HABITATINTL. Vol. 7. No. .5/b. pp 237-24X. 19X3 Prmted in Great Britain

OlY7~3975/X3 $3 00 + 0 00 0 IYX3 Pcrpmon PI-c% Ltd.

Culture and the Political Economy

Building Form* of

ANTHONY KING Brunel University, UK

Of the various aspects of housing, building and planning in the Third World to which Otto Koenigsberger has given attention are his many contributions to the question of appropriate standards, whether in regard to shelter or the larger built environment.’ This important topic (not only for Third World societies) has also been extensively discussed by other contributors to this volume’ and it was some of Otto’s comments which generated my own interest in this question some years ago.”

In these and similar discussions, reference is often made to the inappropriate- ness of imported or ‘foreign’ standards for Third World housing or planning. Official standards are said, for example, to rely on ‘Western technology and social philosophy’,” to promote ‘Western-type building materials and tech- niques’ and that building codes emanating from a bygone colonial era prevail or are promoted in developing countries.” In contemporary discussion, whether lay or professional, reference is made - for example, with regard to building development in Kuwait - to ‘Western-style re-development” and in a recent textbook, the authors refer to ‘the dilemma of Westernization vs moderniz- ation’. This they spell out in more detail:

“change (in less developed countries) is likely to take the form of Westernization, since it is the West, the more developed countries, that developed the lead in creating the modern industrial city and the life style that goes with it. To be sure, there are ample signs of this Westernization (some might call it ‘homogenization’ or ‘internationalization’) of the world’s major cities, in the form of skyscrapers and modern architecture, the automobile society, Western high technology, advertising, etc.“”

These shorthand labels, ‘Western’, ‘modern’, ‘international’, tend, in every- day or lay language, to be used in a blanket fashion to cover a wide range of

* Part of this paper was first given as a lecture under the same title for the Aga Khan Programme in Islamic Architecture at Harvard/MIT in May 1983.

’ For example. United Nations. Climafe and House Dexign. United Nations, New York. 1971. 2 J.E. Hardoy and D. Satterthwaite (Editors), Sheller, Need und Response: Housing. Lund Ce .~e/t/ement iir

Seventeen Third World Nations, Wiley. Chichester, 1981; A.L. Mabogunje, J.E. Hardoy and R.P. Micra. Shelter Provision in Developing Countries: The Influence of Stundards and Criteria, Wiley. Chichestcr. 197X.

’ A.D. King, Colonial Urban Development: Culture. Social Power and Environment. p. 12. Routledge & Kegan, Paul, London, 1976.

4 A. Mabogunje, J. Hardoy and R.P. Misra, op. cit.. p. 8. ’ J.E. Hardov and D. Satterthwaite. OII. cir.. P. 256. ’ United Nations. op. ci!.. p. 3. ’ ’ Charles Maclean, ‘*Kuwait. A Place of Architectural Pilgrimage?“. The Times. p, viii. 1 June 1983. * S.D. Brunn and J.F. Williams. Cilies of the World: World Regional Urban Developmenr. p. 36. Harper &

Row, New York. 19X3.

237

23x Anthony King

phenomena - not simply ‘architectural style’ in its most limited sense of appearance or facade. but also building and urban form, materials, environ- mental standards or building types, to say nothing at this point about the institutions (economic, social, political) which the building or built form contains. What 1 would like to attempt in this paper is to look at these and other terms. the categories and labels with which built form is often thought about. and to ask some related questions. In particular, it will address (rather than answer) three

(1)

(3)

(3)

issues:

What arc the appropriate labels to describe built form and the larger built environment. particularly in the context referred to above? How accurate or appropriate are terms such as ‘Western’. ‘modern’, ‘European’. ‘international’ or, in a more conventional ‘architectural’ sense. ‘post- modern’? If we accept for the present one or two of these terms. i.e. ‘Western’ or ‘modern’. to describe the metropolitan or core society initially involved in the historical, and often colonial situation, in transplanting ‘Western’ standards into particular Third World settings, what explanation can be offered for the norms and standards of housing, planning and urban development prevailing in that society? When such standards and norms were or are introduced into the Third World society (i.e. the process of ‘Westernisation’, ‘modernisation’ or altcrnativcly ‘bourgeoisification’) what are the processes at work’?

Having discussed some of these issues in earlier work, the following interim comments should be seen as an opportunity. in the context of more recent research in the structuralistipolitical economy tradition as well as on the world urban system. to make some preliminary revisionist comments.

