Conceptualizing spatial types

Abstract

In this essay, we develop a typology of spaces. We highlight the broader dynamics at play in the structuring of space and its role in marketing and propose that spaces can be characterized as either public, market, emancipating, or segregating. These four types of space are structured along two main dynamics: a contradiction between contestation and consensus and a contrariety opposing participation to privatization. For each type, we map out existing literature and research opportunities in the study of consumption, markets, and space. We also analyze the possible transitions between the spatial types following the transformations in the arrangement of forces in society. We offer a template of how to devise novel research opportunities by providing a detailed account of the dynamics at the center of the transition from public to market spaces.

The Emergence of Concerned Partnerships in the Ethical Marketization of Place: A Narrative Lens

“…As can be assumed from the above, marketization of place often generates tensions: the functioning of markets cannot be separated from the controversies they present (Callon, 2009). The marketization of place often involves resistance and negotiation across different actors, including those directly impacted and citizens opposing marketization (Castilhos & Dolbec, 2018). In other words, contestations emerge when different interests, often contrasted as public and market, meet.…”

“…In other words, contestations emerge when different interests, often contrasted as public and market, meet. Castilhos and Dolbec (2018) use the term 'nexus of marketization' to refer to the alignment and partnering of the state and other market actors when a place increasingly adopts a market logic. While the different logics and interests among the state, civil society, and business sectors often generate tensions and contestations within the marketization of place, partnerships across these sectors are necessary to bring about change (Clarke & Crane, 2018;Selsky & Parker, 2005).…”

“…While prior research has identified the importance of matters of concern and how they shape markets (e.g., D'Antone et al, 2017;Geiger et al, 2014;Stigzelius et al, 2018), we know surprisingly little about how CSPs emerge to address and negotiate matters of concern from place (Bitzer & Glasbergen, 2010;Finch et al, 2017;Gospodini, 2020). Such oversight is problematic given the often negative connotations around marketization of places (Castilhos & Dolbec, 2018;Guthey et al, 2014), such as overcrowding and commodification (MacCannell, 1973;Namberger et al, 2019;Xu et al, 2013). This is also important given the potentially harmful implications hindering the sustainable economic development of places.…”

“…A key characteristic of marketization is that "a multiplicity and diversity of actors compete to participate in defining goods and valuing them" (ibid., p. 8). When marketizing places, the place itself turns into a commodity, acquiring exchange value (Castilhos & Dolbec, 2018). A body of work within human geography has explored something termed as 'the geographies of marketization,' paying attention to the spatial qualities of markets and marketization (see, e.g., Alvarez León et al, 2018;Berndt & Boeckler, 2012;Birch & Siemiatycki, 2016).…”

“…Looking more specifically at the privatization of public beaches, Keul (2015, p. 49) explains that this can happen, e.g., via restrictive public policies or the construction of privately owned spaces. However, it is important to distinguish between commercial and private interests in a place, which differentiate marketization from the privatization of place (Castilhos & Dolbec, 2018).…”