GEOGRAPHY OF NEOLIBERALISM AND SPATIAL FIX
Abstract : This paper emphasizes the consequences of economic
inequality, the roots of which lie at the heart of capitalism. It was
explained by Marx (1867), and a modern interpretation was offered by
Harvey (1982, 1985, 1987, 2013b) through the term spatial fix, which
connects the development of capitalism and urbanization. In this global
process, inequalities arise that can be illustrated numerically: the net
worth of the world’s 358 wealthiest people in 1996 was equal to the
total income of the poorest, which makes up 45% of the world’s
population or 2.3 billion people. This fact of economic inequality, most
convincingly written about by Piketty (2016) and Chancel (2020), became
even more critical during the Covid-19 pandemic. The gap between the
richest and the poorest widened. The period in which several significant
changes in global economic policy took place was called neoliberalism
(Harvey, 1989, 2013a; Dušanić, 2016) and led to the establishment of a
new economic system that significantly determined the further directions
of geography. Understanding these processes implies an interactive
approach to their study because the capital/labor relationship defines
the global framework for developing urbanization and demography, and
thus geography (Mutabdžija, 2020, 2021).
Keywords: neoliberalism, spatial fix, spatial and temporal
displacement.
JEL classification: N 14
1. INTRODUCTION
About other social sciences, space was later discussed from an economic
point of view. Therefore, several reasons can be related to the founder
of the regional economy, Walter Isard. First, he pointed out the
decisive influence of the neoclassical school, which started the
temporal analysis of economic development as crucial while neglecting
the space variable consequently for simplification. Isard confirmed this
in the views of Alfred Marshall (1920: 286), who considered that the
difficulties of a problem mainly depend on variations in space and
time in which the market in question extends; the influence of time is
more fundamental than space.” The second reason was explained by R.
Capello (2016: 2) through the relationship of this variable (space) in
economic analysis, which can ”complicate the logical framework.” She
sees the reasons for that in analytical tools, which until recently
could not simultaneously deal with temporal and spatial dynamics ”nor
could they cope with the appearance of nonlinearities of space, such as
agglomerations or the economy of proximity.” This led to the
introduction of this variable (space), which required ”the rejection of
the simplifying hypotheses of constant yields and perfect competition.”
According to economic logic, the market is spatially divided among
producers, and some companies do not compete with all companies but only
with the closest ones. It follows that spatial distance is an obstacle
to market entry, and it, therefore, emphasizes that the regional economy
is trying to answer the following fundamental questions:
• What economic logic explains the location of companies and households
in the area?
• What economic logic explains the configuration of large territorial
systems (e.g., urban systems)?
• Why are certain areas - regions, cities, individual territories - more
developed than others?
Capello states that the answers to these questions are given by two
large groups of theories, which make up the regional economy:
• Location theory, as the oldest branch of the regional economy, deals
with economic mechanisms that distribute activities in space.
• Theory of regional growth (and development) focuses on the spatial
aspects of economic growth and territorial income distribution.
The answers to these questions, which define the theoretical assumptions
of economic geography and regional economy, imply a previous
clarification of the geographical meaning of the term space, then a
”spatial turn” in the social sciences, and only then, as the most
complex, economic aspect of the term space.
2. GEOGRAPHICAL SPACE
The epistemological basis of geography is broken through the notion of
space because geographical knowledge has always been based on
understanding space and its cartographic representation. The expansion
of this knowledge depended on the applicability of various innovations,
which led to new concepts of space. During the historical development of
geography, the notion of space has been modified by specific links
between ”power, knowledge, and geography.” According to Gregory et al.
(2015: 2), XIX c. was an age dominated by ”time” while the XX century.
Marked ”space,” during which ”modern” became ”postmodern.” This is
marked as a ”spatial turn” in a wide range of humanities and social
sciences, with the ”conceptualization of space” being a watershed
between geographical directions.
The contribution to the scientific foundation of modern geography was
marked by the concept of space, which developed along the historical
vertical: Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Kant. From the point of view
of geographers, Humboldt and Hettner expanded the theoretical conception
of the term ”absolute space” and thus modern geography, and the final
form was given to it by Hartshorne (1939) by introducing the term
”spatial differentiation.” The concept of space and its philosophical
interpretation will become the basis for developing different
geographical views of reality in the second half of the twentieth
century when there were two more changes in the concept of space, which
also represented divisions within geography. Schaefer (1959) began a
quantitative revolution in geography (the idea of relative space) as the
theoretical basis for the new geography. A more complex geometry was
needed to clarify the new concept of space, which introduced the process
of abstraction into the spatial analysis (basic methodological
procedure) as a precondition for the transition from ”physical” to
”mathematical” space. During this phase in the development of scientific
geography, the antagonistic relationship between the concepts of space
and regional tradition will appear when space is artificially separated
from the natural environment. Peet (1998: 32-33) emphasizes that a kind
of crisis of the identity of geography arose from this and because of
its complexity (natural and social science).
Table 1: Conceptualization of space and development of scientific
geography