Neoliberal Urbanization and Urban Enclosure(II): Focusing on the Enclosure of Eminent Domain-based Urban Development in the United States

Yongchang Kim

doi:10.22776/kgs.2023.58.1.68

All Issue

2023 Vol.58, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Article

Neoliberal Urbanization and Urban Enclosure(II): Focusing on the Enclosure of Eminent Domain-based Urban Development in the United States 신자유주의 도시화와 도시 인클로저(II) - 미국 공용수용 기반 도시개발과 인클로저 -

28 February 2023. pp. 68-87

PDF XML

Abstract

Through two consecutive papers, I investigate the urban enclosure that appears in the process of neoliberal urbanization with a double-layered structure. At the object level of the enclosure, real-space assets and financial assets are analyzed. At the operating mechanism level of the enclosure, the institutional method of public-private takings(institutional enclosure) and the market method based on the financial crisis(market enclosure) are investigated. This paper analyze ‘eminent domain for private use’ of real-space assets that directly induce enclosures with the cases of urban development and regeneration projects in the United States. The nature of eminent domain based on the economic development takings is the transition to a typical large capital-dominated urban space that forcibly deprives petty property owners of private property and urban space utilization status, and means the selective mobilization of state power for private interests. The prevalence of public-private takings indicates the routinization(contemporaneity) of urban enclosures seeking new breakthroughs in large capital-led urban development and capital accumulation. Urban enclosures based on public-private takings discriminately protect private property rights according to economic wealth and power, and result in forcible expulsion and eviction of urban economic and living spaces that deprive the marginalized class of occupation(possessory right) and ownership.

Keywords

neoliberal urbanization

urban enclosure

eminent domain for private use

urban regeneration

commons

신자유주의 도시화 과정에서는 나타나는 도시 인클로저를 두 편의 논문을 통해 이중적 중층구조로 규명한다. 인클로저의 대상 차원에서는 실물공간 자산과 금융자산을 분석한다. 인클로저의 작동 메커니즘 차원에서는 사적 공용수용(public-private takings)이라는 제도적 방법(제도 인클로저), 금융공황에 기초한 시장을 통한 방법(시장 인클로저)으로 규명한다. 이 논문에서는 미국 도시개발과 재생사업을 사례로 인클로저를 직접적으로 유발하는 실물공간에 대한 사적 공용수용 사례를 분석한다. 경제적 공익개념에 근거한 공용수용의 본질은 ‘도시 소소유자’(petty property owners)의 사유재산과 도시공간 이용 상황을 강제적으로 박탈하는 전형적인 대자본 지배의 도시공간으로 전환이고, 사적이익을 위한 국가권력의 선택적 동원이다. 사적 공용수용의 만연은 대자본 주도의 도시개발과 자본축적의 새로운 돌파구를 찾으려는 도시 인클로저의 일상화(동시대성)를 보여준다. 사적 공용수용에 기반한 도시 인클로저는 경제적 부와 권력에 따라 사유재산권을 차별적으로 보호하며, 한계 계층의 점유권과 소유권을 박탈함으로써 도시 경제공간과 생활공간의 강제 축출을 낳는다.

키워드

신자유주의 도시화

도시 인클로저

사적 공용수용

도시재생

커먼즈

References

김용창, 2008, "사적이익을 위한 공용수용제도 확대에 대한 비판적 고찰," 학술단체협의회 창립20주년기념 연합심포지움 자료집, 95-114.

김용창, 2012, "미국 도시개발사업에서 사적이익을 위한 공용수용: 연방 및 주 대법원 판례를 중심으로," 국토연구, 74, 127-148.

김용창, 2015, "신자유주의 도시화와 도시 인클로저(I): 이론적 검토," 대한지리학회지, 50(4), 431-449.

김용창, 2021, "부동산 불로소득 자본주의 체제와 탈취에 바탕을 둔 축적의 특성," 마르크스주의연구, 18(3), 41-83.

류은숙, 2006, "세계인권선언 뜯어보기② 논쟁조항 살펴보기: 17조 재산권 조항 논쟁과 타협 속 기억해야 할 출발점은?," 인권오름, 7, http://hr-oreum.net/article.php?id=72

유재건, 2017, "새로운 제국주의와 자본주의: D. 하비의 역사적･지리적 유물론," 한국민족문화, 64, 283-308. 10.15299/jk.2017.08.64.283

이병천, 2018, "커먼즈론은 공동재산권을 어떻게 보는가?: 세 가지 시선," 시민과 세계, 33, 239-262.

