Economic geography,to what ends? From privilege to progressive performances of expertise

Abstract

Recent Exchanges have focused on economic geography’s purported ‘decline’ and its patriarchal and generational privilege, asking ‘who speaks’ for the subdiscipline. This Exchanges piece asks another kind of existential question: what ends does economic geography serve? And how is economic geographical expertise marshalled and performed towards such ends – especially beyond the British context, where much of the debate has focused? Drawing briefly upon collaborative research experiences in Sydney, Australia, I offer thoughts on progressive contributions arising from grounded empirical research within cities subject to profound transformation from speculative real estate, and hypercharged by global finance. Amid unsolicited plans for massive rezoning of industrial spaces and accompanying displacement of manufacturing, repair and cultural industries, credible economic geographical data assisted activists and sympathetic local decisionmakers by bringing to light the significance of existing spaces of work (especially in industrially zoned land) subject to rezoning plans. Contestation over massive real estate proposals continues in Sydney, but empirical research targeted at public debate has nevertheless already shifted the narrative. While academic privilege and expert status warrants intra-disciplinary critique, what also matters is whether, how and where economic geographers deploy expertise productively towards progressive ends. Hence, critically engaged economic geography flourishes in different forms beyond the discipline's imagined ‘core’ places, even via quite ‘dry’ empirical studies that on the surface do not declare radical intents. Economic geographers are key intermediaries circulating knowledges, active agents in making concrete manifestations of the economy known. And that is a crucial point of intervention.

Keywords

Unsolicited urbanism expertise scholar activism industrial space economic geography

Recent Exchanges in this journal have foregrounded correspondence over the recent fate of economic geography, and questions of ‘who speaks’ for the subdiscipline. While James et al. (2018) worry about economic geographers’ drift into business schools in the UK and Martin (2018) critiques the subdiscipline’s ‘emasculation’, a growing chorus of critical scholars has highlighted the field’s lack of diversity and its gendered and privileged border policing, as well as the sense of overshadowed critical pluralism among newer generations of scholars (Cockayne et al., 2018; Pugh, 2018). While I acknowledge that my career has in many ways benefited from existing axes of privilege – I am a middle-aged white male, English-speaking and employed at full professor level in a continuing academic position – I have a strong degree of sympathy and solidarity with the recent critiques. I work in Australia, at great distance from the well-established conference circuit and the UK context that has dominated so much of the debate (Johns, 2018; cf. Wray et al., 2013). I also write from a cultural economy perspective, often considered at the margins of the subdiscipline. (Memories are still vivid of unwanted ‘advice’ from a more senior economic geographer during my PhD candidature in the 1990s that I would be ‘better served concentrating on proper political economy rather than all that cultural stuff.’) Here I seek to further the dialogue by extending another kind of existential question for the subdiscipline: what ends does economic geographical research and writing serve? And how is economic geographical expertise marshalled and performed towards such ends – especially beyond a mythic British ‘core’ of the subdiscipline, where much of the debate has focused?

Drawing briefly upon collaborative research experiences in Sydney, Australia, I offer thoughts on counter-hegemonic contributions arising from grounded economic geographical research conducted within cities subject to profound transformation from speculative real estate, and hypercharged by global finance. While academic tenure affords privilege and expert status (warranting intra-disciplinary critique), what also matters is that economic geographers acknowledge our role as key intermediaries circulating empirical findings and influencing policy knowledges. Exactly how, and where, do we ‘perform’ expertise productively towards various progressive ends? In contrast to the kind of economic geography that merely reinforces the status quo, critically engaged economic geography flourishes in different forms and places. And as our experience below attests, economic geographic knowledge can be brought to bear on progressive struggles, even via quite normative empirical studies – ‘performing’ expertise in service of political campaigns that critique and ‘denaturalize’ unfolding exercises of power (Barnes and Christophers, 2018: 15). The context is one in which expertise itself is both increasingly codified and contested. Government planning, environment, education and infrastructure agencies have since the 1980s retracted internal research capacity. As ‘domains of policy mobilisation’ multiply and become increasingly complex, varied ‘registers of expertise’ link state and corporate actors in the governing of the contemporary space-economy (Bok and Coe, 2017: 51). In consequence, the ‘market’ for expertise has become dominated by a ‘consultocracy’ (McCann, 2001) of outsourced specialists and strategists who provide ‘expert solutions’, negotiate labyrinthine regulations and facilitate communication between investors, developers, politicians and bureaucrats (cf. Peck, 2017). While such registers of expertise compel critique, academic economic geographers are also themselves complicit in knowledge and policy circulations – active agents in making concrete manifestations of the economy known. And for scattered, heterogeneous researchers beyond the subdiscipline’s archetypal centres, this, I contend, proves a crucial point of intervention.

