional typical neoclassical theorists as well as, paradoxically, by scores of Marxists. Both views according to Ashman (2009, p. 32) mainly present economic geographies without the workforce as geographical active representatives.
In their enlightenment of the capitalist space-economy dynamics both Marxist as well as neoclassical approaches with regard to geography have considered the workforce mainly from the standpoint of how capital and, to a smaller extent, the government make decisions of investment founded on disparities between workforce situated in certain places. In this regard, the essay seeks to answer the question: "To what extent would you accord with Neil Smith that uneven development is the hallmark of the geography of capitalism? " Critical Analysis Uneven development can be defined as the development of geographical expression under capitalism, wherein Bü scher and Arsel (2012, p. 131) posit development in a certain location is interrelated with underdevelopment in a different location.
Uneven development could as well be described as a Marxist theory to explain general human history dynamics. According to Prudham and Heynen (2011, p. 224), uneven development must be self-correcting for the reason that areas that are less-developed will have low labor and labor costs and therefore draw investment from areas with high-cost. A helpful summing up of the uneven development process, as an essential capitalism aspect, sources from Marx's Capital, where he posits on the one hand that a key capitalism contradiction is the concurrent materialization of concentrations of capital and wealth, and repression (for employees) and poverty, on the other hand.
Such broad-spectrum law of capitalist accretion, as termed by Prudham and Heynen (2011, p. 225), emphasizes conflict of capital-labor, and offers a means to ground the uneven development theory. Comprehending about uneven development starts back in the 19th century, where unevenness depicted the transition change from the diminishing production method to another increasing progressively. Basically, uneven development can connect to the discrepancy growth of geographical processes, sectors, regions, as well as classes at the national, local, regional, and global levels.
In spite of globalization, the development of business remains to be extremely uneven in the UK, owing to differences in institutional depth, local costs of the transaction, agglomeration, urbanization as well as external economies, and the continuing significance of head to head contacts. Smith writes that capitalism increase promoted an insight of nature as an outside turf, something different from the social order, but a different insight subsists simultaneously of universal nature, containing human beings.
Such twofold insights persist and both serve the capital interests, whereby the nature view as external eases the ascendancy ideology of nature while the nature view as universal promotes a conversation that depoliticizes societal forces. According to Bü scher and Arsel (2012, p. 130), our paradoxical comprehensions of space stop us from acknowledging that the production of capitalist, in reality, generates space, by means of environmental change. The exact geographic incongruity that Neilson and Stubbs (2011, p. 441) has stressed is that amongst the mobility as well as fixity of capital.
So that value can be produced, Das (2012, p. 182) posits that money must be invested in terms of fixed capital: industrial units, housing, railroads, bridges, and so forth. This is undoubtedly a longevity capital whose worth is just earned through the product sale whose manufacturing it enhances over a drawn-out period. Simultaneously, capital develops social infrastructures: a workforce that has got hold of on-the-job competencies, trust relations with customers, politicians as well as and suppliers, reputations with banks in the area, and a regional knowledge of certain industrial practices that is accessible to all and sundry, particularly those located in that certain geographic vicinity.
As capitals endeavor to overcome the challenges they endure, to guarantee their own future productivity, Kenzer (2006, p. 364) posit that more cheap raw-materials, as well as labor in another place, will be intercepted, resulting to an expansion of trading connection, companies going international, distributors beginning importing their goods from more cheap sources in foreign countries instead of using local suppliers.
Ashman, S., 2009. Capitalism, uneven and combined development, and the transhistorical. Cambridge review of international affairs, vol. 22, no. 1, pp.29-46.
Bond, P., 2013. Historical varieties of space, scale, and speculation in South Africa: the uneven and combined geographical development of financialised capitalism. Transformation, vol. 81-82, pp.179-207.
Büscher, B. & Arsel, M., 2012. Neoliberal conservation, uneven geographical development and the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, vol. 103, no. 2, pp.129-35.
Das, R.J., 2012. Reconceptualizing capitalism: forms of subsumption of labor, class struggle, and uneven development. Review of radical political economics, vol. 44, no. 2, pp.178-200.
Harvey, D. & Belina, B., 2007. Spaces of global capitalism: towards a theory of uneven geographical development. Urban Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, pp.889-90.
Heynen, N., Hossler, P. & Herod, A., 2011. Surviving Uneven Development: social reproduction and the persistence of capitalism. New political economy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.239-45.
Kenzer, M.S., 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Symploke, vol. 14, no. 1/2, pp.363-65.
Neilson, D. & Stubbs, T., 2011. Relative surplus population and uneven development in the neoliberal era: theory and empirical application. Capital and Class, vol. 35, no. 3, pp.435-53.
Prudham, S. & Heynen, N., 2011. Introduction: Uneven Development 25 years on space, nature and the geographies of capitalism. New political economy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.223-32.
Redclift, M., 2008. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development - By David Harvey Global Social Change: Historical and Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn and Salvatore J. Babones Global Inequality - Edited by Davi. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp.373-75.
Smith, N., 2008. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Williams, C. & Round, J., 2010. The shallow and uneven diffusion of capitalism into everyday life in post-Soviet Moscow. Debatte, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.53-69.