-
Castillo 1
Neil Smiths Uneven Development: the Capitalist Production of
Space1 Gerardo Castillo Guzmn [email protected]
Capital creates a world after its own image. Communist
Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Although the uneven character of capitalist development has
received
considerable attention within Marxist circles Amin, Aglietta,
Furtado, Emmanuel, Mandel and Frank among othersNeil Smiths Uneven
Development is a comprehensive and one of the most systematic
inquires about the geography of capitalism. Part of the
insightfulness of Smiths work is because it is not a mere
exposition of the origins and patterns of the geography of capital.
Uneven Developments final goal is to understand exactly how the
production of space has contributed to the survival of capitalism.
(Smith 1984: 96), and with this aim in mind Smith advances good
part of his hypothesis:
capitalism does not only create uneven spatial patterns as a
side-effect, but the production
of space is essential for its own development.
In one sense, the logic of the book reverses the process of
appropriation from the abstract to the concreteof nature by
capitalism. In consequence, it is organized into three major
sections: the production of nature; the production of space; and
the particular
geography of capitalism or, more accurately, the relationship
between the production of nature and the unevenness of capitalist
development. (Smith 1984: 66) This logical approach, in turn,
settles the basis for the understanding of capitalist spatial
expansion
and the resulting capitalist landscape.
1 Essay review prepared for the Seminar Geography of Capital
directed by Don Mitchell at the Graduate
Program of Geography at The University of Syracuse, December
2003.
-
Castillo 2
The production of nature at global scale and the creation of a
world-system
Smithss exposition begins with a somewhat abstract discussion of
the ideological treatment of nature along history and the
transformation of absolute space the primitive notion of space as a
unity between nature-space-society-- into relative space the
civilized conception of space that separates nature from space--
and social space. Amidst the atomistic and reifying bourgeois
notions, the Marxist concept of production of nature and space
seeks to reestablish the unity between nature, space and society,
though not in its naturalistic forms but as a historical process of
human creation:
It is not just that space and society interact; a specific
historical logic (that of
capital accumulation) guides the historical dialectic of space
and society. (Smith
1984: 77)
Space and nature, therefore, are no longer an accident of matter
but a direct result of material production. (Smith 1984: 78) This
shift, however, rather by the evolution of philosophical and
physical thought has been achieved by the actual process
of capital accumulation. The transformation of the notion, as
well as the matter and
substance-- of space has been driven by materials conditions. It
is in this sense that the
historical development of capitalism:
entails the progressive universalization of value as the form of
abstract labour. This involves not just the production of
geographical space through the
-
Castillo 3
development of transportation networks, but the progressive
integration and
transformation of absolute spaces into relative space. (Smith
1984: 82)
Smith is here pointing to the progressive move from the creation
of a world-scale
mode of circulation a world-market-- to the creation of a
world-scale mode of production. A clear understanding of this
implication is central in Smiths thesis. He, very consequently with
Marxs arguments in Capital, correctly establishes that mercantile
money is not capital: profits from unequal trade do not generate
surplus labor neither
surplus value.2 Rather than the historical forms of articulation
with pre-capitalist modes
of production, Smith is concerned with a theoretical framework
for the understanding of
uneven capitalist expansion. In consequence, Smith argues that
the contradictions leading
to uneven development are not found in the sphere of exchange
but in the premises of
capitalist production: the opposite tendencies of equalization
and differentiation inherent
to capital expansion.
The forces of equalization and univerlization emerge from the
capitalist
dogma of accumulation for accumulations sake, which lead to the
spatial as well as social expansion of the domain of wage labor. In
consequence, the universalization of
wage labor frees not only working class but also capital from
any inherent tie to absolute
space. This process of universalization of relative space,
however, encounters its opposite
and, while:
2 It could be perfectly possible to profit form other forms of
exploitation (slavery or subjugation of peasant
societies) but those are not capitalist relations of
exploitation, which necessary imply the existence of wage labor
and, thus, the separation of labor from the land.
-
Castillo 4
social development leads to an increased emancipation from space
in one direction, spatial fixity also becomes an increasingly vital
underpinning to social
development. (Smith 1984: 84)
Once ended the partition of the globe by colonialism settling
the limits of absolute geographical expansion--, production of
space has been accomplished by the internal differentiation of
global space, that is through the production of differentiated
absolute spaces within the larger context of relative space.