One aim of my Colonial Urhun Developmenf was to examine the impact of ‘Western industrial colonialism on urbanisation and urban development in non- Western societies’, particularly India, and to develop a theory and method to do this. Very briefly. the argument suggested that the built environment resulted from a particular form of political economy, namely, colonialism; how that form was expressed, however, depended largely on the society and culture of the societies concerned. Whilst the particular institutions of colonialism were discussed. a considerable part of the analysis was devoted to analysing culture in terms of values, activities, relationships and institutions and these wcrc subsequently related to built form.

Explanations. however, theoretical or otherwise. emerge from consciousness. and this is perhaps the first point to emphasise. In this particular case, the social and cultural consciousness had been a product of some five years in India. subsequently fostered by prevailing theoretical work in the early 1970s” as well as my own research findings. A short personal and anecdotal digression might be appropriate at this point to discuss these.

Part of the research for that study was undertaken in the rich and fascinating archives of the India Office Library, particularly. the Western Drawings Section with over 10,000 paintings and drawings and innumerable photographs. It should also be stated that prior to going to India, not only had I no knowledge of this collection but also. was largely unaware of the researches of cultural geography or the large amount of research in anthropology and other fields on cultural variables in perception and similar issues. In addition, having grown up as part of an ‘art-conscious’ family, I had positive - if yet modest - views about my abilities as a photographer. Hence. during those years in India. many photographic records were made varying from ‘nice views’ and ‘memorable

C‘ulture and the Politicul Economy of Building Form 239

occasions’ to ‘more objective’ records of buildings and environments of professional interest. To discover, on returning to Britain, a library of thousands of drawings, paintings and photographs of India made by earlier British travellers and residents was, therefore, both a pleasure and a shock. Not only had British predecessors, over a period of more than two centuries, been making records, according to certain criteria, of what they thought was important but more particularly, there were very clear continuities in what they perceived and how they had both recorded and presented it. This was also reflected in how and what they had built [Figs l(a) and (b)]. M ore sobering, however, for one’s ego,

Fig. I ((I). Pmirltitzg of hortw at Madras, rcrrly nineteenth cerztury (courtesy, India Office Lihrury)

was the discovery that more than a few of my own ‘creative photographs’ were virtually identical in subject matter and composition to drawings or paintings made by unknown ‘cultural and social forebears’ X0 or 100 years previously (Figs 3-5).

If not the most important. this is the most easily illustrated example of what. in effect. wcrc continuities not only in social and cultural behaviour (in this cast. perceptual criteria) but also in milch more fundamental and important structural factors governing social organisation and culture and their relation to the physical and spatial environment. Whatever understanding of the phenomenon of ‘colonial urban development ’ in India came from an examination of the historical and contcmporarv data, continuities. economic. poli‘tical

many insights came from the structural . social or cultural. derived from participant

observation. In this context, therefore, the emphasis on ‘social and cultural’ as opposed to more ‘political economic’ interpretations (though the distinction between these two levels of analysis is clearly nowhere near so clear cut as this sentence implies) is perhaps understandable.

The question arises. however. as to how social organisation and culture. understood in terms of \,alucs. beliefs, attitudes. wavs of doins things. are

Culture und /he Poliricul Economy of Buildirq Form 241

themselves formed and changed; in particular, how are social relations modified by the cash nexus, how are human needs cornmodified and social institutions changed by the development of market relations‘? Here, attention might be re- focused on the emergence of industrial capitalism in the West, and particularly, Britain. The following generalised comments are offered more to illustrate a type of argument than to prove it.

Although there are many studies of the development of the industrial city and, in a larger sense, the restructuring of the physical and spatial environment following the emergence of a capitalist mode of production. the way in which the specific forms of this were related to the particular context and processes of that mode of production is an area on which there is plenty of scope for further research. Nor, presumably, will more exact insights be possible until more is known about the real or theoretical possibilities of the development of industrialisation under non-capitalist conditions which develop, ab initio. with the state ownership of land. property and the means of production and which would, presumably. lead to a totally different kind of built environment. In other words, in the historical context, what aspects of the built environment were structured by ‘the capitalist mode of production’ as it has subsequently been introduced into other societies. what aspects resulted from the distinctive social/geographical/cultural conditions of its introduction and thirdly, what

Culture and the Poliricul Economy of R&ding Form 243

aspects resulted from the particular historical or situational context governing the available technology, energy system or the like?

