Urban Inequality and Polarization

  • Chris Hamnett
Chapter
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

The nature and extent of urban social divisions and inequalities is of major importance for social scientists, politicians and policy makers, not least because they have a bearing on social and economic conditions in cities where the majority of the world’s population now live. How the social structure of cities is changing and whether cities are becoming more or less unequal, and in what respects has considerable implications for urban policy.

Keywords

Income Inequality Urban Study Housing Tenure World City Global City 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrusz, G.D., M. Harloe and I. Szelenyi (1996) Cities after Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies (Oxford: Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A.B. (1995) Incomes and the Welfare State: Essays on Britain and Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A.B. and T. Piketty (2007) Top Incomes Over The Twentieth Century: A Contrast Between Continental European and English Speaking Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Badcock, B. (1984) Unfairly Structured Cities (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  5. Baum, S. (1997) ‘Sydney, Australia: a global city? Testing the social polarisation thesis’, Urban Studies, 34(11): 1881–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, S. (1999) ‘Social transformations in the global city: Singapore’, Urban Studies, 36: 1095–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borel-Saladin, J. and O. Crankshaw (2007) ‘Social polarisation or professionalisation: another look at theory and evidence’, University of Cape Town, Centre for Social Science Research Working Paper 22.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, T., C. Hamnett and M. Ramsden (2007) ‘Inward and upward: marking out social class change in London, 1981–2001’, Urban Studies, 45(1): 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu, S.W.K. and T.S. Lui (2004) ‘Testing the global city–social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the 1990s’, Urban Studies, 41: 1863–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engels, F. (1845) The Condition of the Working Classes in England (London: Panther).Google Scholar
  11. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Esteban, J.M. and D. Ray (1994) ‘On the measurement of polarisation’, Econometrica, 62: 819–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fainstein, S., I. Gordon and M. Harloe (1992) Divided Cities: New York and London in the Contemporary World (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  14. Frank, R. and P. Cook (1995) The Winner Take All Society (Harmsworth: Penguin).Google Scholar
  15. Friedmann, J. and G. Wolff (1982) ‘World city formation: an agenda for research and action’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(3): 309–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedmann, J. (1986) ‘The world city hypothesis’, Development and Change, 17: 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Government of Hong Kong Commission on Poverty (2006) Study on the Effect of Taxation and Social Benefits on Household Income Distribution, Cop paper 22.Google Scholar
  18. Hamnett, C. (1994) ‘Social polarisation in global cities: theory and evidence’, Urban Studies, 31(3): 401–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamnett, C. (1996a) ‘Why Sassen is wrong: A response to Burgers’, Urban Studies, 33(1): 107–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamnett, C. (1996b) ‘Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes’, Urban Studies, 33(8): 1407–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamnett, C. (2003a) ‘Gentrification and the middle class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001’, Urban Studies, 40(12): 2401–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamnett, C. (2003b) Unequal City: London in the Global Arena (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  23. Hamnett, C. and T. Butler (2010) ‘The Changing Ethnic Structure of Housing Tenures in London, 1991–2001’, Urban Studies, 47(1): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamnett, C. and D. Cross (1998) ‘Social polarisation and inequality: the earnings evidence’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16(6): 659–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey, D (1973) Social Justice and the City (London: Edward Arnold).Google Scholar
  26. Hill, R.C. and J.W. Kim (2000) ‘Global cities and developmental states: New York, Tokyo and Seoul’, Urban Studies, 37: 2167–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, R.C. and J. Kim (2001) ‘Reply to Friedmann and Sassen’, Urban Studies, 38: 2541–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kovacs, Z. (1999) ‘Cities from state socialism to global capitalism: an introduction’, Geo-Journal, 49(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
  29. Logan, J.R. (ed.) (2002) The New Chinese City: Globalization and Market Reform (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  30. Logan, J.R. (ed.) (2008) Urban China in Transition (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  31. Mollenkopf, J.H. and M. Castells (1991) Dual City: Restructuring New York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
  32. Preteceille, E. (1995) ‘Division sociale de l’espace et globalisation: le cas de la metro-pole parisienne’, Societies Contemporaines, 22–3: 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Preteceille, E. (2007) ‘Is gentrification a useful paradigm to analyse social changes in the Paris Metropolis?’, Environment and Planning A, 39(1): 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  35. Sassen, S. (2001) ‘Global cities and developmentalist states: How to derail what could be an interesting debate. A response to Hill and Kim’, Urban Studies, 38: 2537–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stedman Jones, G. (1971) Outcast London (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  37. Szelenyi, I. (1983) Urban Inequalities under State Socialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  38. Tai, P.F. (2006) ‘Social polarisation: comparing Singapore, Hong Kong and Taipei’, Urban Studies, 43: 1737–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaattovaara, M. and M. Kortteinen (2003) ‘Beyond polarisation versus professionalisation? A case study of the Helsinki region, Finland’, Urban Studies, 40(11): 2127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, C.H. (2003) ‘Taipei as a global city: a theoretical and empirical examination’, Urban Studies, 40(2): 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warf, B. (2000) ‘New York: the Big Apple in the 1990s’, Geoforum, 31(4): 487–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wessel, T. (2000) ‘Social polarisation and socioeconomic segregation in a welfare state: the case of Oslo’, Urban Studies, 37: 1947–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wills, J., K. Datta, Y. Evans, J. Herbert, J. May, J. and C. McIlwaine (2009) Global Cities at Work: New Migrant Divisions of Labour (London: Pluto Press).Google Scholar
  44. Wolff, E. (2001) Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It (New York: The New Press).Google Scholar
  45. Wu, F. (2004) ‘Urban poverty and marginalization under market transition: the case of Chinese cities’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2): 401–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chris Hamnett 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Hamnett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations