The Experts below are selected from a list of 1572 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
George L Henderson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
nature and fictitious capital the historical geography of an agrarian question
Antipode, 1998Co-Authors: George L HendersonAbstract:Capitalism is produced in part through its own production of nature, but it has been argued that nature also poses certain obstacles to capitalist development. Political economists and Rural Sociologists have argued that in certain instances agriculture, as a form of production based in nature, has proven resistant to capitalist transformation. The Mann–Dickinson thesis still stands as one of the best such formulations. This essay argues for turning the Mann–Dickinson thesis on its head so as to ask how it is that an obstacle for one set of capital comprises an opportunity for other capitals. The essay therefore examines agriculture as a nexus of nature and circulating capital. It argues that what has been construed as a primary obstacle (the disunity of working and production time and the cumulative effects thereof) has been poorly appreciated as comprising a distinctive opportunity for capitalist investments and appropriations through the credit system. Credit, by no means an exogenous or anachronistic force, develops along with production and constitutes a social relation of production along with other such relations. These contentions are borne out in a critique of the nature-as-obstacle argument and then in a discussion of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century agriculture in the United States, especially in California. In the latter discussion, I focus on the role of credit as the system that mediates the relations between nature and capital in and between different space–times. Credit, I argue, was necessarily constituted spatially and was contingently tied to the rise of agrarian formations in the American West.
William A Kandel… - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Demography as a Spatial Social Science Demography as a Spatial Social Science
2020Co-Authors: Paul R Voss, Glenn Deane, Katherine Curtis White, David L Brown, William A Kandel…Abstract:Abstract Many social scientists have taken note of the re-emerging interest in issues concerning social processes embedded within a spatial context. While some argue that this awakening is refreshing and new and, in fact, long overdue, I demonstrate that spatially focused demographic theories and research agendas clearly predate contemporary interest in these topics. I assert that recent methodological advancements have merely encouraged and brought refinement to the expanding body of spatially oriented population research -research strongly rooted in demographic tradition and practice. Indeed, I make the claim that, until roughly the mid-20 th century, virtually all demography in the United States (and elsewhere, but not specifically examined here) was spatial demography. (I define spatial demography as the formal demographic study of areal aggregates, i.e., of demographic attributes aggregated to some level within a geographic hierarchy.) While some may find the claim overstated, and argue specific exceptions, I develop my theme, in part, through historical narrative. I posit that until around 1950 almost all demographic analysis involved data taken from areal units. Then, shortly after mid-century, a paradigm shift occurred, and the scientific study of population quickly came to be dominated by attention to the individual as the agent of demographic action. Traditional spatial (or macro-level) demography gave way to micro-demography, and, I argue, most demographers simply abandoned the data and approach of spatial demography. This assertion notwithstanding, I then proceed to show how the tradition of spatial demography actually did persist in small corners of our discipline during the latter half of the 20 th century -despite the ascendancy of the micro-demography paradigm -through the contributions primarily of Rural demographers and of others working in the new sub-field which appropriated the appellative "applied" demography. In closing the paper I include a brief but necessary discussion of the recent awakening that has come to spatial demographers from developments in other disciplines -principally from geography, regional science and spatial econometrics. Attributes of spatially referenced data generally violate at least one of the assumptions underlying the standard regression model, which necessitates both caution regarding these violations and attention to methods designed to correct for them. These emerging methods are the topics of a large and rapidly expanding literature. I also include mention of the important recent role played by methods of multilevel modeling (hierarchical linear modeling) in bridging the 50-year-old split between micro-level and macrolevel demography by introducing techniques which simultaneously consider individual (family or household) variation in demographic attributes or behavior as well as the broader geographic contexts in which individual demographic action occurs. 