(Smith 1984: 88) The need for creating special kind of absolute
spaces, certain spatial scales of social organization,
has led to the formation of islands of absolute space in a sea
of relative space. (Smith 1984: 87)
The differentiation of geographical space in the last century is
direct result of the
inherent need to immobilize capital in the landscape as built
environment. Thus, the
contradiction between absolute and relative space is
internalized within the space
economy of capitalism itself. It is in this sense that
geographical space has become an
increasingly central concern regarding the survival of
capitalism. Uneven development is
nothing else but the concrete manifestation of the production of
space under capitalism. (Smith 1984: 90)
Uneven Development: universal or capitalist contradiction?
At the basis of the uneven condition of capitalist development
lies the unsolved
contradiction between differentiation and equalization in the
capitalist production of
-
Castillo 5
space. On the one hand, inherent in the global production of
relative space there is a
tendency toward the equalization of the conditions of production
and of the level of
development of the productive forces. On the other, and in
constant opposition, there is a
tendency toward internal differentiation of geographical space
into distinct absolute spaces, at different scales. (Smith 1984:
114) This tendency toward equalization and the resulting
contradiction are the more concrete causes of uneven
development.
Mainly because of the highly abstract and long-term historic
presentation of
Smiths argument, there is the temptation of considering uneven
development as the product of somewhat universal forces that arise
from the early division of labor and
territory between the town and the countryside. However, the
author is clear in emphasize
that the explanatory force that the contradiction between
processes of equalization and
processes of differentiation has for the understanding of
spatial patterns of uneven
development should be framed within the capitalist mode of
production. In consequence,
when analyzing Marxs insight about the historical foundation of
capitalism upon the division between agriculture and industry,
Smith states that this separation must be
understood only under very specific circumstances: when the
proletariat is free from the need and responsibility of producing
their own means of subsistence. (1984: 109-110)
Smith rejection of a universal and, in consequence, a-historical
condition of unevenness does not mean he denies the possibility of
uneven developments among pre-
capitalists societies but simply that capitalism creates a very
special kind of it. He notes
that is not concerned with unevenness in general but with the
specifically capitalist
processes and patterns of spatial development. Although
seemingly obvious, this remark
is of major importance and serves to separate him from other
Marxist authors as Ernest
-
Castillo 6
Mandel. In fact, Smith accuses Mandel for inscribing uneven
development into a
universal law of human history3 and insists that it must be
comprehended within specific forms of capitalist production of
space. Thus, he declares that it is not the
capitalist world system that:
is a function of the universal validity of the law of unequal
and combined development; rather, it is uneven development that is
a function of the
contemporary universality of capitalism. (1984: 98)
Division of labor, territory and capital
As mentioned above, Neil Smith roots the equalization and
differentiation of capital --the
fundamental motions of uneven development in the widespread
emergence of the division of labor:
The division of labor in society is the historical basis for the
spatial differentiation
of levels and conditions of development. The spatial or
territorial division of
labour is not a separate process but is implied from the start
in the concept of
division of labour. (Smith 1984: 99)
A spatial division is already installed the sexual division of
labor, the earliest form
of division of labor. In addition, this division of labor is
historically based upon
differentiation of natural conditions:
3 Accordingly to Smith, this approach would be, indeed, a
hallmark of the bourgeois ideology and its
tendency to universalize specific social forms under the
capitalist mode of production into permanent, natural
relations.
-
Castillo 7
Given different natural conditions, the same expenditure of
labour will result in
different quantities of a given commodity, and this implies the
possibility (but
only the possibility) of surplus product in one place though not
in other. (Smith
1984: 99)
It is in this line that qualitative differences in nature will
be translated into
qualitative and quantitative differences in societal
organization: the societal division of labor expresses itself
spatiality. (Smith 1984: 100)4 Consequently, spatial divisions
could have emerged from natural differences but, with posterior
economic development,
they are the result of social dynamics. In fact, economic
development becomes more and
more untied to natural conditions in terms of distance and
access to raw materials-- because of huge improvements in
transportation and communication means as well as the
increase of productive forces. This enlargement of productive
forces means that raw
materials are themselves a product of ever increasing previous
labor processes and,
therefore, there is separation between places of natural
resources extraction and places of
transformation and industrial production. Although increasingly
a result of social and
economic processes, these spatial differences are, however,
ideologically naturalized.
From a reading of Capital, Smith re-examines the relationship
between the
division of labor in its general, particular and specific
aspects and the division of capital
into the first department in charge of the production of means
of productionand the second department concerned with production of
means of subsistence. In a slight modification, Smith proposes a
tripartite division of capital which parallels that one of
4 The idea that spatial divisions derive from more general
social differentiation was elaborated by Marx in
terms of labor divisions, but also by Durkheim in terms of
social solidarity and cohesion.
