metropolis on the human scale.


Pro-Growth Globalized Capitalism as the "Trolley Problem" of Urban Policy

Physical infrastructure, foundational political documents, ancient religious values, demographic makeups– all of these factors come together to cultivate a society’s pathways of dependency. Individuals in a community have their own personal pathways of dependency, certain limitations or privileges that have an effect on their quality/quantity of education, nutrition, employment, voting power, or general inclusion in society. Municipal governments face these pathways in the context of human, financial, and physical capital, as well as the amount of political independence or flexibility they are given by their superiors. State governments face limitations by federal government regulations, and federal administrators and officials face the pressures of being on the global stage, as well as the financial responsibilities of all 50 states. This interdependency between these varying levels of influence are complicated when a globalized capitalist economy is at play, because the almighty market suddenly poses a variety moral questions in relation to these sectors of society. The more the market gains power, influence, and value, the more it is treated with human-like status. Harvard theologian Harvey Cox discusses this in his book Market as God, where he argues the obsession with “invisible hand” method of regulation and the treatment of powerful companies as individual persons in the legal world has led to a new religion of sorts, where the deity is the economy itself and the largest sin one could commit would be to limit its growth and influence. This kind of idolization of the market creates perhaps the greatest pathway of dependency for society, environment, and politics. Persistent emphasis on the growth of state and federal gross domestic product and gross national product has led to immense wealth gaps, environmental justice concerns, the exploitation of marginalized, minority populations across the globe, and the destruction of the natural environment. The economy has certainly had is fair share of biting the hand that feeds it in terms of its exploitation of natural resources. Though this exploitation has been validated for the sake of “efficiency”, writers such as Paul Hawken and David C. Korten explain how this outward sense of adeptness ultimately perpetuates the dualistic paradigm that economies and governments across the world have continuously abandoned for holism in the past few decades due to the recognition of finite planetary resources. Finally, these commanding market incentives for power and wealth are further perpetuated by the suppression of “radical” alternatives to capitalism. The cultural perception of “radical” as being a dirty word of sorts has led many conventional publishers and popular universities that depend on funding from outside sources to be weary of discussing alternatives to our current system due to fear of defunding. Though these pathways of dependencies seem to have an iron grip on the limitations to change and adaptivity, history has proven that drastic paradigm shifts are indeed possible when the root of the problem is identified. By viewing the rejection of the fetishization of market growth as the foundational pathway to alternative, more environmentally and socio-politically friendly ways of life, perhaps the harms done upon marginalized groups (both financially and physically), the environment, and political entities may find themselves with a new sense of agency through a redistribution of capital resources.