2 Demography as a Spatial Social Science Many social scientists have taken note of the re-emerging interest in issues concerning social processes embedded within a spatial context (see, for example, the papers in 1 I argue in the following section that, until roughly the mid-20 th century, virtually all demography in the United States was spatial demography. Here, I define spatial demography as the formal demographic study of areal aggregates, i.e., of demographic attributes aggregated to some level within a geographic hierarchy. As such, spatial demography is viewed as analogous to the "statistical geography" of Duncan, TRADITIONAL DEMOGRAPHY WAS (MOSTLY) SPATIAL DEMOGRAPHY Prior to the advent of public use microdata files from the decennial census, and before the arrival of large public use analytical files from major surveys (e.g., Current Population Survey, Hawley's (1950) highly influential book on the subject was subtitled "A Theory of Community Structure" (emphasis added), and much of the research over ensuing decades that flowed from this disciplinary paradigm examined structure and change of social aggregates. Dozens of studies followed THE SHIFT FROM MACRO-DEMOGRAPHY TO MICRO-DEMOGRAPHY Two forces likely propelled the change of focus from macro-to micro-demography. One was the emergence of large scale microdata files which provided access to detailed individual/household-level data. The initial motivation for such data sets appears to have been a response to the low levels of fertility in the U.S. reached during the 1930s And so they did. The shift toward micro-level analyses established the preeminence of the individual, family or household as the demographic actor, and left but a small proportion of professional demographers continuing the serious scholarly inquiry of population change among demographic aggregates. CONTINUED INTERSEST IN SPATIAL DEMOGRAPHY AMONG SOME DEMOGRAPHERS Despite the shift in emphasis to micro-demography, there remained some demographers for whom ecological analyses continued to hold fascination. This was not done out of disregard to the ecological fallacy but rather in the belief that some interesting and important research questions can (and sometimes only can) be addressed at the aggregate level. 8 Much of this work can be placed into one of two categories: (1) migration and population distribution research, work carried forward predominantly by Rural demographers, and (2) population estimation research, work which came to dominate the portfolio of many applied demographers. Rural Demography Despite many earlier publications reporting empirical research on migration patterns, censuses, when it was discovered that patterns of internal migration in the U.S. (and, it should be added, elsewhere) had shifted, and nonmetropolitan counties were growing at higher levels than their metropolitan counterparts (Beale, 1975; 11 Returning for a moment to mid-century, the 1940s and 1950s witnessed another critical thread of research that was to be very important to the development of spatial demography in the U.S. Around this period, migration research began to focus on the migration event, per se, such as how to conceptualize migration, how to compute migration rates, and how to manipulate other variables to derive estimates of net migration for an area. This work was strongly rooted in substantive migration studies of the 1930s and 1940s (for example This research was important to spatial demography because migration is not a reported or registered event in the U.S. Instead, net migration gain or loss among areas must be estimated from aggregated data. Eventually, component models for calculating population estimates and projections required that reasonable estimates of net migration and of net migration rates be made available, and these estimates increasingly were based on the analysis of population change among small geographic areas. Because the Census Bureau was not engaged in population estimation below the state level prior to the 1970s, and because it frequently fell to Rural Sociologists and agricultural economists at Land Grant colleges of agriculture (due to the mission of such institutions) to respond to the need for substate population estimates, many demographers in Rural sociology departments around the country found themselves actively engaged in the production efforts of population estimates for relatively small areal units in the 1950s and 1960s (see Applied Demography This brings us to an important second category of continuing work in spatial demography: population estimation research. In addition to advances in migration research, the 1950s was also a decade of major improvements in the development of population estimation models for application at the substate level (i.e., counties, cities, and even smaller geographic areas). There were three pivotal activities during this period, and each extended the focus on spatial units, thus continuing the role of space in the population sciences, even while many demographers had begun to shift their analytical efforts to the emerging microdata files. First was the model development work that occurred primarily at the U.S. Census Bureau and in selected university settings. Indeed, it was the early 1950s that spawned small-area population estimation models that even today have been improved upon only modestly. Second was the production work (i.e., the production of small-area population estimates) that found its way into state and local agencies rather than the Census Bureau. Third were the few early tests of various estimation methods against the census counts of 1950 (see, for example, Schmitt 1952; Siegel, In the 1970s, the emergence of state and local demography and, somewhat later, the