Virtual special issue editorial essay: ‘The shitty rent business’: What’s the point of land rent theory?

Abstract

In this introduction to a virtual special issue on land rent, we sketch out the history of land rent theory, encompassing classical political economy, Marx's political economy, the marginalist turn and subsequent foundations for urban economics, and the Marxist consensus around rent theory during geography's spatial turn. We then overview some of the contemporary strands of literature that have developed since the break down of this consensus, namely political economy approaches centred on capital-switching, institutionalism of various stripes, and the rent gap theory. We offer a critical urban political economy perspective and a particular set of arguments run through the review: first, land is not the same as capital but has unique attributes as a factor of production which require a separate theorisation. Second, since the 1970s consensus around land rent and the city dissipated, the critical literature has tended to take the question of why/how the payment exists at all for granted and so has ignored the particular dynamics of rent arising from the idiosyncrasies of land. Amongst the talk of an 'Anthropocene' and 'planetary urbanisation' it is surprising that the economic fulcrum of the capitalist remaking of geography has fallen so completely off the agenda. It is time to bring rent back into the analysis of land, cities and capitalism. Keywords David Harvey, ground rent, land rent, urban economics, urban political economy Incidentally, another thing I have at last been able to sort out is the shitty rent business. I had long harboured misgivings as to the absolute correctness of Ricardo's theory, and have at length got to the bottom of the swindle.

The Internet of Landlords: Digital Platforms and New Mechanisms of Rentier Capitalism

“…Ward and Aalbers (:1780) conclude their overview of rent theory by asserting that we should “take the categories of rent beyond land in the analysis of capitalism increasingly reliant on flows of rentier income”. Indeed, they explicitly recognise that the analysis of digital platforms is among the “challenges” that need to be addressed by contemporary rent theory (Ward and Aalbers :1780).…”

“…Ward and Aalbers (:1780) conclude their overview of rent theory by asserting that we should “take the categories of rent beyond land in the analysis of capitalism increasingly reliant on flows of rentier income”. Indeed, they explicitly recognise that the analysis of digital platforms is among the “challenges” that need to be addressed by contemporary rent theory (Ward and Aalbers :1780). Responding to this call, the rest of the paper details how and why platforms are an especially consequential case of “the penetration of rent extraction mechanisms into new spheres of social reproduction and everyday life” (Purcell et al :10).…”

Alienation in a four factor world

“…Where people work is a crucial factor in their productivity and success (Currid, ; Glaeser, ; Harvey, ; Moretti, ). Critical geographers are giving renewed attention to the fact that ‘land is not the same as capital but has unique attributes as a factor of production which require a separate theorization’ (Ward & Aalbers, ; see also Mei, ), just as urban political economists had previously recognized that capitalists, land owners and developers, and workers often represent distinct interests (Logan and Molotch, ). The greatest driver of inequality in recent decades is not the wealth of industrial capitalists but urban land prices (Rognlie, ).…”

Alienation in a Four Factor World

“…Where people work is a crucial factor in their productivity and success (Currid, 2007;Glaeser, 2011;Harvey, 2009;Moretti, 2012). Critical geographers are giving renewed attention to the fact that 'land is not the same as capital but has unique attributes as a factor of production which require a separate theorization' (Ward and Aalbers, 2016; see also Mei, 2017), just as urban political economists had previously recognized that capitalists, land owners and developers, and workers often represent distinct interests (Logan and Molotch, 1987). The greatest driver of inequality in recent decades is not the wealth of industrial capitalists but urban land prices (Rognlie, 2014).…”