During Middle Ages when the Christian church had direct influence on political, economic, citizen affairs, usury was deemed as a sinful act, with tax collectors being spotlighted for practicing such damming acts (i). In the early 18th century, American colonies themselves adopted usury laws and set interest caps. These caps became increasingly tried and tested as globalized currency rates of exchange were created, banks refinanced and created new forms of credit to allow for economic growth, and bartering systems became less and less evident in the economic trade realm. However, it wasn’t until the early 20th century that deregulation began as the economic industries began to grow and global forces and trade became increasingly intertwined and influential (ii). The Industrial Revolution’s impact on the United States led to the beginnings of Fordism-like production processes, making consumer products quicker and cheaper to produce due to the removal of human error and efficiency thresholds. However, theorists and policy makers soon realized that paying laborers below a certain livable amount removed their ability to participate in the local economy, thus removing opportunities for economic growth. Increased wage policies took place in the mid 19th century that allowed for increased consumerist opportunities for the “average” American. Soon the temptation to produce overseas for even cheaper rates of production and the removal of certain environmental industrial harms as a result overtook the American economy. Hundreds of blue- collar jobs were eradicated, and those with high skilled work capacities who claimed their role in the investment realm were highly rewarded. This rapid growth occurred over a fairly short period of time and had a snowball-like effect; the more investors and business owners industrialized and increased the “efficiency” of their sectors, the better they survived in an ever growing, competitive global market. As a whole, America had already had the privilege of being on one of the most powerful socioeconomic global forces in existence, so even when other countries had comparative advantages in productions of certain goods, the United States still had the wealth and resource availability to continue producing those goods for competitive values while still making profits through global trade. Though these efforts sent GDP numbers through the roof for American states (particularly California (iii)), it is this exact focus on growth that Paul Hawken claims initiated the inefficiency of global capitalist practices. He discusses how capitalistic commerce requires “living systems” for its welfare, but in the end, ignores and exploits their needs due to the fact that conventional economic theories do not count “natural capital” (iv). Similarly, David Korten discusses the arguments in Jürgen Habermas works surrounding the “system” (or “money”) world and the “lifeworld” (v). David Pearce and Edward Barbier suggest the implementation of “monetizing the environment” as a remedy to these harmful forces through four key tools: abolishing perverse subsidies, establishing property rights to environment to create new markets, tax polluters in a proportionate manner, and change accounting systems (vi). However, even when solutions hold water rationally, even their creators admit that putting theory into practice has been “more difficult than anticipated” (vii), revealing that the powers that be restrict any kind of diversion in economic subsidies, property rights, and tax rates.

Returning back to the argument presented by theologian Harvey Cox, what was once seen as an unimaginable sinful act in the realm of economic endeavors has now become a flourishing industry that allowed immense profitization for larger industries that receive lower interest rates due to their immense economic success and reliability for banks as loan recipients, while alternative industries and common businesses continue to struggle financially (viii). Usury laws were implemented to protect the poor from being taken advantage of when poverty was compounded by a lack of employment protection laws and public welfare services. Though the American poor nowadays benefit from the presence of these amenities, different financial disadvantages and buffers exist that contribute to climate issues in the realm of environmental justice. Where banks were lending out money to powerful industries and privileged areas that allowed for local economic vitality, many poor areas with low income, unskilled employment opportunities as well as demographics that mainly consisted of historically marginalized socio-ethnic and racial groups. Due to their lack of economic or political power, theorists such as Saskia Sassen (ix), Neil Brenner and Roger Keil (x) noticed the impact of urban globalization on unskilled, inner city economy sectors, where Robert Bullard (xi) recognized the physical environmental hazards that were placed in these locations. Sassen, Brenner, and Keil recognized the phenomenon of a “global system of cities” (xii) and how “structures of economic power are being built into electronic space” (xiii) through the introduction of a post-Fordism economy (xiv). This decrease of economic opportunity for unskilled workers who have little opportunity to advance their academic standing or job training skills led to the decreased air, water, and general environmental quality for poor inner city areas (xv).

Pathways of Dependency in Wealth Distribution Gaps

Through these arguments presented by Harvey Cox, Paul Hawken, David C. Korten, David Pearce, Edward Barbier, Saskia Sassen, Neil Brenner, Roger Keil, and Robert Bullard– it is clear that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the pathways of dependency laid out by the values of economic efficiency and growth have harmed many marginalized groups limited their ability to escape these rigid routes. Those who have invested in technological capital ownership have become the clear economic victors when looking at the wealthiest demographics.

These effects not merely theoretical and qualitative in nature. In multiple graphs presented by the Urban Land Institute, wealth trends between racial and ethnic groups show clear correlations to the timelines discussed by theorists in relation to the increased globalized urban economy trend. On a broad scale, the distribution of family wealth between 1963 and 2016 shows immense disparities between the 10th, 50th, 90th, 95th and 99th percentiles. In Hawken’s Natural Capitalism paper, he discusses how transaction is perceived to be the ultimate measure of growth, which is deemed as ultimately “good”. As shown by Urban Land Institute research, who this is “good” for is becoming an increasingly small segment of the population. Data collection from the 1963, 1983, to 2016 show a shocking disparity between the 10th, 50th, 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles in terms of the distribution of family wealth. Where the 95th percentile was nearly 1⁄4 away from the 95th in 1963, it became less than half in 2016, with the 99th percentile hauling in $10,400,000 (xvi). It is clearly evident that the benefit of a high GDP does not necessarily apply to all citizens equally. When considering the eras of Fordism, 1930 to 1970, then Post Fordism 1970 to current times (xvii), it’s clear that the individuals in the higher percentiles of family wealth distribution were those who are owners of physical capital that works for them through investment money as part of the globalized urban economy (xviii).