-
Castillo 8
division of labor: departments, sectors, and individual units of
property employed as
capital. Folded together, capital and labor divisions operate at
four scales where the
process of differentiation takes place: i) the general societal
division of labor and capital
into different departments; ii) the division of labor and
capital in different particular
sectors; iii) the division of social capital in different
individual capitals; and iv) the
detailed division of labor within the workplace.
Let us briefly examine the geographical implications of these
divisions. First; the
detailed division of labor within the workplace is crucial in
explaining phenomena as
improvements of labor productivity. However, Smith considers
that except for the
understanding of the highly structured spatial organization in
the factory, for instance,
this division contributes very little to the social
differentiation leading to uneven
development.
Second; for some Marxists, the general societal division of
labor and capital into
different departments has been largely responsible of
world-economy differentiation
between centers of production and peripheries of consumption.
This rough
differentiation, however, makes little sense since peripheries
also are regions of
production (the industrialization of the Third World) and cores
are, more than ever, the
large centers of consumption.
Third; the geographical correlation of the division of social
capital among
different individual capitals is the process of concentration
and centralization in some
places at expense of other places.
-
Castillo 9
Fourth, and of major spatial importance, is the division of
labor and capital in
different particular sectors. For Smith, the division of the
economy into specific sectors
led to the differentiation of geographical space following the
cycles of the rate of profit.
Because of the process of equalization, sectors attracting
capitals in their search for
higher rates of profit tend to be young in the economy and,
thus, it will coincide with the
need of geographical expansion or relocation in order to supply
the space for the
burgeoning productive activities. The contrary would be equally
possible and places
where economic sectors loose large quantities of capital because
of their low rate of
profits, will suffer the drastic devaluation of their build
environment.
This issue has been introduced and studied by Harvey in The
Limits of Capital
when dealing with the geographical aspects of the third-cut of
his theory of crisis. (1999:422-421) In Harvey, nevertheless, there
is a subtler and more complex treatment of
regional configurations. In fact, because capitalists have
interest in different kind of
capitals they tend to develop factional struggles. Thus, land
owners, developers and
builders, or the local government could build intra-class and,
at some extent, inter-class
alliances with workers in order to protect grounded capital from
devaluation and external
competition. As a result, urban or regional underdevelopment is
not only strongly
opposed but could more or less retarded and displaced.5 These
political and class
considerations, of course, do not invalidate Smiths argument
but, however, show some of its limits and weakness. As we will
observe below, this lack of connection with the
political realm restricts, for instance, the understanding of
capital behavior at the nation-
state scale.
5 Probably at the price of exacerbating the contradictions of
the falling rate of profit and, thus, provoking a
deeper and more violent crisis.
-
Castillo 10
The see-saw theory of uneven development and its functioning at
different scales
In strict, what is behind the spatial pattern of uneven
development is the oscillating logic
driving capital or, in Smiths terms, the see-saw movement of
capital. The see-saw theory of uneven development is making
explicit the geographical implications of the
connection between the logic of capital in its search for the
highest rates of profit and the
cyclical periods of capital expansion and crisis of
over-accumulation proposed by Marx.
Productive capital, and with it the build environment, expands
and contracts cyclically
and spatially creating in this movement the development and the
underdevelopment of
absolute places:
The mobility of capital brings about the development of areas
with a high rate of
profit and the underdevelopment of those areas where a low rate
of profit pertains.
But the process of development itself leads to the diminution of
this higher rate of
profit. (Smith 1984:148-9)
This see-saw theory, therefore, provides a powerful framework
with which to understand the creation of uneven landscapes in
capitalism rather than a historical
account of specific uneven formations (de-industrialization
northeast in the U.S. or the
emergence of the New Industrialized Countries, for instance).
Smith is more concerned
with, on the one hand, the production of geographical space at
world scale as relative
space and, on the other hand, the creation of internal
differentiations of geographical
space into distinct absolute spaces, at different scales. (1984:
114) In consequence, his see-saw theory does not only illuminate
the movement of capital in general but also
-
Castillo 11
seeks to understand how it works at different scales. Smith
proposes threes spatial scales6
where to appreciate the effects of capital expansion and
contraction: the urban, the global
and the nation-state.7 As in the case of the division of capital
and labor at different scales,
let us highlight some notes about the scalar functioning of the
see-saw theory.
