Oliver Gillham
Characteristics and Indicators of Urban Sprawl
The definition of sprawl is unclear but it has something to due with expansion and usually refer to a suburban phenomenon. Low density, autocentric and unplanned are also normal characteristics of sprawl.
Come cases of this are: Leapfrog development, commercial strip development, low density, and large expanses of single-use development.
Leapfrog Development:
Subdivisions, shopping centers, office parks that create a "haphazard patchwork," that seems to take little care in regards to spatial location. The areas in between the patchwork are filled in by uncontrolled development over time.
Commericail Strip Developments:
Development that occurs along an arterial road. Lots of drive thrus and parking lots. Parking and signage take precedent. Very car oriented, not much for the pedestrian. Building is characteristically horizontal though office buildings go a little more vertical.
Low density:
Single storied widely spaced suburban homes (think midwest). This kind of growth is responsible for sprawls large consumption of land and increased dependency on cars. Density can be defined by the number of people/a certain area of land or building area.
Single-Use Development:
Measured by examining accessibility. The longer the trip distances are between activities the more single use is going on.
Lack of Public Open Space
Most of the land in areas of sprawl is privately owned although it looks inviting and like a characteristic public park, it is actually private.
Thus, the broad definition of sprawl according to Ewing's aforementioned characteristics is: Sprawl (whether characterized as urban or suburban) is a form of unrbanization distinguished by leapfrog patterns of development, commercial strips, low density, spearated land uses, automobile dominance, and a minimum of public open space. Sprawl (whether characterized as urban or suburban) is the typical form of most types of late-twentieth-century suburban development.
Furthermore, "Suburbanization is the spread of suburban development patterns across a region or a nation--that is, the proliferation of sprawl forms of unbanization across a region or an nation."
What Makes Sprawl?
Landownership and use
Transportaiton patterns
Telecommunications and technology
Regulations and standards
Land Ownership and Use
Most land in America is privately owned. Ownership gives entitlements and thus the land takes on marketability. Land ownership is hella important in America and basically the most valuable asset one can hold. It is part of the American Dream.
Real Estate Markets
Real estate markets make money from building on land and increasing its value for sale. The financing of new developments builds growth industry when the project is profitable. The same things get built over and over as a reaction to a formulaic way to make money.
Cost of Land
Land outside the city center is cheap and easily accessible with cars.
Thus TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS are important:
Few choices of mode, make a ton of local trips to work and non work trips, and transportation network all contribute to sprawl.
Telecommunications
More mobility and choice regarding where we want to live.
Zonig and Building Code
Formal controls allows reasonable predictions for area and to protect the public. Land uses are intensely segregated in the suburb and as a result activities are too far from each other to walk to.
Requirements of Finance
Requirements can dictate the size of the project, the uses that may be included, and the design. Finance is usually in the form of a mortgage.
Limitless City
Suburbs now stand on their own and its out of control.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Architecture of Everyday
Deborah Berke is concerned with the direction of the architect as a celebrity so she lays out some guidelines for the architect she holds dear, the architect of the every day.
(1) An architecture of the everyday may be Banal or Common
(2) An architecture of the everyday may therefore be quite ordinary
(3) An architecture of the everyday may be crude.
(4) An architecture of the everyday may be sensual.
(5) An architecture of the everyday may also be vulgar and visceral. (Vulgar rejects what is approved of as good taste)
(6) An architecture of the everyday acknowledges domestic life.
(7) An architecture of the everyday may take on collective and symbolic meaning but it is not necessarily monumental.
(8) An architecture of the everyday responds to program and is function.
(9) An architecture of the everyday may change as quickly as fashion, but it is not always fashionable.
(10) The architecture of the everyday is built.
(1) An architecture of the everyday may be Banal or Common
(2) An architecture of the everyday may therefore be quite ordinary
(3) An architecture of the everyday may be crude.
(4) An architecture of the everyday may be sensual.
