"Rerum Causas Cognoscere" or "To Know the Causes of Things" is the motto of the London School of Economics and Political Science (known as the LSE) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics - whose rather attractive coat of arms is shown above. Incidentally, I am also a big fan of beavers who are amongst the great builders of the animal kingdom, and construction is one of the key themes of this post. Moreover, the LSE has an excellent mission statement, to use a modern expression, and one whose aspirations I very much support. Indeed it would serve as a fine motto for all higher education research institutions. Unfortunately, the wider ambitions of the UK universities sector, much of which now resembles a property development enterprise, rather than a fountain of knowledge, often work against these loftier aims.
I was reminded of this academic state of affairs earlier this week, when trying to post a comment about an article on some LSE spatial economics research on the Planning Resource website - please see http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1291801/discriminatory-green-belt-policies-causing-housing-affordability-crisis-says-lse-professor - I found myself suddenly censored. Therefore, having been cut short and fearing further censorship, I shall endeavour to answer the question of a fellow Planning Resource contributor on my own blog: thank goodness for Google! In response to my expression of concern about the impartiality of LSE research, due to the funding regime for this and similar institutions, a Lawrence Revill (whom I suspect is a planning consultant) asked: "Just what, precisely, has that got to do with the Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography and his views on the Green Belt? Please show some perspective." Indeed I will, Mr Revill, in the following account. "Rerum Causas Cognoscere"!
The Emeritus Professor, and member of the LSE's Spatial Economics Research Centre, in question is Paul Cheshire http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/profile.aspx?KeyValue=p.cheshire%40lse.ac.uk The Spatial Economics Research Centre http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/SERC/about/default.asp - describes its mission thus: "Economic prosperity in the UK is very unevenly distributed across space. Tackling these persistent disparities is a key policy objective. The Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC) aims to provide a rigorous understanding of the nature, extent, causes and consequences of these disparities, and to identify appropriate policy responses." This sounds highly admirable so it comes as a surprise to me that Professor Cheshire's research article* - http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp417.pdf - should advocate policies likely to exacerbate persistent regional disparities in economic prosperity.
So let's look at what the Professor had to say. The basic thesis is that not enough housing has been built nationally, and, particularly, in the Home Counties around London in the past 20 years. Leaving aside the national picture, about which his article doe not really concern itself, the real bete noir for Cheshire is the capital's green belt of which he says: "What SERC research has shown is that the only value of greenbelts is for those who own houses within them (gibbons et al, 2011). What greenbelts seem to be is a very British form of discriminatory zoning, keeping the urban unwashed out of the Home Counties - and of course helping to turn houses into investment assets rather than places to live in". Given that the whole modus operandi of British economic policy has been driven by rentier capitalism during the period in question, this seems to be a remarkably naive statement from an "Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography" at the LSE!
Indeed, my censored comment on the Planning Resource website highlighted a "popular" post from the LSE SERC's blog - http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/ - entitled "How many French people live in London?" which opens thus: "According to the BBC London is now France's sixth biggest city: "The French consulate in London estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 French citizens live in the British capital" which compares to city populations as follows: Paris - 2.3m; Lyon - 488,000; Marseille - 859,000; Toulouse - 447,000; Nice 344 000." What this illustrates is the increasing globalisation of London since the 1990s. In terms of capital flows, London vies with New York as the world's most globalised city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city The capital has become a magnet for international property investment and uber wealthy people, as well as a preferred destination for an increasingly globalised workforce. This has been the major factor in the increasing cost and shortage of London housing.
Although I have suggested that Professor Cheshire is naive, I do not believe this to be the case. The LSE and other British universities have capitalised on the attraction of London for international students. Moreover, there does seem to have been something of a "London effect" as foreign students spread around the country and universities court them with increasingly high-specification (and expensive) campuses. It is quite possible that the LSE has its sights on a new greenfield site in the Homes Counties, with supporting development, including possibly a world-class golf course. For my own part, I shall be delighted if the main activity of London's green belt remains intensive agriculture. As an economic geographer, the Emeritus Professor should know very well that this is one the most suitable roles for it.
* Some of the claims in this article (eg as much land given over to golf courses as housing in England) were subsequently challenged in a BBC radio 4 More or Less programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044jh75
No comments:
Post a Comment