A majority of Americans hold their wealth in within the value of their home. However, in a 2004 study published in Population Association of America titled Housing and Wealth Inequality: Racial-Ethnic Differences in Home Equity in the United States, authors Lauren J. Krivo and Robert L. Kauffman claimed the following about racial inequality within the realm of homeownership;

“Using data from the American Housing Survey, we found substantial and significant gaps in housing equity for blacks and Hispanics (but not for Asians) compared with whites, even after we controlled for a wide range of locational, life-cycle, socioeconomic, family, immigrant, and mortgage characteristics. Furthermore, the payoffs to many factors are notably weaker for minority than for white households. This finding is especially consistent across groups for the effects of age, socioeconomic status, and housing-market value. Blacks and Hispanics also uniformly receive less benefit from mortgage and housing characteristics than do whites.” (xix)

When looking at the evidence presented in Robert Bullard’s People of Color Environmentalism, the effects of redlining, though outlawed in the late 1960s (xx) continued to have devastating effects on minority communities– another pathway of dependence created by the prioritization and consistent financial support of higher income areas. Considering the overall state of wealth in the United States, there is a strong argument that increased efficiency does not benefit all participants of the economy equally– and this statement is applicable on both a national and a global level. The industrialization of many blue-collar employment opportunities has led to the increase of white-collar jobs (xxi) to seek out higher paying professions, as displayed in the increasing amount of individuals registering for higher education prospects each year (xxii). However, yet again, this wealth disparity has created unequal access for minority communities (xxiii) compared to their white counterparts due to increasing tuition rates and the availability of quality K-12 resources (xxiv).

Despite the validity of many arguments surrounding racial disparities in economic opportunity, it is important to note that globalized capitalism has expanded beyond the boundaries of race into the demise of entire socioeconomic class of the poor– including poor whites. However, societal perceptions of what poverty “looks like” have an impact on how legitimized certain groups are. This phenomenon in relation to certain welfare programs was analyzed by author Martha Mahoney in her piece Segregation, Whiteness and Transformation;

“Programs like public housing, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps have become publicly 'raced' and endowed with a racial character (marked as nonwhite) in white perception and in much political discourse despite the fact that whites are at least a plurality of beneficiaries . . . . Programs such as aid to farmers and bailouts for large corporations are officially treated as if they are 'nonraced' when in actuality they are 'white-raced.'...The social construction of race is capable of overtaking nonracial programs, stigmatizing them as 'assistance' and treating them as 'racial' whenever any significant proportion of benefits is provided to people of color.” (xxv)

The importance of public perception when it comes to recognizing the entirety of impoverished socioeconomic classes of all racial and ethnic backgrounds is a pragmatic step towards facing the effects of global capitalism. As Elizabeth Kneebone of the Brookings Institution points out, even the physical locations of poverty matter when distributing resource aids. The creation of a post-industrial economy led to sharp spikes in suburban poverty during the early 2000s (xxvi), an issue that is becoming further problematic as the lifestyle suburbia promises becomes an increasingly outdated American dream.

Wealth disparities due to a changing economy that favors higher skilled and higher trained jobs from the automation of many unskilled labor opportunities– as well as the complete economic destruction of places like Detroit, Michigan who were once completely dependent these kinds of industries (xxvii)– have broader implications than mere differences in income. The difference in implications between income and wealth (xxviii) are vital when considering the lasting effects of generational poverty, and this setback knows no boundary of race or ethnicity.