In a very general sense, a mode of production, or system of economic organisation is expressed both spatially as well as in the form of the built environment. There is both a social and spatial division of labour which historically, in the case of Britain, as Massey discusses,“’ required not only a concentration of labour in urban areas but also an increasing specialisation in the urban hierarchy, with some towns and regions concentrating, for example, on textiles or engineering, others on mining, and others, such as London, on banking and insurance. This spatial division of labour was equally reflected in the built environment whether in terms of the general distribution between urban and rural areas or in its specific concentration, both at the place of production (the factory) or in the accommodation constructed close by.”

Apart from this modified economic, social and spatial order, related as it was to historically-specific forms of energy production, are new forms of economic and social organisation: two of these have been mentioned, the factory and accommodation for labour, which led to the emergence of new built forms. Similarly, other new forms of economic and social organisation, whether related to technical or energy criteria, are reflected in new building and settlement types - the engine shed, mill, mining village, bank. The increased sophisti- cation of economic organisation leads to new organisational forms: insurance transactions which once took place in a coffee house later occupy, a complex specialised building; the introduction of the concept of limited liablhty modifies the form and scale of a stock exchange; specialisation in industrial and economic processes leads to an increasing variety of industrial building types. With these changes come modified forms of social organisation and social control which - irrespective of Marxist or non-Marxist perspectives - have resulted in the production of new, and specialised institutions reflecting the redistribution of labour between rural and urban locations: the workhouse, prison, asylum, hospital. as well as an increasingly differentiated provision for education and government, all of which are associated with the development of the state.”

A basic characteristic of capitalist industrialisation, however. and of the rural urban division of labour which distinguishes it from subsistence or peasant economies, is the size of the surplus production and its selective appropriation. According to Harvey, the urban process “implies the creation of a material physical infrastructure for production, circulation. exchange and consumption”. with the built environment acting as a principal means of accumulation and opportunity for keeping the surplus in circulation.” In terms of historical analysis, insufficient attention has been given, in this context, to the function performed by what today is referred to as the leisure industry but in conventional historical discussion is usually referred to as the rise of the resort. What Hobsbawm, for example, shows is the correlation between the develop- ment of industrial production. the investment of finance capital and the re- cycling of surplus during the third quarter of the nineteenth century with the development of the leisure resort and ‘conspicuous consumption’.‘4 In what was the first major construction boom, there was not only a rapid expansion of

I” D. Massey, ‘.ln What Sense a Kcgional Problem?“. Rqqjmal Srudiey Vol. 13, pp. X-143. 1079. ” S D Chapman (Editor) The Hi.ctorv o[ Workirlg Class Hollsirlg, David & Charlc\, Newton Abbot. lY7 I ;

J. Tarn. .Working Class Ho&g in IYih~Centurv Brifain. Lund Humphries. London. 1971. I’ D. Melossi and M. Pavarini. The Prison &d f/w Fuctory. Hutchinson. London. IYX2: K. Evan\, 7’/1c

FuhricaGon of Virtue: English Pri.wn Architecture. 1750-1840, Cambridge University Press. C‘amhridgc. IYX3: also articles by A. Forty. A. Scull. and H. Tomlinson on hospital, asylum, prison, and Introduction. in A.D. King (Editor). Building.r and .Socirr,v: E.~sa,w on the Social Developmem o/‘/he Ruilr Eur,ironrwtzr. Koutledge & Kegan. Paul. London, 1YXO.

” D. Harvey. “The Urban Process Under Capitalism: a Framework for Analysis”. Irlmntrrronnl Jourtrtrl o/ Urban md Rq+ral Research Vol. 6, No. I, pp. 24-33. 1077.

” E J Hohshawm. The Age of Capital. Weidenfeld Kr Nicolson. London. lY7.5.

leisure building in terms of resorts and spas but also. the invention of new building forms and leisure environments. whether the seafront promcnadc. winter gardens or the specialised mass vacation house. ” There was also in this period, a spectacular increase in the production of architects. This would seem to provide the first historical precedent to contemporary investment in the leisure industry with the proliferation of leisure ccntres. tourist resorts, time-share apartments. marinas, multi-national hotels or theme parks.

