There are various changes that can affect economic urban restructuring in different geographical environments. These changes are interlinked and encompass embedded relations originating, from centrally planned bureaucratic hierarchies thus causing inescapable hurries in countries. Successful models are often found in countries that measure the importance of continuous political, market and policy changes. The model only works when cities are assessed in a national context and are compared to cities in another national context thus subtracting the competitive comparisons that of another.
The theory of economic restructuring arose in 1970’s when an oil crisis attacked the world capitalist economy resulting in a location shift of production, consumption and residence in cities in attempt to combat the situation. The effects on city economies have been vast as ‘there has been a major shift in employment from goods production to service provision’ equalling a fast increase in employment and reduced wages. The restructuring has had major impacts worldwide as previous agricultural countries (Brazil, Taiwain, South Korea, Pacific Rim) major change have been shifted into ‘centers of high tech manufacturing’ with Western nations loosing 20% of their manufacturing jobs over a ten year period. This has re-shaped the interurban hierarchy, as a result redistributive urban policies have been locality oriented instead of ‘people-specific’, thus showing their secondary position in the economic transformation. In contrast the Keynesian welfare state emphasises a more decentralised approach as policies are dismantled in public private partnerships with business. In addition urban space echoes, the economic restructure and the breakdown of cities. (Cultural trends)
The ‘neo-Marxist’, conservative, and Fordist concepts agree that economic restructuring is powerful but, don’t fully grasp the whole picture thus arriving at the principle of ‘capitalist regulation’ in connection with the system of production. Hence forth capital accumulation, to keep the economy growing and the set standards of labour division, control, norms, laws, and habits continuous. Fordism which has transferred into flexible production has ignored important sectors; military production, public infrastructure and housing that never adopted Fordist methods initially. This reveals that the military build-up (US) has not been controlled by economic restructuring thus proving the political role (government, state power) to be visible in production. Thereafter exposes the relationship between central and local governments.
Production systems are not apt across national scales, due to the differentiated intuitional arrangements already built up. The UK and the US have moved to a dismantled urban and regional policy based on national-local initiatives thus replacing market policies. During the 1980’s urban policies in Britain and the US (Reagan) focused on weakening inner cities in aim of assisting the private sector. The development of Thatcherism reduced the support of local authorities in cities for Britain whilst removing power from local governments, thus highlighting political drives. The US is the opposite as city governments are concerned with promoting growth, as there hasn’t been much control over the centralisation of power.
Personal Comment: From what has been read, analysed and researched it seems that the only way for a sustained capitalised environment to work, is if centralised and decentralised powers are continued throughout, the various systems of societies.
Written By Ana Goncalves< That's Me<Trulyana heehee
Now this is an essay! I will be back to read in depth. Thank you.
![[vB Favorites]](http://jpicforum.info/gfx_02s/buttons/favorites_lg.gif)
Linear Mode
