Martin Russell Jones

Theorizing sociospatial relations

This essay seeks to reframe recent debates on sociospatial theory through the introduction of an approach that can grasp the inherently polymorphic, multidimensional character of sociospatial relations. As previous advocates of a scalar turn, we now question the privileging, in any form, of a single dimension of sociospatial processes, scalar or otherwise. We consider several recent sophisticated ‘turns’ within critical social science; explore their methodological limitations; and highlight several important strands of sociospatial theory that seek to transcend the latter. On this basis, we argue for a more systematic recognition of polymorphy—the organization of sociospatial relations in multiple forms—within sociospatial theory. Specifically, we suggest that territories (T), places (P), scales (S), and networks (N) must be viewed as mutually constitutive and relationally intertwined dimensions of sociospatial relations. We present this proposition as an extension of recent contributions to the spatialization of the strategic-relational approach (SRA), and we explore some of its methodological implications. We conclude by briefly illustrating the applicability of the ‘TPSN framework’ to several realms of inquiry into sociospatial processes under contemporary capitalism.

The rise of the regional state in economic governance: 'partnerships for prosperity' or new scales of state power?

In recent debates on the regulation and governance of contemporary capitalism and its territorial form, there is an emerging consensus that successful economic development is contingent on a movement away from the nation-state and policy interventions at the national scale toward subnational institutional frameworks and supports. In effect, both an ‘institutional turn’ and a ‘scalar turn’ appear to be occurring, through which the heterogeneity of economic growth may be explored. The author scrutinises these claims by examining what is becoming known as ‘new regionalist’ orthodoxy in economic development. This orthodoxy is particularly powerful because its concerns for resolving economic and democratic deficit by harnessing the regional scale are supported by academics, politicians, and policymakers alike. Focusing on Englands Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), a radical initiative in regional economic governance, the author argues for a need to rethink the nation-state and the processes through which its intervention is being scaled. RDAs have been given a remit to enhance economic and social development, but rather than their providing decentralised ‘partnerships for prosperity’, a number of contradictions and tensions are revealed. These indicate that Englands own brand of new regionalism is heavily steered by political fiat and central government dictate. To inform new regionalist debates, the author consequently argues that a new (regional) scale of state power is emerging and RDAs are forming part of a political strategy aimed at rescaling, instead of resolving, an economic and democratic deficit. The author concludes by calling for a closer engagement in political – economic geography between state theory, crisis theory, and the scaling of state power and suggests a need to formulate a fourth-cut theory of crisis.

Spatial Selectivity of the State? The Regulationist Enigma and Local Struggles over Economic Governance

In this paper I assess the value of regulation theory for studying transformations in governance at the local level, focusing on the issue of local economic development. Adopting a third-generation approach, regulation theory is recognised as having varied success at theorising local governance. More advanced third-generation approaches offer some useful concepts that require integration through mid-level concepts. This is to be contrasted to approaches which ‘read off’ local transformation from broader macroeconomic change. Both approaches are, however, trapped in the regulationist enigma, defined in the paper as the difficulty of employing regulation theory to theorise local transformations in local governance. In order to solve the enigma, I utilise concepts from Jessops strategic-relational state theory. This approach stresses, amongst other things, the political nature of state intervention. Jessops approach is, however, not sufficiently sensitive to space and I introduce the notion of spatial selectivity to understand adequately the dynamics of local change. Spatial selectivity implies that the state has a tendency to privilege certain places through accumulation strategies, state projects, and hegemonic projects. The process of geographical privileging, which is implied by the notion of spatial selectivity, takes on both material and ideological forms. This tentative concept is explored through a reworking of theoretical approaches to Thatcherism. I conclude by highlighting issues that spatial selectivity needs to address, namely uneven development and structure—strategy—agency dialectics.

Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: Explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state

Goodwin M., Jones M. and Jones R. (2005) Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state, Regional Studies 39 , 421–436. This paper is concerned with the new institutional geographies of devolution and state restructuring, particularly in the UK. As part of perhaps the biggest change to the UK state since the Acts of Union, the Labour Party has established the Scottish Parliament, elected Assemblies for Wales, Northern Ireland, and London, and Regional Development Agencies within Englands regions. The paper offers a conceptual framework through which to explore these new institutional geographies. It extends Jessops strategic‐relational approach to the state by arguing that it is no longer enough simply to refer to a multivariate ‘hollowing out’ of the nation state in an era of economic and political restructuring. The paper suggests that devolution represents a geographically uneven ‘filling‐in’ of the states institutional and scalar matrix, which is leading to an increasingly complex spatial division of the state. This appears to be creating uneven capacities to act and the implications of this are discussed.