(5) An architecture of the everyday may also be vulgar and visceral. (Vulgar rejects what is approved of as good taste)
(6) An architecture of the everyday acknowledges domestic life.
(7) An architecture of the everyday may take on collective and symbolic meaning but it is not necessarily monumental.
(8) An architecture of the everyday responds to program and is function.
(9) An architecture of the everyday may change as quickly as fashion, but it is not always fashionable.
(10) The architecture of the everyday is built.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Theory
Theory: an attempt to explain things through perception.
Theories of planning:internal to the field
Theories in planning: borrowed
Discriptive/Emperical theory: observable research, trends/causailty.
Deduction: Uses deductive reasoning/descriptive theory
Big Man Theory: the deducer is testing the theory on people rather than looking at the world
Inductive reasoning:
Descriptive theory: central place theory, based on observation, stylestic theory, Jane Jacobs was an inductive theorist
Normative theory:based on a certain set of values; on how on THINKS things should be, no claim on objectivity, morally guided.
Prescriptive theory: theory of action, problem solving, suggestive (gov. action, procedural design theory, mass production).
Critical theory: theory being applied, framework for evaluation.
Cautions: Rarely objective, various funtions
Theories of planning:internal to the field
Theories in planning: borrowed
Discriptive/Emperical theory: observable research, trends/causailty.
Deduction: Uses deductive reasoning/descriptive theory
Big Man Theory: the deducer is testing the theory on people rather than looking at the world
Inductive reasoning:
Descriptive theory: central place theory, based on observation, stylestic theory, Jane Jacobs was an inductive theorist
Normative theory:based on a certain set of values; on how on THINKS things should be, no claim on objectivity, morally guided.
Prescriptive theory: theory of action, problem solving, suggestive (gov. action, procedural design theory, mass production).
Critical theory: theory being applied, framework for evaluation.
Cautions: Rarely objective, various funtions
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
From Chicago to LA: Making Sense of Urban Theory
From Chicago to LA: Making Sense of Urban Theory
The city is the nucleus of a wider zone of activity from which it draws its resources and over which it exerts its influence.
The Los Angeles Schools
Dear and Flusty believe that despite the city’s contempt for its own history it does possess a rich intellectual, cultural, and artistic heritage. They talk about how the “ultimate irony is that in the L.A. architectural culture, where heterogeneity is valued over conformity, and creativity over propriety, the periphery is often the center.”(6) Thus, to talk about the different schools that discuss the trends of thought found about L.A. they define school by the following:
1. engaged on a common project
2. geographically proximate
3. self-consciously collaborative
4. externally recognized
L.A. is thus recognized as a great exception to usual schools of thought about cities, as Dear and Flusty mention McWilliams emphasis on L.A.’s “uniqueness with the assertion that the area reverses almost any proposition about the settlement of western America”(8). The essence of Los Angeles was revealed more clearly in its deviations from that its similarities to the great American metropolis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They note that every American city that is growing, like the edge city, is growing in the nature of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles school recognizes L. A. as being an “aberrant curiosity distinct from other forms of urbanism”(14). L.A. is the exploration of new realities and for resistance to old hegemonies.” The L.A. school “has largely shown itself to be less about looking to Los Angeles for models of the urban and more about looking for contemporary expressions of the urban in Los Angeles”(14). Dear and Flusty underscore that in their book they are less trying to see how L.A. is unique, but more so trying to map the intellectual terrain surrounding a perspective on twenty-first century cities.
The city is the nucleus of a wider zone of activity from which it draws its resources and over which it exerts its influence.