field of business demography within the Population Association of America, brought a fresh perspective to the analysis of spatial units. This group of demographic practitioners appropriated for their work the term "applied demography," the distinguishing feature of which is that it involves almost exclusively the analysis of demographic data or the production of population 13 estimates and forecasts for spatial units (see The decade of the 1980s witnessed yet another boost to the analysis of spatially-arrayed data. The coming together in the late 1980s and early 1990s of five remarkable products radically changed the world of demography, including parts of demographic study not traditionally concerned with spatial variation. These products were (1) the Census Bureau's TIGER files -digital, seamless, block-level geographic databases for the U.S. released as a 1990 Census product, (2) the summary tape files from the 1980 and 1990 censuses, (3) extensive natural resource, crime, and epidemiological databases -all of which were largely outside the scope of traditional demographic interest, (4) incredibly powerful geographic information system (GIS) software for mapping and, importantly, for integrating spatially-arrayed data from diverse and disparate georeferenced systems, and, finally, (5) the awesome, but affordable, computing hardware platforms on which to bring together these various elements. These elements, having converged so forcefully by the early 1990s, began to alter the way in which spatial demographic research was carried out. Together, these forces motivated the formation of new and broadly interdisciplinary collegial relationships on campuses and elsewhere, and began to foster the development of hypotheses and researchable questions in areas where only a few demographers and ecologists had previously ventured. MULTILEVEL MODELING In the first few sections of this chapter, I discussed how the maturing of demographic science in the U.S. witnessed a shift around 1950 from an interest in population change among geographic areas to an interest in individual-level demographic behavior. I also discussed the reemergence in recent years of interest in areal data brought about by growing awareness of the tools and techniques for properly specifying and estimating statistical models based on geospatial data. I now close our chapter with a brief discussion of how these two perspectives, macro-and micro-demography, are presently being bridged by new interest in multilevel modeling techniques. 15 These methods deal with data organized hierarchically (such as individuals within neighborhoods, pupils within schools, or crimes within census tracts) and provide the opportunity to simultaneously study variation at different levels of the hierarchy. Such models acknowledge that individuals are embedded in social units (schools, tracts, neighborhoods, regions, etc.). As such, they blur the artificial boundaries between micro and macro analyses. Many examples of multilevel modeling are found in sociological and demographic research since the 1980s (e.g., As with spatial regression modeling, however, multilevel strategies bring their own distinct set of methodological issues and cannot be analyzed by conventional statistical approaches. Hox and Kreft (1994) provide a useful summary of the problems that arise when applying single level models to multilevel data (see also households residing within the same neighborhood are likely to have more similar characteristics relative to households within another neighborhood. This dependency, and the accompanying error structure, is not accounted for in a single level model. Therefore, the assumption upon which standard errors and variances are determined is violated and the model produces inefficient estimates of standard errors and overall "explained" variance. Such single level model estimates are biased and unreliable for multilevel data structures. Consequently, in recent years, software development has resulted in many statistical packages offering tools to specify and properly model hierarchical data. The most focused and well known is Hierarchical Linear and Non-Linear Modeling (HLM) SUMMARY In this chapter, I have discussed the role of geographic space in quantitative demography
Ulrich-schad, Jessica D. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
We Didn\u27t Move Here to Move to Aspen : Community Making and Community Development in an Emerging Rural Amenity Destination
Hosted by Utah State University Libraries, 2018Co-Authors: Ulrich-schad, Jessica D.Abstract:Residents of high amenity Rural areas in the U.S. are grappling with the community-level impacts of their small towns increasingly becoming destinations for in-migrants, seasonal residents, and tourists. This case study of an emerging destination uses alterity theory to examine how amenity migration affects residents\u27 community making and subsequently their community development efforts. Residents tend to see their community as divided into two social groups based upon opposed stances towards development; one resistant to any form of change and the other open. The \u27Keepers\u27 are seen as stuck in their ways and closed to any form of development while the \u27Changers\u27 are perceived as trying to change too much and turn the community into a more established amenity destination - like Aspen - through various local development projects. In-depth interviews with residents and