So far, however. these sketchy historical comments have fucused on

developments in one society. What is however apparent is that. at least from the eighteenth century, if not earlier. this new mode of production was operating on a global scale. However, just at what point in the nineteenth century one can accurately and comprehensively speak of ‘global relations of production’ is arguable: nevertheless. through the instrument of colonialism. the pcnctration of subsistence. peasant or semi-incorporated economies by the system of industrial capitalism in which peripheral economies were. to gxxter or lesser extent, linked to those at the core largely occurred at this time. Mabogunjc. for example. writes of ;I “more appropriate spatial order” imposed on West Africa hv the penetration of capitalist institutions: ;I new urban system 01‘ ports. railwa-y and administrative towns which effectively linked up the urban system of the colonv with that of the metropolis, as well as urban systems of one colony with those (;f others.” Others have demonstrated similar processes occurring in North Africa, Latin America. India, or elsewhere.” Again. at what point in time one can accurately speak. like Wallerstcin, of the capitalist \?iorld-c~onc,i~i~, as “;I single division of labour within which are located multiple cultures ““’ is arguable. although analysis of the kind undertaken on the inlcr-dependence and interaction between the structures of Latin American, British and American towns and cities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries begins to suggest some of the characteristics: the implication is that the specialised form of industrial urbanisation which took place in Britain must bc understood in relation to the commercial. consumption-oriented structure of urbanisation in L_atin America. “I

If, therefore. there has been ;I move towards a system of global relations of production, and if this is expressed both spatially (in the degree of urbanisation) as well as in other aspects of the built environment, this dots pro\ idc ;I somewhat larger framework in which to analyst built form. both in the metropolis and in the Third World.

Ideas about the social and spatial division of Iabour at the regional and national level are combined with the notion of a division of lahour at an international level. which is also both spatial and cultural. In terms of understanding built form in both core and peripheral societies. including questions of standards. these concepts might provide better scope. Thus. historically, Western or modern parts of the built environment in the colonies. OI today. in the Third World. are those which arc associated with the managerial or organisational functions of the developing capitalist world economy and which arc used by colonial or corrzprodor irzdigerzc.s. or subsequent Iv. by indigenous

6lites linked to the world economy.‘” Indigenous labour - and those parts of the indigenous economy linked with pre-colonial modes of production - are those associated with traditional or cultural parts of the built environment, manifesting cultural standards.” A simple, but useful example is that of the European or Western bungalow of the plantation manager and the cultural standards or traditional accommodation of plantation labour. Or, to take another example from the metropolitan or core society, the distinctive built form of the Lancashire industrial cotton town (sic) must be viewed within a global political economy which has a physical and spatial dimension and which includes the cotton exchange in Manchester, the transport links to the cotton supply (whether in the southern states of the USA or in India), as well as the cotton plantation and the accommodation of those connected with it. Rex makes a similar point: “in a very real sense, the slave plantations of the Caribbean . . were part of the social structure of modern Britain”” - though here. the allusion is to economic and social phenomena rather than to physical and environmental ones. The main point to be made here is that ail aspects of built form - whether seen as spatial, physical or architectural - must be viewed within an emergent, inter-dependent and interacting capitalist world economy, yet one which permits, in different parts, different cultural expression.

As indicated above, the historic role of the city - though not, of course, the only one - has been to act as a place of production and consumption. Over the last few years, the direction of critical theory in planning has been to see urban planning in capitalist societies as an activity concerned with rationalising. or optimising market processes, eliminating obstacles rather than, with certain qualifications, restructuring society. Where planning was ‘exported’ to the Third World, in colonial or post-colonial situations, the situation was similar, though with the additional dimension that, prior to the national re-orientation of urban and regional planning, the function was to rationalise urban forms and activities which were already linking the colonial society to the metropolis.”

These generalisations can be better understood in relation to three propo- sitions concerning different dimensions of the process of urbanisation.

(1) Urbanisation is said to be the product of capitalist development and expansion: the number and size of urban centres in developing countries relates to patterns of investment and consumption.“’

(2) In modern industrial market economies, suburbanisation involving high rates of home and car-ownership is seen as essential for expanding consumption and maintaining GNP.‘”

(3) There is a particular form of suburbanisation characteristic of modern capitalist economies (including urban structure, housing style and architectural lay-out) which places high value on separate, single-family homes. The logical extension of these developments is towards an increasing proliferation of smaller households. each one of which is accommodated in its own separate, owned property.

“’ J Fricdmann and R. Wulff. The Urhut~ Trurzsirion: Compurufiw Smdirs of Newly /nduslricr/i;itr( .Socic/ic~~. pp. 13-14, Arnold. London, 1976.

” The distinction between ‘official’ and ‘cultural’ standards k made by A.L. Mabogunje. J.E. Hardoy and R.P. Micra. o/j. cir.

” J. Rex. “A Working Paradigm for Race Relations Research”. 1’3hnic and Rtwtrl St~dirs Vol. IV. No. I. pp. l-24. IYXI.