이병천, 2022, "불로소득 자본주의, 어떻게 볼 것인가: 피케티에서 크리스토퍼스로," 시민과 세계, 40, 231-255. 10.35548/cw.2022.06.40.231

정승일, 2016, "기생충적 약탈은 오늘날 자본주의의 본성," 대학원 신문, 329호, 2016.09.06.

지주형, 2022, "불로소득 자본주의와 현대 자본주의의 위기," 경제와 사회, 133, 39-107. 10.18207/criso.2022..133.39

한국개발연구원 공공투자관리센터, 2013, 우리나라 수용법제에 대한 법경제학적 검토, 한국개발연구원.

土佐弘之, 2021, "思想の言葉過度な採取主義の行方: 資本の構成的外部をめぐる政治," 思想, 1162(2021年 2月号), 岩波書店, 東京, 2-7.

Arendt, H., 1968, Imperialism: Part Two of the Origins of Totalitarianism, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

Berliner, D., 2003, Public Power and Private Gain: A Five-Year, State-By-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain, Institute for Justice.

Berliner, D., 2006, Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse In the Post-Kelo World, Institute for Justice.

Birch, K., 2020, Technoscience rent: toward a theory of rentiership for technoscientific capitalism. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 45(1), 3-33. 10.1177/0162243919829567

Blomley, N., 2008, Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor, Social and Legal Studies, 17(3), 311-331. 10.1177/0964663908093966

Bollier, D., 2014. Think Like a Commoner, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC. (배수현 옮김. 2015. 공유인으로 사고하라, 갈무리).

Bollier, D., 2016, State Power and Commoning: Transcending a Problematic Relationship, Commons Strategies Group.

Borch, C. and Kornberger, M., 2015, Urban Commons: Rethinking the City, Routledge, New York. 10.4324/9781315780597

Christophers, B., 2018, The New Enclosures: The Appropriation of Public Land in Neoliberal Britain, Verso Books, New York and London.

Christophers, B., 2022, Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy, and Who Pays for It?, Verso Books, New York and London.

Dalglish, C., 2022, Enclosure: a living historical process, in Casella, E., Nevell, M. and Steyne, H.(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial Archaeology, Oxford University Press, Oxford , 128-141. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199693962.013.23

Das, R., 2017, David Harvey's theory of accumulation by dispossession: a Marxist critique, World Review of Political Economy, 8(4), 590-616. 10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.8.4.0590

Dest, A., 2021, The coca enclosure: autonomy against accumulation in Colombia, World Development, 137, 1-11. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105166

Dickerson, A. M., 2016, Revitalizing urban cities: linking the past to the present, The University of Memphis Law Review, 46, 973-1008.

Dixon, T. and Adams, D., 2008, Housing supply and brownfield regeneration in a post-Barker world: is there enough brownfield land in England and Scotland?, Urban Studies, 45(1), 115-139. 10.1177/0042098007085104

Dreher, R. and Echeverria, J. D., 2006, Kelo's Unanswered Questions: The Policy Debate Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development, Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute.

DSL(Digital Scholarship Lab), 2019, Renewing inequality, American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, accessed May 30, 2019, http://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/renewal/#view=0/0/1&viz=map&city=winston-salemNC&loc=14/36.1060/-80.2310.

Feinberg, A., Ghorbani, A. and Herder, P., 2021, Diversity and challenges of the urban commons: a comprehensive review, International Journal of the Commons, 15(1), 1-20. 10.5334/ijc.1033

Foster, S. R. and Iaione, C., 2016, The city as a commons, Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2), 281-349.

GAO, 2006, Eminent Domain: Information About it Uses Effect on Property Owners Communities is Limited, U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Gibson, T. A., 2010, Primitive accumulation, eminent domain, and the contradictions of neo-liberalism, Cultural Studies, 24(1), 133-160. 10.1080/09502380903415008

Godsil, R. D. and Simunovich, D. V., 2008, Protecting status: the mortgage crisis, eminent domain, and the ethic of the homeownership, Fordham Law Review, 77(3), 949-998.

Gold, M. and Sagalyn, L., 2011, The use and abuse of blight in eminent domain, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 38(4), 1119-1155.