The Los Angeles Schools
Dear and Flusty believe that despite the city’s contempt for its own history it does possess a rich intellectual, cultural, and artistic heritage. They talk about how the “ultimate irony is that in the L.A. architectural culture, where heterogeneity is valued over conformity, and creativity over propriety, the periphery is often the center.”(6) Thus, to talk about the different schools that discuss the trends of thought found about L.A. they define school by the following:
1. engaged on a common project
2. geographically proximate
3. self-consciously collaborative
4. externally recognized
L.A. is thus recognized as a great exception to usual schools of thought about cities, as Dear and Flusty mention McWilliams emphasis on L.A.’s “uniqueness with the assertion that the area reverses almost any proposition about the settlement of western America”(8). The essence of Los Angeles was revealed more clearly in its deviations from that its similarities to the great American metropolis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They note that every American city that is growing, like the edge city, is growing in the nature of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles school recognizes L. A. as being an “aberrant curiosity distinct from other forms of urbanism”(14). L.A. is the exploration of new realities and for resistance to old hegemonies.” The L.A. school “has largely shown itself to be less about looking to Los Angeles for models of the urban and more about looking for contemporary expressions of the urban in Los Angeles”(14). Dear and Flusty underscore that in their book they are less trying to see how L.A. is unique, but more so trying to map the intellectual terrain surrounding a perspective on twenty-first century cities.
Nature of Economies
Nature of Economies
Jane Jacobs
Jacobs takes on a narrative voice to emphasize her points on how economies develop, something that both strengthens and weakens her essay, but nonetheless conveys the method of the economy like a ever-evolving machine.
Chapter Two: Nature of Development
All things “depend on the same underlying process of development”(16). Differentiation emerging from generality describes development on every scale of time and size, whether animate or inanimate. This can be applied to all living things and all systems of life. The second universal principle of development: Developments depend on co-developments. “An economy consists of interdependent relationships, competing and yet also knitting together co-developments”(22). For example, if the development process is lacking in a town or settlement, things either given or sold to it are merely products of the process somewhere else. Thus, Jacobs almost suggest a Darwinian belief of development, despite the fact that she argues that organisms influences differentiation decisions. Jacobs rejects the notion of “The thing theory” which believes that development is a result of possessing things such as factories, dams, schools, tractors…etc.
Chapter Three: Nature of Expansion
Self-sustaining systems are not really self-sustaining. Systems need infusions of energy from outside itself. The ultimate source of the earth’s energy infusions is sunlight. “Energy infusions are only the first half of the energy story. The second half is energy discharge. Eventually, a system discharges all the energy it receives. Energy/matter can be converted from various forms to various other forms, but it can neither be created nor destroyed…it is eventually radiated outward (45)” Thus, Jacob’s principle becomes: Expansion depends on capturing transient energy. The more different means a system possesses from recapturing, using, and passing around energy before its discharge from the system, the larger are the cumulative consequences of the energy it receives. “This energy-flow hypothesis of economic expansion explains why countries whose settlements are overwhelmingly rural are invariably poor, no matter how small or how large their exports and imports may be”(63). Diverse ensembles expand in a rich environment, which is created by the diverse use and reuse of received energy.
Jane Jacobs
Jacobs takes on a narrative voice to emphasize her points on how economies develop, something that both strengthens and weakens her essay, but nonetheless conveys the method of the economy like a ever-evolving machine.
Chapter Two: Nature of Development
All things “depend on the same underlying process of development”(16). Differentiation emerging from generality describes development on every scale of time and size, whether animate or inanimate. This can be applied to all living things and all systems of life. The second universal principle of development: Developments depend on co-developments. “An economy consists of interdependent relationships, competing and yet also knitting together co-developments”(22). For example, if the development process is lacking in a town or settlement, things either given or sold to it are merely products of the process somewhere else. Thus, Jacobs almost suggest a Darwinian belief of development, despite the fact that she argues that organisms influences differentiation decisions. Jacobs rejects the notion of “The thing theory” which believes that development is a result of possessing things such as factories, dams, schools, tractors…etc.
