In the quest to explain changing urban political economic conditions over the past thirty years urban researchers have naturalized capital mobility, to the point where challenging the mobility of capital appears either impossible, undesirable, or both. In this paper I aim to denaturalize capital mobility and to repoliticize the relationship between capital and place through a critical legal geographic investigation of corporate mobility rights in the United States. The overall goal is to help urban researchers to think critically about the politics of capital mobility and to ensure that the legal principles enabling capital mobility remain open to challenge from alternative political perspectives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Law Review1874, “Editorial: The Dartmouth College case”American Law Review8189–239
2.
BakanJ, 2004The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Free Press, New York)
3.
BlomleyN, 1992, “The business of mobility: Geography, liberalism, and the charter of rights”The Canadian Geographer36236–253
4.
BlomleyN, 1994Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power (Guilford Press, New York)
BluestoneBHarrisonB, 1982The Deindustrialization of America (Basic Books, New York)
7.
BrennerNTheodoreN, 2002, “The urbanization of neoliberalism: Theoretical debates, cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’”Antipode34349–379
8.
ButlerH, 1985, “Nineteenth century jurisdictional competition in the granting of corporate privileges”The Journal of Legal Studies14129–166
9.
ClarkG L, 1981, “Law, the state, and the spatial integration of the United States”Environment and Planning A131197–1232
10.
ClarkG, 1985, Judges and the Cities (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
11.
DeFilippisJ, 2004Unmaking Goliath (Routledge, New York)
12.
DeweyJ, 1926, “The historic background of corporate legal personality”Yale Law Journal35655–673
13.
Dodge v Ford Motor Co.1919, 170 N.W. 668 (Michigan 1919)
14.
First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti1978, 435 US 765
15.
FreundE, 1897The Legal Nature of Corporations (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
16.
FrugG, 1980, “The city as a legal concept”Harvard Law Review931057–1154
GierkeO, 1900Political Theories of the Middle Age edited and translated by MaitlandF W (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
19.
HackworthJMoriahA, 2006, “Neoliberalism, contingency and urban policy: The case of social housing in Ontario”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30510–527
20.
HandlinOHandlinM, 1945, “Origins of the American business corporation”Journal of Economic History51–23
21.
HarveyD, 1999The Limits to Capital (Verso, London)
22.
HarveyD, 2005A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
23.
HendersonG, 1918The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
24.
HoffmanLDehartMCollerS, 2006, “Notes on the anthropology of neoliberalism”Anthropology News September 9–10
25.
HorwitzM J, 1985, “Santa Clara revisited: The development of corporate theory”West Virginia Law Review88173–225
26.
HurstJ W, 1970The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA)
27.
JonasA E GWilsonD, 1999, “The city as a growth machine: Critical reflections two decades later”, in The Urban Growth Machine Eds JonasA E GWilsonD (SUNY Press, Albany, NY) pp 3–18
28.
KortenD, 2001, “When corporations rule the world” (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA)
29.
LeitnerHSheppardE, 2002, “‘The city is dead, long live the net’: Harnessing European interurban networks for a neoliberal agenda”Antipode34495–518
30.
Local 1330, United Steel Workers of America v United States Steel Corp.1980, 631 F.2d 1264 (6th Circuit 1980)
31.
MaitlandF W, 1911The Collected Papers of William Frederic Maitland edited by FisherH A L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
32.
MarkG A, 1987, “The personification of the business corporation in American law”University of Chicago Law Review541441–1484
33.
MarkG A, 1997, “The Court and the corporation: Jurisprudence, localism, and federalism”The Supreme Court Review1997403–437
34.
MillonD, 1990, “Theories of the corporation”Duke Law Journal1990201–262
35.
MitchellD, 1997, “State restructuring and the importance of ‘rights-talk’”, in State Devolution in America Eds StaeheliLKodrasJFlintC (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 118–138
36.
PeckJTickellA, 2007, “Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking Thatcherism”, in Contesting Neoliberalism Eds LeitnerHPeckJSheppardE (Guilford Press, New York) pp 26–50
37.
Philips v Bury1694, Court of King's Bench, 4 Mod Rep 106
38.
RodriguezASwyngedouwEMoulaertF, 2003, “Urban restructuring, social-political polarization and new urban policies”, in The Globalized City Eds MoulaertFRodriguezASwyngedouwE (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 29–43
39.
SchaneS A, 1987, “The corporation is a person: The language of a legal fiction”Tulane Law Review61563–609
40.
SingerJ W, 1988, “The reliance interest in property”Stanford Law Review40611–751
41.
SwyngedouwEMoulaertFRodriguezA, 2003, “‘The world in a grain of sand’: Large-scale urban development projects and the dynamic of ‘glocal’ transformations”, in The Globalized City Eds MoulaertFRodriguezASwyngedouwE (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 9–28
42.
The Bank of Augusta v Earle1839, 38 US 519
43.
The Bank of the United States v Deveaux1809, 5 Cranch 61
44.
The City of London v Wood1701, 12 Mod. Rep
45.
The Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward1819, 17 US 518
46.
United States v Armco Steel Corp.1966, 252 F.Supp 364 (S.D.Cal.1966)
47.
WardK, 2006, “Policies in motion: Urban management and state restructuring: The trans-local expansion of business improvement districts”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research3054–75
48.
WilliamsonTImbroscioDAlperovitzG, 2003Making a Place for Community (Routledge, New York)
