Читать книгу The Commodification Gap - Matthias Bernt - Страница 13

How can these ideas inform a comparative study on gentrification? Without further ado, I draw four basic orientations from the preceding discussion.

First, I conceptualise gentrification not as an object, but as an abstraction. Advancing its study is hardly possible on the basis of a holistic approach that tries to integrate a broad variety of empirically observable phenomena all at once and indiscriminately apply the whole range of available, and to some part contradictory, explanations for gentrification. Learning from realist approaches, it is necessary to disaggregate the various explanations and start with one established theory whose validity can be examined in different contexts. Only when this is done, does it become possible to carefully examine the limits of this theory of gentrification and to study how other factors impact on the causal relationship between different phenomena. Meaningfully studying gentrification, thus, demands a clear point of reference towards an existing theory, as well as a focus on the phenomena to be observed.

Second, there is a close relationship between studying how an established concept works in different contexts and theoretical advancement. The task of an empirical study is, thereby, not to verify or falsify an established theory, but to work out alternative causations. In this context, it becomes crucial to empirically distinguish between necessary and contingent relations. Do different structures (say welfare states) influence a mechanism in a way that changes the causal relationship between two phenomena (say renovations and displacement)? Do contextual factors lead to differences in kind or in degree? Can the same outcomes (e.g. displacement) be explained by different mechanisms in different environments?

Third, neither universalising nor individualising modes of comparisons suffice to promote this process of iterative theory development. The problem, as I have pointed out with reference to Tilly, is not that particularising or universalising comparisons were misleading, as such, but that they are good in doing different things. While universalising comparisons work well to support a theory, individualising comparisons do exactly the opposite, demonstrating where a theory has reached its limits. The benefits and drawbacks of the two types of comparison are laterally inverted. What is needed is not a decision for the Scylla of universally valid categorisations or the Charybdis of thick descriptions of singular cases, but a way between the two that engages established theories with new empirical material that aims to build better explanations. In this sense, comparisons can be generative for a new round of theorising – but only when they are built upon a reference to existing theories and a commitment towards abstraction. Working with concepts is of key importance here.

Fourth, the relationship of theorising and empirical research in the course of investigation can be described as ‘ascending from the abstract to the concrete’, as Karl Marx famously put it in Grundrisse (1971 [1894). The abstract defines the object of empirical research that then leads to understanding the points where the theory stops explaining its particular objects and new theories must be integrated or found. This leads to an iterative back and forth movement between the empirical observation, abstraction and conceptualisation that is illustrated in Figure 1.2.

The study starts with a simple, abstract concept that seems to apply to all sorts of gentrifications at all times; moves on to the examination of actually existing forms of this abstraction; examines the interrelation of this abstraction with different concrete sociospatial formations; and then moves back to the abstract and examines the dialectic developed at a systemic level so far.

How can these recommendations be taken on board? In essence, restriction is demanded both with regard to the issues studied and the theories examined. In this respect, the following points form critical junctures for this book.

 Definition of gentrification: I follow Clark’s (2005) definition of gentrification and count all processes as gentrification that ‘involv[es] a change in the population of land users such that the new users are of higher socio‐economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment of fixed capital’ (Clark 2005, p. 258). With this, I position myself within close range to what has become known as ‘supply‐side theories’ in the world of gentrification researchers.³FIGURE 1.2 The relationship of abstraction and empirical observation in this study.Two empirically observable issues are the focus of my interest. These are: (i) the investment of capital into the built environment (see Smith 1979, 1996) and (ii) the displacement of low‐income residents by more affluent users (see also Marcuse 1986). In my view, these are the basic conditions that make gentrification different from other forms of neighbourhood change, as well as the two prerequisites without which the concept of gentrification would cease to make sense. Achieving higher quality and returns on existing pieces of land and housing is (in the long run) not possible without putting work and capital into it. Capital, in turn, is only invested when a satisfactory rate of return is achieved that is higher than what is already gained from the piece of land in question. Gentrification and investment are, thus, causally connected. In a similar vein, gentrification is all but impossible without the exclusion of groups of people. If everybody was able to use land, housing and infrastructure in the same way in a particular area, displacement could not occur and would either become pure coincidence or be caused by something other than gentrification.⁴ For all these reasons, reinvestment and displacement form the two key variables that are examined in all the cases studied in this research.

 Structuralism as a starting point: The rent gap theory provided by Neil Smith (1979) builds the theoretical point of reference for this study. The main reason for this is that the theoretical ambitions of supply‐side theories have always been more universal than those of their demand‐side counterparts. Arguably this makes them a more attractive starting point for a comparative study. The goal is, thereby, not to verify or falsify supply‐side theories, but to examine how theories work in different contexts, identify their limits and suggest new theories.