The struggle for Sydney, and for spaces of work

I write from Sydney, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, a boom-and-bust city witness to inward capital and immigration flows, sustained economic growth and rampant real estate speculation and development (Rogers et al., 2017). It now hosts the world’s most active market for securitized home loans (Reuters, 2017) and has as many cranes operating on major development sites as there are in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Toronto combined (Letts, 2016). Novel planning mechanisms skewed in favour of development interests have been pioneered and normalized here, such as Unsolicited Proposals, a regulatory process that encourages the private sector to pre-empt privatization and real estate development opportunities, covertly arrogate land, sign undisclosed deals with landlords and concoct global financing schemes for infrastructure that the public did not know they needed, without government solicitation and behind commercial-in-confidence provisions. In consequence, many colleagues here in Sydney have brought critique to bear on the city’s transformation and its compromised planning system, especially drawing upon economic geographical theories about global finance, intermediaries and circuits of investment and investors (Legacy et al., 2018; Macdonald, 2018; Sisson et al., 2018). Such contributions have been key to disentangling and understanding the networks of actors, markets, policy ideas and capital flows that are reshaping the city. Nevertheless, as Brett Christophers (2015: 194) has argued in relation to the burgeoning literature on financialization, the risk is of ‘fatigue and jaundice setting in’ within the research field as multiple critiques, albeit astute, multiply. Audacious acts of unsolicited real estate speculation sanctioned by government proliferate in this city, with narratives of finance, real estate and urban transformation becoming ‘one sided, even teleological scripts of linear, uninterrupted, ineluctable development’ (Christophers, 2015: 194), against which it seems difficult to mobilize resistance.

In light of recent debates concerning economic geography’s fortunes, here I wish to reflect briefly on a personal experience of conducting grounded empirical research that had the effect of disrupting the city’s script of linear, uninterrupted, ineluctable development. Amid a phase of what might be described as ‘unsolicited urbanism’ (in which developer- and financier-led propositions for profound urban transformation are approved and proceed outside of the boundaries of regular planning process), at stake is what constitutes ‘expertise’ (and its performance), and what roles economic geographers might play in shifting the narrative. In Sydney, a rather more contained, policy-oriented economic geography research project in which I am involved (see www.urbanculturalpolicy.com) has in the past year become irretrievably embroiled in struggles over plans to rezone for financialized high-rise apartments a 20 km swath of suburbs along a transit-oriented corridor. Much of the land in question is currently low-rise residential – a mix of Victorian-era, turn-of-the-century and inter-war brick homes much loved by Sydneysiders. But it also contains significant parcels of industrially zoned land, featuring mostly nondescript factories and warehouses from the 1920s to 1960s, that nevertheless are densely occupied by a mix of enterprises across manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and cultural and creative industries. The research project in question (funded federally prior to the announcement of mass rezoning) sought to document such activities in the precinct and discuss potential progressive opportunities to reinvigorate local manufacturing jobs through interface with other sectors, including cultural and creative industries (see Grodach et al., 2017). We tracked jobs, interviewed workers and toured factories, keen to learn about how industrial precincts house inchoate mixes of old and new enterprises. But as growing conflict arose over planned high-rise residential apartments, our somewhat prosaic empirical study took on another level of significance in public debate.

