A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities : The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'. / Mould, Oliver.

In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 01.2016, p. 157-163.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Published

Standard

A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities : The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'. / Mould, Oliver.

In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 01.2016, p. 157-163.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Mould, Oliver. / A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities : The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2016 ; Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 157-163.

BibTeX

@article{0e3cfd3f7d534e358d32fc909b1f6dd4,
title = "A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'",
abstract = "The recent article in this journal by Scott and Storper (2015) suggested that the field of urban studies currently contains a multitude of varied theoretical viewpoints and argued for a unified general urban theory encompassing all urban scholarly work. Their proposal is that such a theory is based upon a foundational understanding of agglomeration and clustering. This response counter-argues this, suggesting that such a proposal leaves urban theory too instrumental, deterministic and economistic. Moreover, Scott and Storper argue that there is a need to isolate the urbanization process from a wider suite of social, cultural and economic processes in which the urban is said to be ‘embedded'. If we are to embrace a unified urban theory, however, it should be one which views cities as differing intensities of an urbanization process, and does not try to draw arbitrary boundaries about what is and what is not a city. If we are to strive for a general urban theory, then it would be far more beneficial to champion an ontology of an urbanization process with varying degrees of (de)intensification.",
author = "Oliver Mould",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2427.12288",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "157--163",
journal = "International Journal of Urban and Regional Research",
issn = "0309-1317",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities

T2 - The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'

AU - Mould, Oliver

PY - 2016/1

Y1 - 2016/1

N2 - The recent article in this journal by Scott and Storper (2015) suggested that the field of urban studies currently contains a multitude of varied theoretical viewpoints and argued for a unified general urban theory encompassing all urban scholarly work. Their proposal is that such a theory is based upon a foundational understanding of agglomeration and clustering. This response counter-argues this, suggesting that such a proposal leaves urban theory too instrumental, deterministic and economistic. Moreover, Scott and Storper argue that there is a need to isolate the urbanization process from a wider suite of social, cultural and economic processes in which the urban is said to be ‘embedded'. If we are to embrace a unified urban theory, however, it should be one which views cities as differing intensities of an urbanization process, and does not try to draw arbitrary boundaries about what is and what is not a city. If we are to strive for a general urban theory, then it would be far more beneficial to champion an ontology of an urbanization process with varying degrees of (de)intensification.

AB - The recent article in this journal by Scott and Storper (2015) suggested that the field of urban studies currently contains a multitude of varied theoretical viewpoints and argued for a unified general urban theory encompassing all urban scholarly work. Their proposal is that such a theory is based upon a foundational understanding of agglomeration and clustering. This response counter-argues this, suggesting that such a proposal leaves urban theory too instrumental, deterministic and economistic. Moreover, Scott and Storper argue that there is a need to isolate the urbanization process from a wider suite of social, cultural and economic processes in which the urban is said to be ‘embedded'. If we are to embrace a unified urban theory, however, it should be one which views cities as differing intensities of an urbanization process, and does not try to draw arbitrary boundaries about what is and what is not a city. If we are to strive for a general urban theory, then it would be far more beneficial to champion an ontology of an urbanization process with varying degrees of (de)intensification.

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2427.12288

DO - 10.1111/1468-2427.12288

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 40

SP - 157

EP - 163

JO - International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

JF - International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

SN - 0309-1317

IS - 1

ER -