 Methodological substantivism, institutionalism and historicism: Gentrification is not analysed in a formalised way as an expression of abstract political economies, but it is situated in space and time. Thereby, institutions are given a primary role in the explanation of gentrification. These are understood as historically and geographically specific sets of formal rules, compliance procedures and standard operating practices that structure the relationships and the interactions between individuals (see Hall 1986, p.19). As such, they have more formal status than cultural norms, but they are not necessarily legally codified. With this definition, there is a wide variety of institutions, legal codes, administrative organisations, customary habits and traditions. This study, however, focuses on formal institutions – like forms of tenure, property regulations and rent laws. This choice is motivated by the cases analysed, in which formal institutions play a central role. It should not be seen as conceptually exclusive; depending on the context, other institutions (e.g. caste, family, ethnicity) might be more important.

 Comparitivism: The project applies a comparative research strategy and examines heterodox cases of gentrification. This strategy is, however, distinguished from formal and static ways of comparing distinct cases, as it seeks to engage observable differences between the cases for the purpose of broader theorising. In order to stretch the boundaries of imagination and to ‘provincialize’ (Chakrabarty 2000) ill‐informed universalisation, it actively searches for dissimilar cases and seeks to interrogate different modes of interaction between the market and state in terms of gentrification. Heterogeneity is, thus, sought as a means to identify diverse combinations of factors.

The operational model of this research is the following: reinvestment is thought to result in displacement (which is the core of gentrification), while at the same time different institutions can impact on this interrelation in a way that can modify, alter and even prevent both reinvestment and displacement from happening. As a consequence, different forms of gentrification can emerge. The interrelation of these elements is expressed in Figure 1.3.

The empirical backbone of my argument stems from three empirical studies in London, Berlin and St Petersburg. As the universal conditions enabling gentrification, ‘namely, rent production, reproduction, and capture; production of gentrifiers and gentrifiable areas; and class displacement/replacement’ (Betancur 2014) are present in all three cities, one can assume it will be possible to find gentrification in each of them as well. However, as I will show, although instances of gentrification can be observed in all three cases, their dynamics, spatial patterns and causalities are highly diverse. In other words, I study a sample of dissimilar gentrifications, and while the cases studied support the idea that gentrification is a somewhat global phenomenon, they also demonstrate how this global phenomenon operates in fairly varied ways and is based upon different sets of local and national relations.

FIGURE 1.3 The relation of institutions, reinvestment, displacement and gentrification.

Having manifold representations of gentrification in mind, I focused on inner city residential neighbourhood change. I thus went to the ‘usual suspects’ of gentrification. The reason for this is that I aimed to include urban environments that would be connected to gentrification by most observers. Moreover, two of the cases selected have a longer history, allowing us to study the impact of changing institutions and regulatory environments over time. Typically, such cases are to be found in inner city environments. Based on these considerations, I selected Barnsbury (London) and Prenzlauer Berg (Berlin) as case studies. Both these neighbourhoods are seen as classical cases in their contexts and have been gentrified over decades. Case selection was more difficult in Russia, as gentrification is a new phenomenon there and often seen as a matter of newly built gated communities on city fringes or in former industrial wastelands, rather than as an inner city phenomenon. Nevertheless, I studied gentrification in the ‘classical’ environment provided by St Petersburg’s inner city (Tsentralnyi Rayon). While this might be seen as being prone to the fallacy of morphological determinism, I argue that it is exactly the difficulties that gentrification faces in these environments that provide lessons to be learned. In some respects, the case of St Petersburg can be regarded as a control case, allowing insights that cannot be gained in Germany or the UK.

Why did I study gentrification in Russia, the UK and Germany as opposed to, say China, Nigeria and France? There are two reasons for this. First, on an epistemological level, while all these countries are located in Europe, they have very different histories and state structures, resulting in different relationships between capital, state, land and the people. Despite morphological similarities, they present different sets of institutions, relations and practices. As the study focuses on causality, not regularity or generalisability, choosing other cases would have allowed including even more dissimilar cases, making it possible to find other causalities. However, this would hardly have resulted in substantial changes with regard to the general theoretical argument put forward. As Jennifer Robinson has argued, comparison can start from ‘anywhere’ (2016) and there is no privileged position of one potential case against the other. Second, there are practical issues. Analysing the relationship between gentrification and public policies on an in‐depth basis in different countries demands the researcher have the capacity to read local literature, analyse planning documents and legislations, and conduct interviews.⁵ Furthermore, background knowledge on history, culture and social structures is helpful, to say the least. As German, Russian and English are the only three languages I speak to a degree that allows for this kind of work and as I didn’t have the resources to hire a team of researchers, the selection of cases has been influenced by my personal background. I also have known all three cities for a long time, which made it easier to build upon existing contacts and obtain access to various sources of information.