Chapter Three: Nature of Expansion
Self-sustaining systems are not really self-sustaining. Systems need infusions of energy from outside itself. The ultimate source of the earth’s energy infusions is sunlight. “Energy infusions are only the first half of the energy story. The second half is energy discharge. Eventually, a system discharges all the energy it receives. Energy/matter can be converted from various forms to various other forms, but it can neither be created nor destroyed…it is eventually radiated outward (45)” Thus, Jacob’s principle becomes: Expansion depends on capturing transient energy. The more different means a system possesses from recapturing, using, and passing around energy before its discharge from the system, the larger are the cumulative consequences of the energy it receives. “This energy-flow hypothesis of economic expansion explains why countries whose settlements are overwhelmingly rural are invariably poor, no matter how small or how large their exports and imports may be”(63). Diverse ensembles expand in a rich environment, which is created by the diverse use and reuse of received energy.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Emergence of Urban Sociology
Teonnies: Gemeinschaft and Gesselshaft
Gemeinschaft--> "community" or small town. Teonnies argues that in a small town people work towards a common good, have family ties, and neighborhood, with shared interests and purposes.
Gesellschaft--> a large city which is characterized by individualism and selfishness/hostility. No family ties nor neighborhood. He believed very strongly that the city made people bad and that it was not natural.
This was one of the first theories created and its methodology was that of poles, as in, on one side was Gemeinschaft and on the other side is Gesellschaft and towns/cities could fall closer to one pole than the other and thus be ranked. He believed that because of the lack of personal connections in the city it allowed individuals to act in a rational and self interested way that stark in contrast to the emotional neighborly way.
Durkheim: Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
Mechanical solidarity-->social bonds that are constructed on likeness (such as common beliefs, etc.)
Organic solidarity-->social order based on the individual differences among people. This emerges from a complex division of labor--everyone depends on everyone else economically.
Durkheim saw the city in a positive light. He saw the possibility of greater freedom and greater choice.
Durkhiem vs. Teonnies: A Comparison
Teonnies and Durkhiem disagreed on what was organic (T-the country, D-the city). Durkhiem was optimistic about the potential of the city. Durkhiem saw the conflict of cities, the lack of likeness as a challenge that would further human development whereas Teonnies was concerned with the loss of the old way of living.
Simmel:
Simmel was concerned with the overwhelming stimuli that the city dweller encounters daily. He worries that because there is so much horror daily, that people will become insensitive. He also sees how this process leads to sophistication in that city dwellers assess what is important and what isn't. Therefore Simmel, like Teonnies and Durkhiem, believes that the city makes one more rational. He also comments on the importance of money in the construct of a city. simmel, like Durkhiem, saw the freedom that the city has to offer. He thinks that one can transcend the feelings of apathy and reach a higher level of development. But he doesn't think this is ideal because it is just a reaction to the negative surroundings and usually is formed in some act of rebellion.
Weber:
Max Weber was a sociologist who was the first to develop a model of the city. his theories were much more grounded in research than observation. He studied the histories of a large group of cities and created the "full urban community" which was called the "ideal type."
Ideal type
1. fortification
2. market
3. a court of its own and at least partially autonomous law
4. a related form of association
5. at least partial political autonomy
So, an ideal type had to based on trade relations, it had to be autonomous for urban dwellers to call the city "theirs,"and it must have a related form of association because there needs to exists a feeling of meaningful participation in the city.
Weber believed that cities were intimately linked to processes larger than themselves (political/economic).
European Theorists: 1. Insisted that the city was a proper object of sociological study. 2. Recognized that there is something distinctive about the city and the way of life it created. 3. They suggested the main concerns of the discipline which are the structure of the city, a comparative approach, and an evaluation of the city.
Urban Sociology in America:
Robert Park--> Worked for the University of Chicago and argued that disciplined observation was the way to tackle cities. He looked at the city as a social organism with distinct parts that played certain roles that were connected to something greater process. Park did not view the city as a disorganized mess, but rather an "orderly and typical grouping of its population and institutions" (40).
1. Commercial structure: Park believed that city's existence was the result of market dominance that continually eroded the more traditional ways of life.
2. Formal structures: large-scale bureaucracies. The city dweller needs something to turn to to make sense of it all, and there in lies the bureaucracy.