Academic research has devoted large attention to the city and,
indeed, urban
development is considered the locus where the centralization of
capital finds its most
accomplished geographical expression. As Smith correctly notes,
the city is not only the
space of production of commodities but also of consumption and
reproduction of labor:
The expansion of urban space [...] is not just a matter of
increased centralization
of the productive forces or the expansion of the scale at which
the daily system of
concrete labour takes place. It should be constructed, rather,
as the expansion of
the daily geographical sphere of abstract labour. (1984:
137)
Urban development, therefore, results from the centralization of
productive
capital8 and it is managed through the ground-rent system. The
ground-rent system
homogenizes and levels urban space to the dimension of
exchange-values but, at the same
time, it leads to a process of differentiation and irrational
speculation. In this sense, it is
the scale of the urban space where the process of capital
development and
6 Smith does not regard these scales as something fixed and
given for granted. They are, rather, fluid
categories operating within dynamic processes. However, it is
true that there is a major agreement in their use, mainly because
they are expression of political and economic configurations
historically developed within the limits of those levels. 7 There
is also an intermediate and somewhat ambiguous regional scale that,
in turn, could be divided into
intra-national regions (i.e. the Sunbelt in the U.S.) and
supra-national ones (i.e. the European Community). 8 In contrast
with productive capital, the centralization of financial capital
mainly managed by banks and
circulating through electronic ordershas very little direct
consequences in terms of spatial development.
-
Castillo 12
underdevelopment has left its major imprint. Nonetheless,
capital development could
behave rather different in the case of the remaining scales.
It is true that the internal differentiation of national
territories into identifiable
regions is the geographical expression of capital and labor
concentration. The nation-state
scale, however, possesses a key particularity. The sphere of the
nation-state is a highly
regulated area that imposes serious barriers to the free
movement of capital and labor. To
be sure, its borders are becoming increasingly porous to labor
and capital mobility but,
nonetheless, they still proof to be powerful leverages in the
state attempts to avoid critical
devaluations and protect national capital. Indeed, Smith argues
that the condition of immobility of large amounts of the productive
capital fixed capital in Harveys terms makes that it cannot be sent
abroad and, thus, cannot circulate as commodity in the
world-market. This capital, in consequence, is treated as
national capital which must be protected against other capitalist
states.9 This implies:
the provision of various infrastructural supports and trade
laws, the regulation of the reproduction of labour power, and
support for the local money, all of which
are necessary at the level of the collective capitalist rather
than the individual.
(Smith 1984: 142)
In addition, there seems to be in place a functional
relationship between capitalist
growth and nation-state development. In fact, Smith considers
that the fulfillment of the
role of political controller over the working class is the
reason explaining the deep
9 In the spirit of Bukharins claim that the internationalization
of capital meant simultaneously its
nationalization, Smith asserts that the: division of the world
economy at the scale of national capital is the necessary
foundation upon which capital can launch its aspirations to
universality. (1984: 144)
-
Castillo 13
stability of the nation-state configuration. In our opinion, the
implications of this
reasoning are central: the economic logic of capitalist needs of
stable political in terms of power correlationsarrangements for its
reproduction and these arrangements are specific place-located. In
a very consistent reading of Marx,10 Smith considers that the
state is essential in disciplining the working class as well as
the erratic and destructive
behavior of individual capitalists. What is surprising, however,
is his little attention paid
to the also crucial role of the state in the building of fixed
capital. The state is not only
direct responsible of the construction of large-scale projects
--such as railroads, harbors
or highwaysotherwise difficult to assume by individual
capitalists, but without the states coordinating role particularly
through central banks-- it would very difficult to imagine the
functioning of a complex banking and financial system, which in
turn make
possible the investment of enormous amounts of capital in the
built environment. (Harvey
1999: chapter 9)
Up to this point is evident the necessity of a political system
for the development
of capitalism. However, it is not so clear why this system has
to be placed at the scale of
the nation-state.11 Smith provides some clues when maintains
that the geographical extent
of the nation-state:
is constrained on the low end by the need to control a
sufficiently large market (for labour and commodities) to fuel
accumulation. At the high end of the scale, a
10 In fact, in Capital, Marx recognizes that capitalism is an
economic as well a political project and,
therefore, the state must fulfill certain key functions
necessary for capital development; namely, the preservation of
market equality and exchange freedom, the protection of property
rights, the enforcement of contracts, the minimization of the
destructive aspects derived from competition, the mediation of
among faction interests in order to preserve the capitalist class
as a whole and, of course, the possibility of use of violence in
case of threatening labor-class contestations, 11
Not in historical but in structural terms.