Pathways of Dependency in Urban Planning: Gentrification and Global Cities

As a fairly new and rapidly changing field of study, urban planning was once a practice done by policy makers. Now its own separate department, planning has become a specialized practice that allows for the comprehensive development of metropolitan, suburban, and industrial zones. However, the way in which America developed itself as a fairly young territory in comparison to Europe were more car-centric and suburban focused. This was a result of the industrial revolution’s epiphany that workers needed to make higher wages in order to participate in the economy and– as a result– stimulate it and encourage growth. As wages increased and products became cheaper as a result of global trade, more employed people could afford automobiles. Increased tax dollars to follow through with public infrastructure construction efforts and maintenance to allow for this influx of car ownership and encouraged the development of the infamous American suburbs, which also occurred as a result of higher paying white-collar jobs as well as racial incentives such as white flight. Robert Bruegmann defines the three causes of sprawl as privacy, mobility (referring to the ownership of private automobiles), and choice (xxix). The tactically formulated suburban lifestyle was seen as a one size fits all, final puzzle piece to the development of the American dream...for those who could afford it and were welcome to participate. The same was true when urban areas became a more desirable location of inhabitance in the decades that followed. In an article by Miguel de Oliver, he discusses the timeline of gentrification beginning in the 1950s as “incipient gentrification”, a Bohemian wave in the 1970s, then to a “gentrification by capital” in the late nineties and early two thousands (xxx). This gentrification by capital effect was a “centrifugal effect” of the 1990 recession that was revived through a “jobless recovery”– referring to the technologizing effects of a post-Fordism, post-industrial economy. Those who were being displaced during these eras were impoverished minority groups who were ultimately pushed into less economically desirable areas of the city. These areas were often susceptible to higher concentrations of climate pollution, leading to poor air quality and issues such as the urban heat island effect due to a lack of green infrastructure. One could argue that with the rapid influence of a globalized economy, the birth of what Saskia Sassen deems “a global system of cities” that “consist of corporate service complexes that offer agglomeration economies” and offer a “new urban economy” that has devastated rural areas (e.g. the issue of white poverty as mentioned previously), former industrial areas (collapse of cities that were dependent on unskilled labor industries), and secondary cities (xxxi).

This perfect storm of geographical and economic isolation of impoverished minority communities led to the creation of environmental justice as climate change consequences compounded from unsustainable global capitalist production and consumption practices. In Robert Bullard’s piece People of Color Environmentalism from Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, he describes the EJ debate through the following paragraph:

“Sustainability goals are often presented in terms of the "three Es" - environment, economy, and equity - which in a sustainable society would all be enhanced rather than undermined over the long term. Of these, equity ·has been by far the least represented within public policy debates. There are relatively few well-organized groups advocating on behalf of low-income or otherwise disadvantaged communities. Even the environmental movement, with its relatively progressive middle-class constituency, developed with little consideration of the equity implications of its issues. The link between social justice and environmental issues in the USA was developed beginning in the 1980s in large part by working-class communities fighting against the location of garbage incinerators, landfills, and toxic chemical hazards near their neighborhoods. African-American and Latino activists also criticized mainstream environmental groups for their lack of diversity and demanded changes in federal regulation to produce more equitable public participation within environmental decision-making..” (xxxii)

Returning back to the discussion on home equity, due to their proximity of environmental hazards, even if homeownership is present, the value of the home is significantly impacted.