3. People are much less sentimental in the city and thus more rational.
4. Park saw a greater chance for freedom and tolerance in the city.
Wirth:
Wirth was interested in universal social characteristics and setting up conclusions in the "if this happens than this will result" style.
He found these common characteristics--> (1)large (2)dense and permanent settlement (3) socially and culturally heterogeneous people.
Population size was important because the more people, the higher potential there is for differentation among them. Furthermore, differences would demand control structures. This large differentiated pop would also be able to support specialization and specialization would organize the relationships on an "interest specific" level.
Population density was important because it is how Wirth explains his take on the heartlessness of the urbanite. The density creates an ecoloical specialization" or grouping of people into neighborhoods and the city dweller develops a handicap in regards to looking at individuality. Therefore, in the creation of tolerance the urbanite loses his/her ability to care and increases social distance.
Heterogeneity is argued by Wirth to be similar to the argument for density. Basically it creates the depersonalization but he goes further to argue that it breaks the cast lines so there is social mobility.
The American Tradition: An Evaluation:
(1) neglects history and coparative analysis.
(2) concentrated on the "semy side" of city life.
(3) contributed the idea of on site visitation.
(4) Wirth was the first to show that a true urban theory was possible
The Classic Theories and Modern Research: Myths and Realities
Tolerance and the city--> Researchers have found that this is true but often overstated, varied, and may result from factors other than urban life itself.
Impersonality in the city--> There are too many variables to this. It is too general and the city can have lots of different outcomes.
Density and Urban Pathology-->The theorists make rational arguments for why we act the way we do as a result of density but it is unknown whether this reaction is learned or natural. Hall tried to make an argument that they were biological but it is impossible to prove.
Hall--> (1) used controlled lab studies (2) studied crowding levels in an entire city and found that no study showed a decreased ability to complete taks with increased crowding. Studies like these are artificial and still can be a product of learned actions.
Urban Malaise
CLaude Fischer found that people have the same mental health regardless of where they are from. He actually found that the city dweller was more content than the country resident. The city does not create worse mental health.
Gemeinschaft--> "community" or small town. Teonnies argues that in a small town people work towards a common good, have family ties, and neighborhood, with shared interests and purposes.
Gesellschaft--> a large city which is characterized by individualism and selfishness/hostility. No family ties nor neighborhood. He believed very strongly that the city made people bad and that it was not natural.
This was one of the first theories created and its methodology was that of poles, as in, on one side was Gemeinschaft and on the other side is Gesellschaft and towns/cities could fall closer to one pole than the other and thus be ranked. He believed that because of the lack of personal connections in the city it allowed individuals to act in a rational and self interested way that stark in contrast to the emotional neighborly way.
Durkheim: Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
Mechanical solidarity-->social bonds that are constructed on likeness (such as common beliefs, etc.)
Organic solidarity-->social order based on the individual differences among people. This emerges from a complex division of labor--everyone depends on everyone else economically.
Durkheim saw the city in a positive light. He saw the possibility of greater freedom and greater choice.
Durkhiem vs. Teonnies: A Comparison
Teonnies and Durkhiem disagreed on what was organic (T-the country, D-the city). Durkhiem was optimistic about the potential of the city. Durkhiem saw the conflict of cities, the lack of likeness as a challenge that would further human development whereas Teonnies was concerned with the loss of the old way of living.
Simmel:
Simmel was concerned with the overwhelming stimuli that the city dweller encounters daily. He worries that because there is so much horror daily, that people will become insensitive. He also sees how this process leads to sophistication in that city dwellers assess what is important and what isn't. Therefore Simmel, like Teonnies and Durkhiem, believes that the city makes one more rational. He also comments on the importance of money in the construct of a city. simmel, like Durkhiem, saw the freedom that the city has to offer. He thinks that one can transcend the feelings of apathy and reach a higher level of development. But he doesn't think this is ideal because it is just a reaction to the negative surroundings and usually is formed in some act of rebellion.
