When I went to college I got interested in Latin America and development studies. One theory I was enamored of was that of "underdevelopment" or dependency theory as proposed by Andre Gunder Frank and others.
Dependency Theory: Frank, along with other dependency theorists, challenged the traditional modernization theory, which viewed underdevelopment as a result of internal factors in developing countries. Instead, they argued that underdevelopment is a consequence of the historical and ongoing exploitation of peripheral countries by core capitalist nations.
Metropolis-Satellite Relationship: Frank posited that the global capitalist system is structured as a network of "metropolitan" (core) and "satellite" (periphery) regions, with the former exploiting the latter through unequal trade, capital flows, and political dominance.
Capitalism as the Cause: Frank argued that capitalism, rather than being a force for development, is the root cause of underdevelopment in the periphery. He believed that capitalism's penetration into peripheral regions led to the extraction of resources and surplus value, hindering their development and reinforcing their dependence on the core.
Historical Roots: Frank emphasized the historical context of underdevelopment, arguing that the current inequalities are rooted in colonialism and the subsequent unequal integration of peripheral countries into the global capitalist system.
Often this was the case for countries with natural resources and extraction/enclave development, where first world companies would extract resources with little focus on regional economic development. Examples would be Shell Oil in Nigeria or Kennecott Copper in Chile,
Years ago, I applied these ideas to the Anacostia neighborhood of DC ("Enclave development won't "save" Anacostia," 2006) and Prince George's County ("Can enclave development "save" Prince George's County?," 2012).
There are many types of enclave development like sports stadiums and arenas, casinos, developments like the Renaissance Center in Detroit ("Detroit needs a transformational projects action plan for the Renaissance Center, the adjoining waterfront and business district, and transit," 2025). And generally in these areas, when there are many better opportunities elsewhere, a great deal of government subsidy tends to be required.
.jfif)
More recently I've thought about this in terms of sub-national relations within the US in terms of petro-states--Texas, Oklahoma, California, Utah, etc. being examples ("Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic | and war," 2022).
Mostly, states with an economy focused on resource extraction tend to have conservative politics, California being a major exception. This goes beyond oil to include coal, minerals like copper and iron ore, etc. These days minerals like lithium, necessary for batteries, are another.
There is an article on Bloomberg, "Why Hasn’t Silicon Valley Fixed the Bay Area’s Problems?," discussing a form of underdevelopment in Oakland, California, wondering why capitalism in the Silicon Valley hasn't resulted in substantive revitalization of that city. From the article:
Palo Alto is the symbolic heart of the modern Bay Area economy, even though Stanford University and the venture capitalists of Sand Hill Road are just outside the city limits, and most of the tech giants founded there have departed in search of more space. Oakland, once the region’s second-biggest city and now the third (after San Jose and San Francisco), is the area’s perennial also-ran, occasionally looking like it has found a path to the center of the action but always getting swatted aside.
Oakland is comparable to Detroit and a predominate population of blacks. As discussed by Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, racism is an issue.
But so is competition from other communities, such as SF or Oakland County, Michigan ("The rise of Oakland County is built upon Detroit's fall," 2014, "Revisiting stories: the death of L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive, Oakland County, Michigan," 2019).
While we can apply "deep theory" to cases like Oakland, and such interrogations are completely reasonable, legitimate, and help inform us, in a way I think it's a lot more simple. From something else I observed in DC--
Basically, developers prefer to work in the areas that are the most economically thriving or with the potential to do so. That minimizes risks, increases predictability, and maximizes economic return.
Only once all those build out opportunities are exhausted do they care to go into areas that require a lot more work to gain extranormal returns.
E.g., in DC, it took almost 30 years from the opening of the Metrorail system and real estate development downtown, before it moved to sites outside of the central business district but served by Metrorail.
There are so many more profitable build out opportunities in the SF Bay metropolitan area right now, that Oakland is likely to languish for a long time.
This is accentuated because we're not always thinking about ways to address laggard microeconomies within otherwise more successful communities ("Pontiac Michigan: a lagging African American city in one of the nation's wealthiest counties," 2022).
In "The real lesson from Flint is about municipal finance"(2016), Minneapolis and the New Jersey Meadowlands region are listed as places where tax resources for development are shared across jurisdictions, to provide for more equity in development and a spreading out of the benefits.
Other "city pairs" with the same kinds of conditions are Seattle-Tacoma, Newark-New York City, and DC-Baltimore.
Very excellent point, and builds off your Walmart observation (that in reality Walmart is pretty building form neutral as long as parking is included).
ReplyDeleteAlso your point about the DC streetcar -- that it pushed higher density into further out areas.
You could also call it path dependance or "money goes to where it is treated well". Very much also suggests for instance that DC money for "downtown residental" is a giant waste.
Well, money goes to where it's treated well can also mean where it's easiest to apply.
ReplyDeleteStill, I have always been struck by your comment about how the New Deal was getting capital to flyover country.
And definitely, lagging cities are about access to capital. I always say that the opposite of disinvestment isn't demolition, but investment.
Still your mentioning of the streetcar makes us recognize that even in lagging areas if you have really good priming actions, like a streetcar or transit infill stations (NoMA) that can make a big difference.
When I used to say the most important priming action the city did for "H Street" was the NoMA station they were derisive, saying I didn't understand geography. I said it made people willing to live north of H Street NE when they weren't before.
Plus the NoMA station also impacted NoMA, Eckington, Union Market, and H Street NE Lots of good value from that investment.
====
There's also the counter capitalism argument. E.g., people like me moved to DC when trends (capital) didn't favor urban living. And then you'd get some businesses and small developers who found it harder to compete in stronger markets, following these in-migrants and investing also. The very early on "Next door neighborhood" types.
I chose to live in H Street because it was close to downtown. and cheaper than DuPont Circle.