Pathways of Dependency on the Global Stage

The same principles of environmental justice apply to global scales as well. As a nation that participates in a globalized capitalist economy, the exploitation of cheap labor is often exploited in more ways than utilizing cheap labor. The dumping of American trash in foreign countries such as India and China have led to a health risk from exposure to heavy metals (xxxiii) as well as an impact on dietary consumption, such as the consumption of foods created near old e- waste recycling sites (xxxiv). Where capitalism demands the constant improvement of products and efficiency of production, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research by Ji-Min Yeom, Hye-Jin Jung, Soo-Yeong Choi, Dae Sung Lee, and Seong-Rin Lim show the potential environmental and health impacts of experimenting with product designs;

“Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays are applied to various electronic devices such as smartphones and televisions in our society, replacing liquid-crystal display (LCD) due to many advantages: self-emitting property, high contrast, slimness, and flexibility. Although OLED consists mostly of organic substances, because it was developed to reduce the consumptions of rare and precious metals...leachability test results showed that the OLED display has higher hazardous potential than an LCD...the OLED display had 1000-2300 times higher resource depletion potentials than the LCD...OLED display exhibits 600 times higher cancer potentials for water and for soil than the LCD due primarily to the high concentration of chromium and 3 times higher cancer potentials for air due primarily to the cadmium and arsenic.” (xxxv)

Capitalism oftentimes tends to ignore any costs or labor efforts that are not absolutely necessary to the bare-bones production of a given product. They will often follow the path with the least path of resistance that results in the highest rates of profit and efficiency. Therefore, if there is any kind of barrier to recycling or repurposing of industrial waste, companies will continue to dump them in unsustainable manners, same is true with using the cheapest resources possible to create products.

Barriers and Challenges to Alternatives

Even when sustainable policies practices are implemented or proposed, there are still a variety of difficulties in terms of genuine, productive application that results in progress. Due to the economy’s iron grip on constant growth, any kind of environmental regulation that limits growth is oftentimes immediately rejected in the political realm. Perhaps one of the most interesting illogicality of sustainable product design efforts is Jevon’s Paradox, which states that even when mores sustainable resources and methods of production are utilized, the issue of unsustainable rates of consumption still exist. An article published in Frontiers in Energy Research titled Unraveling the Complexity of the Jevons Paradox: The Link Between Innovation, Efficiency, and Sustainability poses the following question in relation to this definition:

“The term “Jevons Paradox” flags the need to consider the different hierarchical scales at which a system under analysis changes its identity in response to an innovation. Accordingly, an analysis of the implications of the Jevons Paradox must abandon the realm of reductionism and deal with the complexity inherent in the issue of sustainability: when studying evolution and real change how can we define “what has to be sustained” in a system that continuously becomes something else?“ (xxxvi)

Though this question is imperative to the creation of a sustainable economy, there are numerous socio-political barriers that prevent such an honest discussion. Even during the creation of the Paris Climate Agreement, Jamie Morgan– author of Paris COP 21: Power that Speaks Truth– stated that the United States changed a majority of the “shall’s” to “should’s” during the final editing processes (xxxvii). Any kind of binding language, such as “shall” or “what has to be sustained” is oftentimes rejected by an individualistic, pro-growth economic structure such as the one present in the United States. Anti-growth or pro-economic regulation arguments often do not fair well on the campaign trail due to a lack of voter support, as well as the loss of potential to receive campaign funding from influential, wealthy, pro-growth companies. The same is true when considering the very small amount of alternatives to capitalism that have reached mainstream discussions. Though politicians such as Bernie Sanders have discussed alternatives like Universal Basic Income, very little successful elected officials are able to run on such a narrative due to the creation of “dirty” words in American politics– including (but not limited to) socialism, communism, and radicalism. Universities that are dependent on donor funding may find themselves hesitant to teach courses on topics that could be perceived as radical due to fear of losing financial support from more conservative contributors. Due to this lack of public knowledge on alternatives, many fear that a shift in economic structure would result in high rates of unemployment, the destruction of the beloved consumerist lifestyle, and ultimately, the crumbling of the comfortable lifestyle of convenience that privileged Americans have been enjoying for decades. However, the amount of people who are experiencing the repercussions of this lifestyle, including some of the most privileged areas in the country (a la the devastating 2018 California wildfires (xxxviii)), are steadily increasing the more that climate change is ignored.

