Abstract
In response to Haila's invitation to further discussion on urban land rent theory, Clark's earlier critique of Ball's reformulation and Haila's misunderstandings of this critique are clarified. Points of agreement and points where disagreement cannot yet be ruled out are specified. It is argued, in opposition to the assumption which underlies Haila's comment, that theoretical progress is not impeded by exploring the history of a concept, and is not served by the creation of ‘new’ theories each day from a tabula rasa.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
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 call
