Social reproduction, precarity, and the ‘new asset geographies’

Abstract

This commentary briefly develops Birch and Ward's argument that research on the ‘new asset geographies’ can make important contributions to understanding new and evolving geographies of social reproduction. I argue that processes and mechanisms of assetization connect not only to the making of markets but also of investor subjects, and are empirically and conceptually connected to multi-dimensional precarity in and beyond paid work. The latter signals the potential for more dialogue between researchers working to understand geographies of precarity and the new asset geographies.

Struggling over new asset geographies

“…Purcell's commentary encapsulates a concern running throughout the four responses that our magnification of the role of economic rents and enclosure in new asset geographies risks overlooking the enduring importance of competition, commodity and value chains, and labor markets. Strauss (2024) and Ouma's (2024) commentaries centre on this concern, but do not locate the problem in a fundamental ontological or definitional difference. Rather, they broadly accept the problematic of assetization while seeking to address this concern by extending the scope of analysis beyond the limitations of our initial account.…”

“…Our argument was that ‘assetization’ – the process of transforming different things into the asset form – is a common problematic requiring conceptual borrowing and sharpening of theoretical boundaries across theoretical approaches. To this end, we are grateful for the four incisive, constructive responses pushing us for such sharpening from the perspective of critical accounting (Chiapello, 2024), international political economy (Purcell, 2024), and economic geography (Strauss, 2024; Ouma, 2024). Here we briefly respond to their comments and implications for an agenda around assetization.…”