Weber:
Max Weber was a sociologist who was the first to develop a model of the city. his theories were much more grounded in research than observation. He studied the histories of a large group of cities and created the "full urban community" which was called the "ideal type."
Ideal type
1. fortification
2. market
3. a court of its own and at least partially autonomous law
4. a related form of association
5. at least partial political autonomy
So, an ideal type had to based on trade relations, it had to be autonomous for urban dwellers to call the city "theirs,"and it must have a related form of association because there needs to exists a feeling of meaningful participation in the city.
Weber believed that cities were intimately linked to processes larger than themselves (political/economic).
European Theorists: 1. Insisted that the city was a proper object of sociological study. 2. Recognized that there is something distinctive about the city and the way of life it created. 3. They suggested the main concerns of the discipline which are the structure of the city, a comparative approach, and an evaluation of the city.
Urban Sociology in America:
Robert Park--> Worked for the University of Chicago and argued that disciplined observation was the way to tackle cities. He looked at the city as a social organism with distinct parts that played certain roles that were connected to something greater process. Park did not view the city as a disorganized mess, but rather an "orderly and typical grouping of its population and institutions" (40).
1. Commercial structure: Park believed that city's existence was the result of market dominance that continually eroded the more traditional ways of life.
2. Formal structures: large-scale bureaucracies. The city dweller needs something to turn to to make sense of it all, and there in lies the bureaucracy.
3. People are much less sentimental in the city and thus more rational.
4. Park saw a greater chance for freedom and tolerance in the city.
Wirth:
Wirth was interested in universal social characteristics and setting up conclusions in the "if this happens than this will result" style.
He found these common characteristics--> (1)large (2)dense and permanent settlement (3) socially and culturally heterogeneous people.
Population size was important because the more people, the higher potential there is for differentation among them. Furthermore, differences would demand control structures. This large differentiated pop would also be able to support specialization and specialization would organize the relationships on an "interest specific" level.
Population density was important because it is how Wirth explains his take on the heartlessness of the urbanite. The density creates an ecoloical specialization" or grouping of people into neighborhoods and the city dweller develops a handicap in regards to looking at individuality. Therefore, in the creation of tolerance the urbanite loses his/her ability to care and increases social distance.
Heterogeneity is argued by Wirth to be similar to the argument for density. Basically it creates the depersonalization but he goes further to argue that it breaks the cast lines so there is social mobility.
The American Tradition: An Evaluation:
(1) neglects history and coparative analysis.
(2) concentrated on the "semy side" of city life.
(3) contributed the idea of on site visitation.
(4) Wirth was the first to show that a true urban theory was possible
The Classic Theories and Modern Research: Myths and Realities
Tolerance and the city--> Researchers have found that this is true but often overstated, varied, and may result from factors other than urban life itself.
Impersonality in the city--> There are too many variables to this. It is too general and the city can have lots of different outcomes.
Density and Urban Pathology-->The theorists make rational arguments for why we act the way we do as a result of density but it is unknown whether this reaction is learned or natural. Hall tried to make an argument that they were biological but it is impossible to prove.
Hall--> (1) used controlled lab studies (2) studied crowding levels in an entire city and found that no study showed a decreased ability to complete taks with increased crowding. Studies like these are artificial and still can be a product of learned actions.
Urban Malaise
CLaude Fischer found that people have the same mental health regardless of where they are from. He actually found that the city dweller was more content than the country resident. The city does not create worse mental health.
50 Key Thinkers on Development
Robert Chambers
RC is known as the forerunner in thinking the marginalized people of society should be included in the decision making process. He is known for "put the last first" kind of mentality. He believed that the problems people experienced were not better solved by those who came from the outside but the challenge lay in "unlocking their development potential by creating a suitable enabling environment"(75).
His influences include E.F. Schumacher and Manfred Max-Neef.
Basically----> RC = bottom up development.
Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
Seven Social Sins:
(1)Consumption without conscience (2) Knowledge without character (3) Wealth without labour (4)Business without morality (5)Religious duty without sacrifice (6) Science without a human sense (7) Politics without principles.