” For cxamplc. G. Kirk. b’rhurl f’lunning in rr Cqiruli.r/ Sucir?y, Croom Helm, London IYXO: A.D. King. “Exoorting ‘Planning i’: the Colonial and Newcolonial Experience”. Shuping arr Urban World. G.E. Cherry

(Editor). ip. 203-236, Mansell. London, 19X0. If patterns of urbanisation as well as the particular form\ and structures of towns and cities in the colonies can best be understood in relation to developments 111 the metropolis, this is equally true of the particular institutions and characteristics of planning which were introduced to them.

” Roberta, O,I. cir. pp. I I, 81, 1Y7X. li D. Harvey, Social Justiw utzd thr C‘ily, p. 271. Arnold, London. 1973; also ibid.. lY77.

These propositions bring us back to one of the questions stated at the outset: what is the relation between ‘culture’ and ‘political economy”! In particular. how are values, expectations, ways of doing things, changed by the historical experience of the operations of a market economy? For example, traditional explanations for the prevalence of owner-occupied, separate single-family homes in the USA are often given in ‘cultural’ terms, that is, by reference to cultural values favouring privacy, family-centredness, and the like. though these explanations have also been criticised on the grounds of ignoring the ideological. political and economic factors underlying demand.“’ In Britain, historical cxpericncc would suggest that increasing GNP and the operation of the market economy has led, during this century. not only to increased owner occupation but also. to the multiplication of separate households. a growing proportion 01 which have been contained in separate, single-family (detached or scm- detached) dwellings.‘7 Is the explanation of ;I particular housing preference (and hence. a particular kind of built environment) therefore. to be couched primarily in ‘culture’ (i.c>. British’?) or ‘political economy’ (i.c>. free marketicapitalist?) terms? Certain social and cultural values such as privacy seem to bc especialI? related to the values of property ownership.‘s Indeed. ;I question might bc asked about the large amount of research generated in recent years in the field ot architectural or environmental psychology on the subject of ‘privacy‘ and to what extent this is a product of the market economy and a concern with consumption. This is particularly relevant when considered in relation to building services: Kira, for esamplc. finds it worth noting that “even as recently ;I\; 1070. some

hotclmcn in Europe were proposing to build hotels without ;I private bathroom for each room!” (tt IC exclamation mark is Kira’s).‘” Cooper points out that official winter heating standards in the USA have risen bt;,ovcr 6°C‘ over ;I 35 year period. in casts. requiring the renewal of equipment.- These data must bc put alongside the contemporary practice of marketing two-basin bathrooms (‘hix‘ and ‘hers’). Given the fact that different cultures may well have different environmental expectations,” much more needs to be known about how such expectations come about.

What, in other words. needs to be asked is whether there is an inherent logic in modern capitalist forms of urban and building development where there is ;I free market in property and land which leads to Harvey’s oft-quoted statement:

‘*What is remarkable is not that urbanism is so different but that it is so similar in all metropolitan centres of the world in spite of significant differences in social policy. cultural tradition. administrative and political arrangements. institutions and laws, and so on.“‘2

The reason, according to Harvey. is that the conditions in the economic base of capitalist society, “together with its associated technology put an unmistakable stamp upon the qualitative attributes of urbanism in all economically advanced capitalist nations”. The terms ‘Western’ and ‘modern’. therefore. tend to blur the processes taking place.

For cxamplc. in his careful study of traditional compound housing in three African cities, Schwerdtfeger concludes that both Islam and “Western culture xnd

technology may well effect the gradual disappearance of large compounds

“’ N. Duncan. “Home Ownership and Social Theory”. Ho~tsrr~~ trrld Idm~/r\. C I’o~\-< lr/t~wci/ I’~~,_r/w< III CT,. .I .S Dunc;in (l3hor). pp. OS- IX. ~‘room ficlm. London. 1YSI.

“ AD. tiing. 0,’ uf.. 1YS-l. Ih A. Britain. 771~ I’ri~~trr/\c~tl World. Routkdge K: Kegan. Paul. I.ontion. 107s. “’ A. Kira. 7‘11~ H~~//~~orv~r. p. S. Penguin. Harmonds\~,orth. lY7h. “’ 1 C‘cloPcr. “C‘omltlrt Thcor! and Practice: Barrlcrs to the C‘onscr\ation of Encrg! h\ i3u1lcl1ng

occup"nt~" . /t/~/~lrct/ Errcr,~\~ Vol. I I. No. 4, pp. 213S7HS. 2hY. IYX7. ” A. RaPoPort and N. Watwn, ‘.Cultural Varialxlity in Phywal Stand;~rii~“. I’w/~lc trrid /Irrlidif~q\ Ii.