observations in one amenity destination show how two groups exist and differ along key social and demographic dimensions, but how residents\u27 interests in community development are more intertwined than they assume. The negative perceptions that residents have of each other, however, have real consequences for the town because it fosters misunderstandings, prevents cooperation, and inhibits the building of social capital which prevents integrated community development efforts. Specifically, it creates the reality and perception that various development projects do not have everyone\u27s support or input and it has prevented some efforts from occurring at all. This research provides Rural Sociologists and community developers with a more nuanced understanding of how the growing trend of amenity migration can shape residents\u27 daily interactions as well as overarching community development efforts
Jessica D Ulrichschad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
we didn t move here to move to aspen community making and community development in an emerging Rural amenity destination
Journal of Rural and Community Development, 2018Co-Authors: Jessica D UlrichschadAbstract:Residents of high amenity Rural areas in the U.S. are grappling with the community-level impacts of their small towns increasingly becoming destinations for in-migrants, seasonal residents, and tourists. This case study of an emerging destination uses alterity theory to examine how amenity migration affects residents’ community making and subsequently their community development efforts. Residents tend to see their community as divided into two social groups based upon opposed stances towards development; one resistant to any form of change and the other open. The ‘Keepers’ are seen as stuck in their ways and closed to any form of development while the ‘Changers’ are perceived as trying to change too much and turn the community into a more established amenity destination—like Aspen—through various local development projects. In-depth interviews with residents and observations in one amenity destination show how two groups exist and differ along key social and demographic dimensions, but how residents’ interests in community development are more intertwined than they assume. The negative perceptions that residents have of each other, however, have real consequences for the town because it fosters misunderstandings, prevents cooperation, and inhibits the building of social capital which prevents integrated community development efforts. Specifically, it creates the reality and perception that various development projects do not have everyone’s support or input and it has prevented some efforts from occurring at all. This research provides Rural Sociologists and community developers with a more nuanced understanding of how the growing trend of amenity migration can shape residents’ daily interactions as well as overarching community development efforts. Keywords: amenity migration, community making, Rural community development ------------------------------------------------------------------ Titre: "Nous n'avons pas emmenage ici pour demenager a Aspen: la construction et le developpement communautaire a des fins d'emergence de commodite Rurale Resume Les residents de grands espaces de commodites Rurales aux Etats-Unis sont aux prises avec les impacts au niveau communautaire de leurs petites villes qui deviennent de plus en plus des destinations pour les immigrants, les residents saisonniers et les touristes. Cette etude de cas d'une destination emergente utilise la theorie de l'alterite pour examiner comment la migration de l'alterite affecte la communaute des residents dans la creation et ulterieurement dans leur effort de developpement communautaire. Les residents ont tendance a voir leur communaute divisee en deux groupes sociaux bases sur des positions opposees face au developpement; un resistant etant oppose a n'importe quelle forme de changement tandis que l'autre etant ouvert. Les 'Gardiens' sont vus comme attaches a leurs habitudes et opposes a n'importe quelle forme de developpement tandis que les 'Partisans du Changement' sont percus comme essayant de trop changer et de retourner la communaute en une destination de commodites mieux etablie—comme Aspen—a travers de nombreux projets de developpement locaux. Des entrevues approfondies avec des residents et des observations dans une destination de commodites montrent dans quelle mesure deux groupes existent et different a l'interieur de dimensions sociales cles et demographiques, mais comment les interets des residents dans un developpement communautaire sont plus entrelaces qu'ils ne l'assument. Toutefois, les perceptions negatives que les residents se temoignent, ont de reelles consequences sur la ville car cela augmente les mesinterpretations, empeche la cooperation et bloque la construction du capital social ce qui empeche les efforts de developpement integre communautaire. En particulier, cela cree la realite et la perception que de nombreux projets de developpement n'ont pas le support de tout le monde ou leur contribution et cela a empeche ces efforts d'aboutir. Cette etude fournit aux sociologistes ruraux et aux promoteurs ruraux une comprehension plus nuancee de la maniere dont la tendance a la croissance de la migration des commodites peut modifier les interactions quotidiennes des residents ainsi que les efforts generaux de developpement communautaire.