Sarvodaya: 2 main ideas. He emphasized protecting democracy and the process of discussion and the cultural value of machines (i.e. a humans motives are played out by machine).
Terms:
Ahimsa: Non violence
Karma: right action
Scachetana: self realisation
Dharma: moral order
Swadeshi: spirit extended to all the elements composing the desh (community) and implied a love of not only the traditional way of life but also the natural environment and especially the people sharing it.
Swaraj: describes society run in the swadeshi spirit.
Sarvodaya: to focus on the welfare of all
Satyagraha: the method of Ghandi followed (?)
Sarvodaya: the uplifting of all
Swadeshi: large scale industrialization--Ghandi was very much opposed.
satyagraha: solving problems non violently--non-violent action.
Strongly believed in the human right. He developed a theory of sustainable development based on three principles: Sarvodaya, Swadeshi and Safyagraha as well as the question of local economy where everybody in the area would be self-sufficient.
Most importantly Ghandi became the people he was trying to help and thus developed a better perspective on what they were facing.
E.F. (Fritz) Schumacher
Wrote "Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered". The book called for people to look at the human cost of certain economic choices.
He popularized the term "intermediate technology". He thought that it was not helpful to transfer the technology of the rich straight to poor countries. Instead there needed to be a simpler, cheaper technology sent to poor countries but more superior than the outdated technology they already had. He focussed his first book on the interface between technology and labor. He strongly advocated for human laborers over machines. Basics--> he thought it was better to employ people than machines.
He was into Marx and this comes out in his ideas around business construction, for instance, he believes that large companies should be broken down into smaller companies that are more worker friendly. The idea is that they will feel more of a sense of ownership.
Walt Whitman Rostow
"The Stages of Economic Growth--A Non-Communist Manifesto" is his most famous book. Influenced the foreign policy of both Kennedy and Johnson.
Rostow's "Stages" theory:
5 stages countries must pass---> (1) the traditional society (2) the preconditions for take-off (3) the take-off (4) the drive to maturity (self-sustained growth) (5) the age of high mass consumption. 2-4 are the most important because they mark the transition to modern society from traditional society.
He was very liberal and Republicans hated him.
RC is known as the forerunner in thinking the marginalized people of society should be included in the decision making process. He is known for "put the last first" kind of mentality. He believed that the problems people experienced were not better solved by those who came from the outside but the challenge lay in "unlocking their development potential by creating a suitable enabling environment"(75).
His influences include E.F. Schumacher and Manfred Max-Neef.
Basically----> RC = bottom up development.
Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
Seven Social Sins:
(1)Consumption without conscience (2) Knowledge without character (3) Wealth without labour (4)Business without morality (5)Religious duty without sacrifice (6) Science without a human sense (7) Politics without principles.
Sarvodaya: 2 main ideas. He emphasized protecting democracy and the process of discussion and the cultural value of machines (i.e. a humans motives are played out by machine).
Terms:
Ahimsa: Non violence
Karma: right action
Scachetana: self realisation
Dharma: moral order
Swadeshi: spirit extended to all the elements composing the desh (community) and implied a love of not only the traditional way of life but also the natural environment and especially the people sharing it.
Swaraj: describes society run in the swadeshi spirit.
Sarvodaya: to focus on the welfare of all
Satyagraha: the method of Ghandi followed (?)
Sarvodaya: the uplifting of all
Swadeshi: large scale industrialization--Ghandi was very much opposed.
satyagraha: solving problems non violently--non-violent action.
Strongly believed in the human right. He developed a theory of sustainable development based on three principles: Sarvodaya, Swadeshi and Safyagraha as well as the question of local economy where everybody in the area would be self-sufficient.
Most importantly Ghandi became the people he was trying to help and thus developed a better perspective on what they were facing.
E.F. (Fritz) Schumacher
Wrote "Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered". The book called for people to look at the human cost of certain economic choices.