Ince, O. U., 2014, Primitive accumulation, the new enclosures, and global land grabs: a theoretical intervention, Rural Sociology, 79(1), 104-131. 10.1111/ruso.12025

Issar, S., 2021, Theorising 'racial/colonial primitive accumulation': settler colonialism, slavery and racial capitalism, Race & Class, 63(1), 23-50. 10.1177/0306396821996273

Jacobs, H. M. and Bassett, E. M., 2011, All sound, no fury? the impacts of state-based Kelo laws, Planning & Environmental Law, 63(2), 3-8. 10.1080/15480755.2011.553097

Karakilic, E., 2022. Rentierism and the commons: a critical contribution to Brett Christophers' Rentier Capitalism, Environment and Planning A, 54(2), 422-429. 10.1177/0308518X211062233

Kerekes, C. B., 2011, Government takings: determinants of eminent domain, American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 201-219. 10.1093/aler/ahq023

Lamoreaux, N. R., 2011, The mystery of property rights: a U.S. perspective, The Journal of Economic History, 71(2), 275-306. 10.1017/S0022050711001537

Layard, A., 2019, Privatising land in England, Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law, 11(2), 151-168. 10.1108/JPPEL-03-2019-0009

Mitchell, D., McCarthy, J., Hart, G., Minton, A., Kallin, H., Kohn, M. and Christophers, B., 2020, The New enclosure: the appropriation of public land in neoliberal Britain, The AAG Review of Books, 8(2), 87-96. 10.1080/2325548X.2020.1722474

Morsink, J., 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 10.9783/9780812200416

Nadler, J., Diamond, S. and Patton, M., 2008, Government takings of private property, in Persily, N., Citrin, J. and Egan, P. J.(eds), Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 287-310. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195329414.003.0013

Niedt, C., 2013, The politics of eminent domain: from false choices to community benefits, Urban Geography, 34(8), 1047-1069. 10.1080/02723638.2013.819683

O'Connor, J., 2005, Dissenting, in Kelo v. City of New London(04-108), 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Pazaitis, A., Kostakis, V. and Drechsler, W., 2022, Towards a theory of value as a commons, International Journal of the Commons, 16(1), 248-262. 10.5334/ijc.1153

Piketty, T., 2014, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Belknap Press, Cambridge (장경덕 외 옮김, 2015, 21세기 자본, 글항아리). 10.4159/9780674369542

Ramos, J. M., 2016, The City as Commons: A Policy Reader, the Commons Transition Coalition, Melbourne.

Robinson and Cole LLP, 2007, Urban Blight: An Analysis of State Blight Statutes and Their Implications for Eminent Domain Reform, National Association of REALTORS.

Sadowski, J., 2020, The internet of landlords: digital platforms and new mechanisms of rentier capitalism, Antipode, 52(2), 562-580. 10.1111/anti.12595

Sassen, S., 2014, Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 10.4159/9780674369818

Sayer, A., 2020, Rentiership, improperty and moral economy, Environment and Planning A, doi: 10.1177/0308518X20908287. 10.1177/0308518X20908287

Schilling, J. and Pinzón, J., 2016, The basics of blight: recent research on its drivers, impacts, and interventions, VPRN Research and Policy Brief, 2, 1-30.

Schultz, D., 2009, If my home is my castle, can the government or other thugs take my property?, in Schultz, D., Evicted! Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America, Praeger Press, Westport, 163-184.

Schultz, D., 2011, Evaluating economic development takings: legal validity versus economic viability, Albany Government Law Review, 4(1), 186-211.

Scribner, M., 2010, This land ain't your land; this land is my land - a primer on eminent domain, redevelopment, and entrepreneurship, OnPoint, 164, 1-8.

Simons, R. A. and Iannone, D. T., 1997, Brownfields supply and demand, Urban Land, 56(6), 36-38.

Singh, N., 2016, On race, violence, and so-called primitive accumulation, Social Text, 34(3), 27-50. 10.1215/01642472-3607564

Smith, P., 2007, Primitive America: The Ideology of Capitalist Democracy, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Somin, I., 2015, The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226256740.001.000125943822

Theodos, B. and Edmonds, L., 2020, New Models for Community Shareholding; Equity Investing in Neighborhood Real Estate Investment Trusts and Cooperatives, Urban Institute.

VerGow, M. and Girton, J., 2021, Brief of law professors as amici curiae in support of petitioner, No. 20-1214, Supreme Court of the United States.

VPRN(Vacant Properties Research Network), 2015, Charting the Multiple Meanings of Blight; A National Literature Review on Addressing the Community Impacts of Blighted Properties, Keep America Beautiful(KAB).

Wall Street Journal, 2009, Pfizer and Kelo's ghost town: Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab, November 11, 2009.

Wong, C. and Baing, A. S., 2010, Brownfield Residential Redevelopment in England, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Information

Publisher :The Korean Geographical Society
Publisher(Ko) :대한지리학회
Journal Title :Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
Journal Title(Ko) :대한지리학회지
Volume : 58
No :1
Pages :68-87
Received Date : 2023-01-18
Revised Date : 2023-02-13
Accepted Date : 2023-02-13
DOI :https://doi.org/10.22776/kgs.2023.58.1.68

Journal of the Korean Geographical Society ISSN:1225-6633(Print) 대한지리학회지

All Issue