Abstract
Criticisms of Spatial Divisions of Labour have argued that the model ultimately dissolves into empirical particularities so that its theoretical tenets and context have been neglected. This paper attempts to draw out these premises by comparing Spatial Divisions of Labour with rational choice Marxism. Rational choice Marxism has aimed to provide microfoundations for structural categories by analysing the strategic interactions of individual actors. The approach has been criticised for relying on a rational, utilitarian and individualistic theory of action and, therefore, for assuming the constitution of agents to be given. The spatial divisions of labour approach also involves a move towards the microscale and emphasises the importance of strategic relations. In this case, the specified actors are collective entities. Once again, the aims and interests of the actors appear to be predetermined so that the significance of their interactions is limited. In conclusion it is argued that studies of uneven development should pay greater attention to the historical constitution of agents within their institutional contexts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