-
Castillo 14
nation-state that is too large finds it difficult to maintain
political control over its
territory. (1984: 143)
At the face of recent history we should examine, for instance,
the economic
foundations of, on the one hand, processes of territorial
disintegration12 or nationalist
separation,13 and, on the other, of supra-national formations.14
We are simply suggesting
that, despite of nation-state historical role in the development
of the capitalist system,
there is a never-solved tension between the mobility of capital
and the territorial
constituency of a political community. If the nation-state
becomes dysfunctional for the
cyclical but progressive movement of capital, it would be
possible to imagine more
suitable political platforms and, with this, we enter to the
consideration of the global
scale.
Effectively, the global has been regarded both the most
desirable scale for capital
development as well as its geographical limit. Capitalism
inherited the global scale in the
form of a world-market built since early sixteenth century; but
it needs to transform the
world into a place of production. The capital expansion at the
global scale would be,
therefore, a movement toward equalization and univerzalition of
the wage-labor
relationship. Paralleling Marxs idea of a historical transition
from the formal to the real subordination of labor to capital,
Smith states that the territorial expansion of capital at
global scale would be moving from the formal integration via
exchange to the real
integration via production of commodities. Through a successive
process of cyclical
12 As it would be the case of ex-Soviet and ex-Yugoslavian
republics.
13 This would be situation of the recently proclaimed state of
East Timor or the current struggles maintained
by the Frente Polisario in Western Sahara and the Bask movement
in Spain. 14
Most notably, the European Community.
-
Castillo 15
crises, capitalist development would have transferred its inner
contradiction of
accumulation for accumulations sake to its final ground.15 In
addition, the never-ending seek of capital for places and sectors
with higher surplus value would be the fuel
for the continuing creation of developed and underdeveloped
places. In this line, Smith quoting Marx and Engelss Communist
Manifestodeclares that there is nowhere clearer the fact that
capital creates a world after its own image than in the
geographical contradiction between development and underdevelopment
where the over-accumulation
of capital at one pole is matched by the over-accumulation of
labour at the other. (1984:
149) Capital, continues Smith, strives:
to move from developed to underdeveloped space, then back to
developed space which, because of its interim deprivation of
capital, is now underdeveloped,
and so on. (Smith 1984: 150)
Historical evidence, however, does not portraits a real
integration of the globe as a
production place. Indeed, the capitalist world shows a highly
stable feature, with
endurable absolute places of production and consumption. At
best, like Marx himself
recognizes, the inner economic contradiction of capital --the
fall of the rate of profit that mobilize capital around the globe,
is a tendency. In real life, political decisions are
more that epiphenomenal issues derived from class alliances
dictated by capital. State
forces, after all, are both controlled and controlling in its
relation to the circulation of capital. (Harvey 1999: 324)16
15 This is exactly what Lenin envisioned when labeling
imperialism as the highest state of capitalism.
16 Smith recognized the limits of the see-saw movement of
capital, at least a national-state level, but
confines the question to an empirical matter. (1984: 151) In
summary, the see-saw theory works well for understanding urban
development, presents mixed results for regional scale, and
explains less at global scale. Smith argues that this is because
the mobility of capital, and very especially of labor, is
restricted by
-
Castillo 16
As a way of conclusion
Shaped by the finest Marxist tradition, Smith considers his work
inscribed not
merely in a philosophical debate but in a political economy that
can inform activism and
lead to changes. Because of the irrational character of
capitalist development and its inner
and unsolvable contradictions we would facing the hopeful
disjunctive of falling into
barbarism or advancing to socialism. There would be an
opportunity for the solution of
growing inner contradictions of the capitalist system.17 Thus,
against the fragmentation
imposed by capital, Smiths pleas for a global political alliance
of the working class
(1984: 153) After all, uneven development is nothing else that
social inequality inscribed
into the landscape and, simultaneously, the exploitation of that
geographical unevenness for certain socially determined ends.
(Smith 1984: 154) However, the remaining question is how to change
an economic and naturalizedlogic determined by social relations.
More than ever, it turns urgent to reconnect social needs with
economic
possibilities. To put this in Smith words:
It is not that our goal is some rigidly conceived even
development. This would make little sense. Rather, the goal is to
create socially determined patterns of
differentiation and equalization which are driven not by the
logic of capital but by
genuine social choice. (1984: 159)
nation-state boundaries. In other words, the greater the scale
of absolute space capital pushes for continuing accumulation, the
greater the political resistance it will find. 17
As Bond (1999) points out, unevenness derives from the
transition from one declining mode of production to another rising,
more progressive mode.
-
Castillo 17
References
Bond, Patrick. What is uneven development? P. OHara ed. (1999)
The Encyclopedia of Political Economy. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1999) The Limits to Capital. London: Verso.
Marx, K. (1992) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol.
I. New York:
International Publishers.
Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the
Production of Space.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