Excavating the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the "crisis of crisis-management"

Jones, M. R., Ward, K. (2002). Excavating the Logic of British Urban Policy: Neoliberalism as the “Crisis of Crisis–Management”. Antipode, 34 (3), 473-494.

Renewing the geography of regions.

Recent academic discourses pertaining to a ‘new regionalism’ in economic development and territorial representation, in parallel with the constitutional restructuring of certain nation-states, have done much to revive a widespread debate about regional change. Although cautiously welcoming this, the authors raise a concern that much contemporary reasoning has a tendency to conceal fundamental questions relating to political struggle and the contested social and cultural practices through which societies assume their regional shape. They contend that the geohistorical approach of Anssi Paasi, a distinguished proponent of the ‘new regional geography’, can help to unravel the culturally embedded institutionalisation of regions and thereby advance a meaningful understanding of regional change. Paasis reconstructed geography of regions is then deployed to analyse a series of struggles to construct ‘the North’ as a fully institutionalised territory within the political and cultural landscape of Britain. The paper concludes with some thoughts on how to practice a renewed geography of regions in the hope of sparking a more imaginative regional cultural politics.

Restructuring the local state: economic governance or social regulation?

Jones, M. (1998). Restructuring the local state: economic governance or social regulation? Political Geography, 17 (8), 959-988

Training and Enterprise Councils: Schumpeterian Workfare State, or What?

In the paper we critically examine Jessops regulationist theorisation of state restructuring, focusing on his claim that a transition is underway from the Keynesian welfare state of the Fordist era to a new, post-Fordist Schumpeterian workfare state (SWS). According to Jessop, the strategic orientations of the SWS are for the promotion of innovation and structural competitiveness in economic policy (hence Schumpeter), and for the enhancement of flexibility and competitiveness in social policy (hence workfare). We seek to interrogate Jessops claims by way of a case study of ‘leading edge’ state restructuring in the United Kingdom, the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) initiative. The structure and discourses of TECs strongly echo Jessops rendering of the neoliberal SWS: they are locally based, privatised and business-led bodies, contracted to central government to provide market-relevant training and enterprise services, to operate workfare-style programmes for the unemployed, and to restore through supply-side measures the dynamism and competitiveness of local economies. At the same time, however, as acting as potential exemplars of SWS institutional forms, TECs may also be illuminating incipient contradictions in (one of) its neoliberal variants. The TECs illustrate some of the problems associated with the geographical reconstitution of the state, which Jessop terms ‘hollowing out’, while also raising questions about the sustainability of the neoliberal SWS. Though the TECs may be pioneering new (local) ways of disciplining the unemployed, they are seen to be singularly ineffective in reproducing a flexible labour force. The TEC experience might be summarised as: workfare, yes; Schumpeter, no.

Devolution, State Personnel, and the Production of New Territories of Governance in the United Kingdom

As a result of the creation of a Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, and the devolution of power to various regional bodies in England, there has been a substantial territorial refocusing of governance within the United Kingdom. Much has been written in the social and political sciences concerning this change, especially with regard to the formation of new institutions of governance. Less is known concerning the connections between state personnel and this institutional and territorial transformation. In this paper we seek to remedy this deficiency. Drawing on empirical evidence from the English regions, we suggest that devolution is shaped by, and also shapes, the actions and strategies of a variety of state personnel in the different territories. Developing the idea of the state as a ‘peopled organisation’, we thus emphasise the significance of state personnel in actively producing the United Kingdoms new territories and scales of governance. This allows for an examination of the ways in which state personnel, working within different territorial branches and scales of the state, are able to accommodate, revise, or resist broader political

Filling in’ the State: Economic Governance and the Evolution of Devolution in Wales

We examine the unfolding dynamics of devolution and economic governance in the United Kingdom. We maintain that devolution has set in train a series of far-reaching organisational and institutional changes in the various UK territories. Although devolution in the United Kingdom can be described, following Jessop, as an aspect of the ‘hollowing out’ of the state, we argue conversely that the various UK territories are being ‘filled in’ in a number of important ways. The notion of ‘filling in’, we argue, draws attention to the spatially contingent impact of devolution on the various UK territories. We examine this process of ‘filling in’ specifically in the context of the economic governance of Wales. In particular, we focus on the creation of Education and Learning Wales (ELWa) the body charged with improving the education and skills of the Welsh workforce, as well as with encouraging entrepreneurship within Wales. It highlights the need to consider: in an organisational context, the territorial and scalar structure of ELWa and its role in collaborating with other organisations of economic governance; and in an institutional context, the development of a new working culture within the organisation. Given the close associations between devolution and economic governance, we suggest that the success or otherwise of ELWa in overcoming these challenges has the potential to affect the future trajectories, and public and political evaluations, of devolution in Wales.