Matters came to a head when a key industrially zoned precinct at the heart of our empirical research project became subject to a major AUD1.3 billion (US$1 billion) proposal by a Sydney-based developer, Mirvac,¹ to house up to 20 towers of apartments, each potentially up to 35 storeys in height. The Carrington Road precinct lies in Marrickville, 6 km from downtown Sydney, in a corridor along an existing state-owned train line due to be converted to allow private providers to operate new driverless trains,² and along which the NSW government announced in 2016 plans for mass rezoning in order to facilitate ‘value capture’ via transit-oriented redevelopment uplift (cf. Jones and Ley, 2016). The intention was to add 35,000 more housing units, overwhelmingly high-rise apartments. Carrington Road is among the oldest industrially zoned districts in Sydney, hosting manufacturing activity (and more recently, cultural production and creative industries) since the turn of the twentieth century. For decades, there were several such extensive areas of industrially zoned land in the inner city, between downtown, major port facilities and Sydney Airport. Since the 1990s, when Sydney was awarded the hosting of the 2000 Olympic Games, most of that land has been converted to ‘mixed use’ – in effect medium- and high-rise apartment towers with retail activities at ground floor. Within existing local environment plans, the Carrington Road precinct remains industrially zoned, and indeed was identified in earlier state government assessments as a strategic employment land parcel, given its central location, amid dwindling industrially zoned space. Nevertheless, when in 2016 the NSW government plans were announced to mass rezone the Sydenham–Bankstown rail corridor for high-rise redevelopment, Carrington Road was one of a string of precincts along the line targeted for ‘regeneration’. Moreover, as it turned out, one half of the Carrington Road precinct was already subject to an unsolicited redevelopment proposal being devised confidentially over two years prior to the announcement of the Metro rail line (and rezonings). A local landlord, backed by a partnership with Mirvac, had for decades steadily acquired factories along Carrington Road, enabling redevelopment when the NSW government announced developer-friendly rezoning plans.

The first disruption to this agenda occurred when, not long after the NSW government’s Metro rail strategy and accompanying rezoning plans were released for public comment, Mirvac’s bold plans were leaked to the media. Rapid escalation of community opposition followed, to both seemingly ceaseless densification across Sydney, and to Mirvac’s plans in Marrickville specifically. An existing activist group opposed to the Sydney Metro rail line conversion/privatization and accompanying rezonings was augmented by the emergence of suburb-specific activist groups along the corridor. Beyond constrained formal consultation arenas, the campaign galvanized antagonisms ‘against both neoliberalisation of cities and its governance, and the loss of public control of the city and its processes’ (Legacy et al., 2018: 177), during a time of sustained criticisms of high-rise apartments (and their developers) in which ‘overdevelopment’ became Sydney’s key electoral issue. From an initial resident action campaign evolved overt opposition to global finance-backed developers and landlords.

Unbeknown to the developers and landlord, our research team was also already active in the precinct, documenting enterprises and jobs in Carrington Road’s concrete spaces of work as part of our pre-existing and more prosaic, policy-oriented project. The precinct was previously well-known to the researchers, and to inner-Sydney residents, as a distinctive industrial estate accommodating an eclectic mix of manufacturers, repairers, food processors, theatre props and stage set makers, and recording, art and photography studios. A matter of weeks before Mirvac’s massive redevelopment plans were leaked to the media, our team undertook field visits on Carrington Road, documenting present enterprises, observing occupied buildings and workshops and pods within existing larger factory complexes. Compilation and release of an interim report of our findings (Gibson et al., 2017a) then coincided with the leaking to the media of Mirvac’s plans. The report detailed over 200 enterprises and 1,000 jobs in the precinct, as well as previously undocumented functional connections between enterprises across seemingly disparate sectors. With the support of the university’s central media team, a related opinion piece in a popular national news outlet was penned (Gibson et al. 2017b) and subsequently widely shared on social media, leading to further interviews and news coverage by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, major newspapers and commercial television channels. Our team sought to present an alternative voice on debates about the city’s future, informed not so much by local activists’ reactions (though we shared many of their concerns), but as economic geographers discussing matters related to our report and its findings. The explicit aim was to provide expertise within boundaries delimited by the empirical work, marshalling economic geographical knowledges of extant local circumstances to counter seemingly hegemonic narratives about the ‘inevitable’ densification of the city via financialized real estate speculation.