Alison Loveridge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rural sociology in New Zealand: Companion planting?
New Zealand sociology, 2016Co-Authors: Alison LoveridgeAbstract:IntroductionA history of Rural sociology in New Zealand is a deceptively simple task. Rural sociology as a discipline has long encapsulated diverse interests, from community studies to searching out the linkages within and between the increasingly large multinationals that dominate the food chain. The definition of Rural has drawn the attention of Rural Sociologists themselves inwards, as they debate what should be their proper focus. Pahl's famous article on the urban-Rural continuum released a round of introspection on the changing nature of Rural life and this introspection continues in New Zealand and provides a basis for this review essay (Pahl, 1966). I have identified three periods, each having its share of reviews and commentaries on the nature of Rural research, if not of Rural sociology. These periods include presociological and early Rural sociology, the government oriented work of the 1980s1990s, and the birth of the Australasian Agri-food connection which is linked to the period between 2000-2015 in which Rural research has been dominated by multimillion dollar research projects, especially those hosted by The Centre for the Study of Agriculture, Food and Environment (CSAFE)1. Whether they have addressed themselves to Rural sociology, the sociology of agriculture, or social science related to Rural issues, they all contribute to setting an agenda for reflection.Methods for reviewA common strategy in earlier reviews has been to survey the major journals whose editorial policy claims Rural sociology, or those in which Rural Sociologists are known to publish (Fairweather and Gilles, 1982; Friedland, 2010; Zablocki, 2013). Given that the key journals are linked to different cultural/geographic divisions - Rural Sociology with its United States focus, Sociologia Ruralis its European one, this has had the added advantage for those wishing to learn from the differing trajectories of each community of scholars. To avoid being trapped by my preconceptions of the New Zealand field, I also used this strategy to check who was publishing in this area. A search of Rural Sociology, Sociologia Ruralis, Journal of Rural Studies, and Agriculture and Human Values was carried out and identified a small number of publications in each by New Zealanders, most of whom were working within one of the networks identified in this article. Another search of New Zealand Sociology and The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology confirmed that few Rural Sociologists were publishing in local non-specialist journals. I supplemented this with interviews with Rural Sociologists (Hugh Campbell, Ian Carter, Charles Crothers, Bruce Curtis, John Fairweather, Ann Pomeroy and Claudia Bell) and a search for materials specifically addressing the history of the discipline. This confirmed that periodisation should address the ebb and flow of relationship between policy and research, funding as well as academic dynamics, and the importance of key individuals in promoting research agendas. Each period reveals people shifting between Rural sociology and related social sciences, in terms of their self-designation and the journals in which they publish. This is not a review of all research related to Rural issues, but will attend to some of this movement, and will try to track use of Rural sociology or the sociology of agriculture, as a marker of affiliation to particular strands of sociology. In New Zealand, the dominance of farming or food and fibre production gives Rural sociology a special significance and if it is somewhat in tension with Rural studies, this can be acknowledged as a creative force rather than a narrative of concern. Environmental history, social history, and labour history have all identified Rural development in response to the needs of the British Empire as shaping New Zealand, with Rural sociology addressing more recent history - post World War One up to the present day.The first analysts of Rural life: Sociologists and their predecessorsNew Zealand has a history of people Brickell names "other Sociologists" who were social analysts before formal sociology was established (Brickell, 2007: 4). …