He popularized the term "intermediate technology". He thought that it was not helpful to transfer the technology of the rich straight to poor countries. Instead there needed to be a simpler, cheaper technology sent to poor countries but more superior than the outdated technology they already had. He focussed his first book on the interface between technology and labor. He strongly advocated for human laborers over machines. Basics--> he thought it was better to employ people than machines.
He was into Marx and this comes out in his ideas around business construction, for instance, he believes that large companies should be broken down into smaller companies that are more worker friendly. The idea is that they will feel more of a sense of ownership.
Walt Whitman Rostow
"The Stages of Economic Growth--A Non-Communist Manifesto" is his most famous book. Influenced the foreign policy of both Kennedy and Johnson.
Rostow's "Stages" theory:
5 stages countries must pass---> (1) the traditional society (2) the preconditions for take-off (3) the take-off (4) the drive to maturity (self-sustained growth) (5) the age of high mass consumption. 2-4 are the most important because they mark the transition to modern society from traditional society.
He was very liberal and Republicans hated him.
Development as Freedom
- Amarataya Sen
Amarataya Sen is badass. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for Economics.
Basically he deconstructs the theory that development should be measured by economic development alone. For instance, looking at GDP alone leaves out the advancements that may have been made in education or health care, political and civil rights. He emphasizes the importance of what development brings such as the latter and thus, it should be measured by these things.
He argues that freedom is central to development for 2 reasons: (1) the evaluative reason: assessment of progress has to be done primarily in terms of whether the freedoms that people have are enhanced (2) The effectiveness reason: achievement of development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people.
These positive social developments are reliant on economic opportunity. Thus, the development of these freedoms can measure economic development because they are interconnected.
Freedoms are very effective in contributing to economic progress. Thus, the question that some economists ask, "will opportunities to receive basic rights hinder development", is absurd to Sen and he claims his book will deconstruct the idea that restricting freedoms is better for the economy than expanding them.
Argument:
Humans talk unless the freedom is taken away. It is how they interact with the market place. "The freedom to participate in economic interchange has a basic role in social living"(7). There are benefits to market oriented society.
Economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom <----> social or political unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom.
5 types of "instrumental freedoms"
(1) political freedoms (2) economic facilities (3) social opportunities (4) transparency guarantees (5) protective security.
These are instrumental because they "advance the general capability of a person" and thus improve development. These freedoms are linked and enhance human freedom in general.
Basically Amaratya Sen believes that we need to rethink the idea of oppressing the labor input of capitalism because by giving them more freedoms they will actually be more productive. I think.
Amarataya Sen is badass. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for Economics.
Basically he deconstructs the theory that development should be measured by economic development alone. For instance, looking at GDP alone leaves out the advancements that may have been made in education or health care, political and civil rights. He emphasizes the importance of what development brings such as the latter and thus, it should be measured by these things.
He argues that freedom is central to development for 2 reasons: (1) the evaluative reason: assessment of progress has to be done primarily in terms of whether the freedoms that people have are enhanced (2) The effectiveness reason: achievement of development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people.
These positive social developments are reliant on economic opportunity. Thus, the development of these freedoms can measure economic development because they are interconnected.
Freedoms are very effective in contributing to economic progress. Thus, the question that some economists ask, "will opportunities to receive basic rights hinder development", is absurd to Sen and he claims his book will deconstruct the idea that restricting freedoms is better for the economy than expanding them.
Argument:
Humans talk unless the freedom is taken away. It is how they interact with the market place. "The freedom to participate in economic interchange has a basic role in social living"(7). There are benefits to market oriented society.
Economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom <----> social or political unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom.
5 types of "instrumental freedoms"
(1) political freedoms (2) economic facilities (3) social opportunities (4) transparency guarantees (5) protective security.
These are instrumental because they "advance the general capability of a person" and thus improve development. These freedoms are linked and enhance human freedom in general.
Basically Amaratya Sen believes that we need to rethink the idea of oppressing the labor input of capitalism because by giving them more freedoms they will actually be more productive. I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)