The economic geographical knowledge generated by our report thence proved more useful than initially intended, among activists, and with municipal and state decision-makers. Public walking tours of Carrington Road were organized by local arts and heritage advocates in collaboration with academics from our team, and were broadcast through podcasts (Lyons et al., 2018). Residential activist groups’ tactics evolved from opposition to densification towards fighting for retention of an important industrial district and the local jobs it housed – a politics of space and work as much as an antagonism over planning decisions (cf. Purcell, 2001). Meanwhile, data-hungry planners and politicians – from lower level analysts to senior decision-makers at both municipal and state levels – welcomed the research report and its findings, in the midst of what was otherwise an ‘information desert’. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment – who presided over the Sydney Metro plan and its accompanying rezoning – had, following the seeming withering of their internal research capacity, commissioned consultancy firm AEC to investigate employment impacts of proposed rezonings throughout the corridor, including the Carrington Road precinct. But typical of reports that accompany such proposals, no primary empirical investigation had been undertaken by AEC of actual enterprises, employment or functional interconnections within affected industrial precincts. Instead, ‘gathering of market intelligence’ had merely been carried out ‘at a desktop level’ (AEC Group Ltd, 2016: 3). In effect, until our report’s release, no one in government previously knew what actual enterprises or jobs existed in the precinct under the cloud of rezoning and speculative redevelopment. No one had asked existing enterprises and workers about their space needs, or whether to-be-dislocated firms and workers had other proximate relocation options. By drawing attention to economic activity otherwise hidden in plain sight, our economic geographical research rendered workers and livelihoods visible within concrete industrial spaces that had been inaccurately tarnished as ‘in decay’ and in need of renewal. To recast a phrase from Gertler’s (2003) often-cited paper on proximity and tacit knowledge, economic geographers were able to inject critical insights into circulating policy narratives about the city’s future as a ‘benefit of simply being there’.

In late 2017 and 2018, events further unfolded. Local council planners cited our research report in a decision to reject an initial notification of intent for the precinct from Mirvac, while key players at the state level had new information on the strategic importance of retaining industrially zoned land for future employment growth. A final Metro corridor strategy and accompanying rezoning plan, expected in December 2017, failed to materialize. Then, on 27 July 2018, the NSW government handed back decision-making over rezoning in the Sydenham–Bankstown Metro corridor to the local municipalities (Canterbury–Bankstown and Inner West Councils) presiding over the affected precincts. Local activist groups claimed a ‘colossal win for the community’ (Save Marrickville, 2018). Opposition politicians and local councillors restated their opposition to unsolicited and audacious densification and, citing our report, vowed to preserve local industrial land and jobs. And, most recently, in late October 2018, the Greater Sydney Commission – a body who do not ultimately approve or reject major proposals, but that is charged with setting strategic planning visions for the city – released a major report recommending cessation of real estate speculation on industrially zoned land, and a new strategic approach to the preservation and appreciation of industrial precincts as mundane, but vital, spaces of work in the city (Greater Sydney Commission, 2018). Mirvac issued a statement that they were still keen to press ahead with a revised plan for Carrington Road, but they now face a re-empowered, and much more hostile, local council, and less likelihood of straightforward approvals at the state government level, given the Greater Sydney Commission’s strategic positioning. Inner West Council mayor, Darcy Byrne, went on the public record as saying ‘The Carrington Road proposal from Mirvac was entirely predicated on that site being rezoned under the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy. That strategy will now not be gazetted and has no legal status. The existing Marrickville Environmental Plan which is an industrial zoning is the law. Mirvac’s Carrington Road proposal is dead’ (quoted in Save Marrickville, 2018). The result was hardly a revolutionary overhaul of the power of global capital, but it was a victory nonetheless, both for local actors seeking to resist the omnipresence of finance and property capital in shaping city affairs, and for economic geographers seeking to perform expertise strategically in service of counter-hegemonic narratives.

