MIKE GOODWIN ECONOMIX FULL

Then we highlight the specifically urban aspects of needs satisfaction processes and construct a table of indicators to assess how cities fare in that respect, ensuring global comparability as to whether, as well as local contextualisation as to how, needs are satisfied. We show how the main debates in human needs theory are illustrated by urban phenomena, and search for a human needs model which is able to advance those debates and tackle the problem specifically in cities. The article develops a framework that allows us to address that question.

MIKE GOODWIN ECONOMIX FULL

We ask whether cities deliver satisfiers that make them good places to cater for the full range of human needs in a similar way to how they cater for economic needs. Existing calls for such a transition lack a foundation able to capture the various dimensions of human life in cities, which can be provided by the concept of human needs. This article proposes moving beyond the tyranny of economic imperatives towards a human needs-based framework to assess cities and envision their development. Combinatoric expansion of the spatio-temporal reference points of identity and ancestry present daunting challenges to all who pursue equity or equality вЂ“ requiring careful strategic confrontation of the meanings of neoliberal planetary human evolution. Cognitive-capitalist urbanism evolves along multiple semiotic frontiers of cosmopolitan diversity and multidimensional, intersectional hybridity вЂ“ while valorizing performative competitive hierarchies that legitimate the reproduction of the structured inequalities of capital accumulation. A mixed-methods blend of quantitative modeling and simple, descriptive online media analysis in the spirit of Robert Park's вЂњNatural History of the NewspaperвЂќ is used to map the contours of competition, succession, and representation in a planetary urbanism that is now diagnosed as a new phase of вЂњcognitive-culturalвЂќ capitalism. In this paper, the Glaeser-Turner genealogy is used to interpret today's evolving materialities and discourses of race, class, identity, and urbanism. Yet Glaeser carefully evades the fundamental ethnoracial inequalities at the heart of Turner's frontier thesis, which were inseparable from the Social Darwinist hijacking of evolutionary thought that corrupted economics and other social sciences beginning in the late 19th century. history offered by Frederick Jackson Turner in a lecture delivered in Chicago in 1893, as part of Glaeser's advocacy of neoliberal, supply-side deregulated city-building as social policy. Edward Glaeser's article, вЂњThe Closing of America's Urban Frontier,вЂќ celebrates the influential interpretation of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development published an article by the world's most famous urban economist. In the Summer of 2020, as the latest coronavirus quickened its evolutionary journeys through the human mobilities of planetary urban systems, the research journal of the U.S. Its conformity to Manhattan Institute principles testifies to a telling consistency of ideological purpose, contributing as it does to a sustained effort to rationalize and normalize lean and limited modes of neoliberal urban governance, fortified by microeconomic reason. Edward Glaeser's intellectual accomplishments have been significant, but the ?Glaeser effect' is more than a story of individual scholarly endeavor, calling for more than a merely ?internal' critique. The article argues that a distinctive form of urban-economic orthodoxy is under construction, based on a potent fusion of scientific reasoning and pop presentation, combining ideologically disciplined applications of neoclassical economics with dissemination in the register of the ?freakonomics' franchise. The critique is pointed, but seeks to exceed argumentum ad hominem by calling attention to sociopolitical and institutional factors that have facilitated the accelerated diffusion and enlarged dominion of this model (and mode) of microeconomically rationalized urbanism, including the production of new forms of intellectual marketing, the construction of colonizing variants of urban-economic expertise, and the ongoing rearticulation and creeping consolidation of market-centric policy norms.

Widely recognized as one of the world's leading urbanists, Glaeser has combined a high-flying academic career with public-policy engagement and extensive work as a newspaper columnist and media commentator, enabled by a longstanding affiliation with the Manhattan Institute, a leading conservative think tank. This article presents a critique of the popular and public-policy work of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, which has been constructed at the nexus of neoclassical economic rationality and celebrity urbanology.

Mike goodwin economix