With regard to data and sources, the research strategy has been different for all three cases studied.

In this respect, London is the birthplace of gentrification as a concept and arguably one of the top sites covered by urban studies worldwide. When trying to understand the constellations here, I was able to draw on an expansive and varied literature. Moreover, due to the concentration of academic institutions in London, I profited enormously from the background knowledge and advice provided by fellow researchers who have studied London for decades. I also interviewed a limited number of experts on the neighbourhood I researched, including real estate managers and planners. In addition, compared with Germany and Russia, the range and the quality of statistical data is excellent and the data was accessible.

My research on Prenzlauer Berg differs from this. Prenzlauer Berg is not only the place I have lived in for most of the last 30 years, but it is also a neighbourhood that I have studied intensively since I became an academic. As a consequence, most of the data and much of the interpretation included in this book are based on past work that I have brought together and updated for this study. Methods used here include a literature review, the analysis of public planning documents, interviews and participant observation in numerous events, meetings and public hearings over the last three decades.

St Petersburg has been a completely different affair. The term gentrification has hardly made it to Russia thus far, and the number of studies on this phenomenon is very small. Moreover, in Russia, the transition from socialism to capitalism has resulted in taking away resources from the academic system to such a degree that urban research is generally fairly weak (when compared with the West). The staggering lack of resources has also contributed to isolating many Russian scholars from discussions in the West and this has been changing only very recently. Moreover, official statistics are notoriously unreliable in Russia. In order to grasp the dynamics under which gentrification operates there, I therefore had to do primary research. In this, I was supported by Russian colleagues who were enthusiastic about the issue and willing to invest their time and intellectual resources. Together with them, I organised a Research Laboratory in 2015 at which we discussed the applicability of Western literature to the Russian situation and performed empirical research in two neighbourhoods destined for larger urban renewal projects in St Petersburg. We applied a mix of document analysis, expert talks and intensive site inspections accompanied by interviews with residents to obtain an understanding of the actual developments on the ground. For a number of reasons, this work was never finished – yet it provided invaluable insights that helped me to understand the specificities of the situation there.

I proceed as follows: having sketched my approach in the previous pages, Chapter 2 re‐examines the rent gap. Its task is to recapitulate the central features of this theory, as well as to discuss its limitations. Doing so, I try to avoid ‘the booby trap of the stalemate between “production” versus “consumption” explanations’ (Slater 2017, p. 121) that has occupied gentrification research for a long time (for summaries of these debates see Lees et al. 2008; Brown‐Saracino 2010). I find that the arguments brought forward in this debate have reached a point of saturation where conceptual progress becomes unlikely and I aim at new lines of questioning. The main message I develop in this chapter is that the rent gap theory is indispensable for explaining gentrification, but too abstract and oversimplifying. I discuss five major problems in this context that point to the limits of this theory. These are: a lack of attention towards barriers to capital flows; the problematique of connecting the scales at which potential and actual ground rents are produced; the implications of a nomothetic conceptualisation of land rent; the limitations of a unidirectional understanding of property relations as ‘control’; and turning a blind eye towards the actual conditions for the realisation of rent increases and the role that the state plays in this. On this basis, Chapter 3 provides a first look into the institutional parameters that frame the operation of gentrification. It analyses the different housing systems in the UK, Germany and Russia through a historical perspective that highlights the strategies, ideologies and struggles that have shaped the design of the diverse institutions at different points of time and discusses the implications of these for the operation of the rent gap. Taking a long‐term perspective, I focus on the changing conditions for reinvestment in the housing stock, roles of tenures and rent laws, and identify 12 commodification gaps (see Table 3.6) relevant for the operation of gentrification in the UK, Germany and Russia at different times. Together, these gaps guide the analysis of the cases on the neighbourhood level that follows and are further refined through empirical examination. Chapters 4–6 apply this framework to the neighbourhood level and examine the operation of gentrification in the neighbourhoods of Barnsbury (London), Prenzlauer Berg (Berlin) and the centre of St Petersburg (Russia). Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the implications of this analysis for the theorisation of gentrification. It revisits the main themes, discusses the findings of the empirical observations and suggests a reconceptualisation of gentrification. It refines the commodification gap as a new theoretical concept and argues for a reorientation of gentrification studies.