Economic geography towards transformative ends?

Accompanying recent Exchanges debating economic geography’s fortunes, masculine privilege and ‘who speaks’ for the subdiscipline are ongoing questions of how expertise is marshalled and performed, and to what ends it serves. Whether economic geography emanates from geography departments or business schools is less significant, it seems to me, than the integrity of our underpinning values, and how these are brought to bear on our practice, the ‘products’ of our labour (reports, papers, etc.) and on our performance of expertise (such as in public commentaries). Much contemporary economic geographical research on production networks, innovation, learning regions and clusters, for example, seems persistently opaque about the ends it serves, especially among a more orthodox ‘core’ of well-established, tenured scholars. While there may well be practical translations of economic geographical expertise on such topics for improved economic planning, in the absence of a transparent transformative agenda, their contributions simply reinforce, rather than challenge, the status quo (cf. Barnes and Christophers, 2018). Yet, at risk of Pollyanna-ish optimism, a growing and eclectic corpus of critically engaged economic geographical work is blossoming across knowledge fields, especially among a younger generation adopting a hardened tone fitting for the times (Cockayne et al., 2018; Pugh, 2018). Feminist economic geography, political ecology and labour geography are just some of the boundary-crossing spheres in which a clearer transformative agenda is matched with grounded empirical documentation of extant processes and effects (Carr, 2017; Kay, 2018; Warren, 2018).

In our case, quite orthodox empirical economic geographic research proved useful to activists and sympathetic government decision-makers, generating counter-knowledges where none existed previously. For sure, a degree of luck and good timing was involved, and our experiences may not prove replicable elsewhere. Nevertheless, the experience highlights how credible empirical work coupled with the public performance of expertise is able to shed light on existing qualities of sites threatened by the large-scale plans of capitalist interests. In the face of powerful forces and increasingly technocratic circles of policy expertise, even rather ‘dry’ empirical studies that on the surface do not declare radical intents can provide crucial information helpful to allied planners and activists. Amid the pressing need to reform the subdiscipline’s (neo)colonial structure, norms and gender relations (Pugh, 2018), economic geographers of diverse stripes are getting on with the task of generating critically engaged knowledge and performing expertise strategically to valorize threatened spaces, lives and livelihoods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

For feedback on versions of this paper I thank Rachel Bok, Nicole Cook, Joseph Daniels, David Edgington, David Ley, Craig Lyons, Pauline McGuirk, Nicole Michielin, Larry Murphy, Jamie Peck, Dallas Rogers, Andrew Warren, and the journal's anonymous peer reviewers.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

AEC Group Ltd (2016) Sydenham–Bankstown Corridor employment analysis. NSW Department of Planning and Environment, NSW, Australia.

Barnes

Christophers

(2018) Economic Geography: A Critical Introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bok

Coe

(2017) Geographies of policy knowledge: The state and corporate dimensions of contemporary policy mobilities. Cities 63: 51–57.

Carr

(2017) Maintenance and repair beyond the perimeter of the plant: Linking industrial labour and the home. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42(4): 642–654.

Christophers

(2015) The limits to financialization. Dialogues in Human Geography 5(2): 183–200.

Cockayne

Horton

Kay

et al . (2018) On economic geography’s ‘movers’ to business and management schools: A response from outside ‘the project’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 23 August 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18796506.

