Ball has recently attempted to reformulate the role of land rent in urban contexts. His reformulation is criticized for containing inconsistent reasoning and a faulty conception of land rent. More specifically, the critique focuses on: (1) his argument against the use of land-rent theories—originally developed for agricultural contexts—in urban settings; (2) his limitation of the rent concept to actual payments to separate landowners; and (3) his use of the term ‘building rent’ in arguing that land rent plays an insignificant role in urban contexts. Major weaknesses are identified in these three substantial parts of Ball's reformulation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallM, 1977, “Differential rent and the role of landed property”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research1380–403
2.
BallM, 1981, “The development of capitalism in housing provision”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research5145–177
3.
BallM, 1983Housing Policy and Economic Power: The Political Economy of Owner Occupation (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
4.
BallM, 1985a, “Land rent and the construction industry”, in Land Rent, Housing and Urban Planning: A European Perspective Eds BallMBentivegnaVEdwardsMFolinM (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent) pp 71–86
5.
BallM, 1985b, “The urban rent question”Environment and Planning A17503–525
6.
BallM, 1986, “The built environment and the urban question”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4447–464
7.
ChamberlinE, 1935Harvard Economic Studies, 38. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
8.
MarxK, 1969Theories of Surplus Value, Part 2 (Lawrence and Wishart, London)