Gutman (Editor). pp. 3.3-5.3. Ha\lc Boohs. !Icw Yorh, 1072. ” II. Harvc>. .SCKitrl .Itr\lrw ~rjrrl r/w (‘i/v. p. 378. Arnold. ILondon. lY71.

and the increase of smaller, self-contained houses occupied by incli\~idual families”. Elsewhere, he writes of “cultural change resulting in the reduction in size of co-residential families, the change in people’s attitudes and consequently, the modification of traditional house-styles or the outright adoption of foreign patterns of housing.““’ Such ‘Western’ cultural changes seem very similar to the physical separation of work and residence and the development of consumcr- oriented suburbs characteristic of capitalist forms of urbanisation.

Similarly, criticism can be made about the use of ‘international’. a term which has both a general and, as ‘international style’, a more specific architectural meaning. As has been discussed elsewhere,” the main period for the development of so-called ‘international institutions’ as well as the term ‘internationalise’ was in the half-century before 1914, that is. at the height of European imperialism: the ‘international powers’ were. in effect, the colonial powers. The phrase, ‘international style’, as applied to urban and architectural form, was coined in the early 1930s to refer to the built forms of the modern, industrial free market society when world economic and political relations vverc still dominated by capitalist institutions; what is referred to by that term arc the high technology, high energy materials and capital-intensive architecture containing the institutions of the free market economy. Likcwisc. the term ‘European’ as applied to built environments in the Third World: in this context. it is perhaps in order to quote Wallerstein who writes that “the expansion of the capitalist mode of production” expansion of Europe”.”

could be thought of, quite misleadingly. as “the There is, in this context, however. still the need to

distinguish between different cultural expressions of this mode. whether- French. Spanish, British or Dutch.

The emphasis in the preceding, very generalised comments has been on global economic processes with a crude use of notions such as the ‘capitalist world economy’. a concept which refers both to a system of production as well as a11

ideology. Whilst technology (hardware) has the potential of being universal or international, ideology (software) is much less easily transferred. as recent history in the Middle East has shown. It is presumably at the level of ideology, understood in terms of beliefs, values and cultures, that the study of social change should take place.

In terms of the analysis of built form, the overall theme of this paper, a theoretical framework might be provided by combining two levels of analysis. On one hand, the broad, if not sweeping generalisations of the political economy approach which, in Harvey’s terms, refer to “the economic base of capitalist society with its associated technology”. If, as has been suggested above. all systems of economic organisation or modes of production are cxprcssed both spatially and in particular types of built form, then the validity of concepts such as ‘the international division of labour’ ought to be capable of being tested by reference to empirical evidence on the ground. This may refer, crudely. to types and forms of urbanisation in different places and different periods. or, in a more sophisticated way, to the forms and functions of particular cities. for exampIt’.

those which act as centres for headquarters of multi-national corporations and,

hypothetically, for the organisation of production on a global scale.“’ On the other hand, however, there is urgent need of detailed empirical

studies, both historical and contemporary, of particular local. regional and

” F. Schwerdtfcger. Trudiriorzal Housing irl Africun Cifies, pp. 309. 31 ” A.D. King,

2. Wilq. C‘hichcstcr. IVS7. “‘The World Economy is Everywhere’: Urban History and the World Sptem”. I’rhtr/r Ilr\ror\,

Yeurhook. University of Leicester Press. Leicester. 1083. ” I. Wallerstein, “The Three Stages of African Involvement in the World Economy’.. 1711, /‘O//11( ii/ I-‘( 01101,1~

oJ’ Coniernporury Africa. P.C.W. Gutkind and I. Wallerstein (Editors), pp. 30-5 ” R.B. Cohen.

2, s;tgc. Lonliol~. I’176

“The New International Division of Labor. Multinational Corporation\ and I :rlun Hierarchy”. Urbani.rution und Urban Plamin~ in Crrpimlisr Socirfy. M. Dear ;md A.J. Sc01t (I.ditcrr\). pp. 287-318. Methuen. London. 1981.

national case studies which should demonstrate the degree to which local societies or cultures maintain control over and modify their own economy and polity, and hence their distinctive building and urban forms, in the fact of global trends. In short, we need ;I variety of labels. social. cultural. geographical. as well as those drawn from the vocabularly of political cconon~v.