Gertler

(2003) Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography 3(1): 75–99.

Gibson

Grodach

Lyons

et al . (2017a) Made in Marrickville: Enterprise and cluster dynamics at the creative industries–manufacturing interface, Carrington Road precinct. Report DP170104255-2017/02, University of Wollongong and Monash University, Australia.

Gibson

Crosby

Grodach

et al. (2017b) Can our cities’ thriving creative precincts be saved from ‘renewal’?. The Conversation, 30 August. Available at: https://theconversation.com/can-our-cities-thriving-creative-precincts-be-saved-from-renewal-83042 (accessed 30 August 2018).

10.

Greater Sydney Commission (2018) A Metropolis that Works. Sydney: Greater Sydney Commission.

11.

Grodach

O’Connor

Gibson

(2017) Manufacturing and cultural production: Towards a progressive policy agenda for the cultural economy. City, Culture and Society 10: 17–25.

12.

James

Bradshaw

Coe

(2018) Sustaining economic geography? Business and management schools and the UK’s economic geography diaspora. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 11 April 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18764120.

13.

Johns

(2018) Creating a vibrant and sustainable economic geography? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 18 October 2018. DOI:10.1177/0308518X18809096.

14.

Jones

Ley

(2016) Transit‐oriented development and gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s low‐income SkyTrain corridor. The Canadian Geographer 60: 9–22.

15.

Kay

(2018) A hostile takeover of nature? Placing value in conservation finance. Antipode 50(1): 164–183.

16.

Legacy

Cook

Rogers

et al . (2018) Planning the post-political city: Exploring public participation in the contemporary Australian city. Geographical Research 56: 176–180.

17.

Letts

(2016) Apartment glut warning: More cranes on Australian east coast than in North America. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 20 October. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/real-estate-warning-more-cranes-in-australia-than-us/7954108 (accessed 5 April 2018).

18.

Lyons

Crosby

Morgan-Harris

(2018) Going on a field trip: Critical geographical walking tours and tactical media as urban praxis in Sydney, Australia. M/C Journal 21(4). Available at: http://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1446 (accessed 1 December 2018).

19.

Macdonald

(2018) Has planning been de-democratised in Sydney? Geographical Research 56: 230–240.

20.

Martin

(2018) Is British economic geography in decline? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 27 May 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18774050.

21.

McCann

(2001) Collaborative visioning or urban planning as therapy? The politics of public–private policy making. The Professional Geographer 53: 207–218.

22.

Peck

(2017) Offshore: Exploring the Worlds of Global Outsourcing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Pugh

(2018) Who speaks for economic geography? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print 5 October 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18804831.

24.

Purcell

(2001) Neighborhood activism among homeowners as a politics of space. The Professional Geographer 53: 178–194.

25.

Reuters (2017) Rush of Australian securitized home loans tempts yield-starved Japanese, 23 May. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-securitisation/rush-of-australian-securitized-home-loans-tempts-yield-starved-japanese-idUSKBN18J0JX (accessed 5 April 2018).

26.

Rogers

Wong

Nelson

(2017) Public perceptions of foreign and Chinese real estate investment: Intercultural relations in Global Sydney. Australian Geographer 48: 437–455.

27.

Save Marrickville (2018) Smells like victory, 29 June. Available at: https://www.savemarrickville.com.au/ (accessed 2 August 2018).

28.

Sisson

Rogers

Gibson

(2018) Property speculation, global capital, urban planning and financialization: Sydney Boom, Sydney Bust redux. Australian Geographer. Epub ahead of print 26 April 2018. DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2018.1464365.

29.

Warren

(2018) Labour geographies of workplace restructuring: An intra-labour analysis. Antipode. Epub ahead of print 27 October 2018. DOI: 10.1111/anti.12432.

30.

Wray

Dufty-Jones

Gibson

et al . (2013) Neither here nor there or always here and there? Antipodean reflections on economic geography. Dialogues in Human Geography 3(2): 179–199.