Proposed Solutions: Binary Economics

Though climate change solutions in response to the global economy’s pathways of dependencies have been an often hesitantly discussed, those who recognize that we will soon be forced to face the music have been working hard behind the scenes to brainstorm different methods of adaptation and mitigation. For instance, Virginia Tech professor Ralph Hall has been working alongside Robert Ashford of Syracuse University on adapting a concept created in the mid 20th century by Louis Kelso called “binary economic theory” (xxxix). This theory provides an excellent route towards facing the pathways of dependencies created by globalized capitalism. Founded on the prioritization of redistributing wealth, binary economics encourages establishments to allow their employees to invest in their companies, thus allowing them to accrue half of their wealth from labor and half from investments, which is how the top 1% gain a majority of their wealth. In his article Unutilized Productive Capacity, Binary Economics and the Case for Broadening Capital Ownership, Ashford argues the following;

“Compared to classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, Austrian, institutional, socialist, and other schools of economics, binary economics specifically offers (1) a distinct explanation for the persistence of long-run unutilized productive capacity (2) a unique paradigm for understanding economic production, prices, efficiency, growth, and justice, and (3) a market-based policy alternative that promises a wholly voluntary means to employ productive capacity more fully, profitably and sustainably to produce much greater and broadly shared abundance by way of a more inclusive, competitive, and democratic private property system that universalizes the competitive market right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital. To achieve these goals, no transactions are mandated and no government taxation, redistribution, or borrowing is required. Rather, with a binary understanding of market economics, and with modest reform of the existing system of corporate finance, these goals could be achieved entirely by way of voluntary transactions that yield widespread, and eventually universal, individual, capital acquisition with the earnings of capital.” (xl)

Though in its original format by Louis Kelso, environmental concerns were not addressed. However, in Ashford and Hall’s adaptation, they believe environmental harms stem from “destructive production technologies (that continue despite the know-how to ameliorate or replace them with greener technologies that people presently cannot afford)” and can be understood as “reflections of unutilized productive capacity.” (xli)They argue that greener technologies will allow for greener technologies to be more affordable to consumers, more easily financed, and perhaps politically more popular under a binary economic system as a result of broader distribution of capital income. In short, binary economics provides a solution for nearly all of the destructive pathways that globalized capitalism has created: unsustainable production methods, environmental justice concerns, and political paralyzation due to fear of alternatives that promote de-growth agendas. Universities such as Syracuse have also begun introducing courses on binary economic theory, allowing the possibility for students to further adapt and improve the concept.


Paradigmic shifts in a globally connected world can often be hard to initiate. With so many intersecting factors at play, it can be difficult to make permanent changes that can satisfy the many powerful stakeholders involved due to scarce resources, financial (dis)incentives, and political power. However, when the majority of recipients of given system are suffering at the expense of minority affluence– a change must occur once more. In the case of global capitalism, the suffering at hand is more than the impoverished demographics who were left behind by a post-industrial, post-Fordism economy. The destruction of the global environment has larger implications than a mere change in climate– the more the issue is ignored, and thus aggravated, the more expensive it will become. Extreme temperatures and disastrous weather will corrode expensive infrastructure, further (or completely) deplete certain environmental resources, and illness will increase as pollution levels continue to rise. Post-Fordism, post-industrial globalized capitalism has left the distribution of wealth immensely skewed and low income communities left without economic opportunity and stuck in environmentally corroding communities. Without the funding for research for alternatives to our current system, these problems will continue to rise. Drastic paradigm shifts towards our current system have occurred before, and they must occur once more in a new direction, one towards the sustainability of environment, equity, and economy.


i Vasile, A. (2015) ‘The Loan in the Old Testament -- Paradigm of the Contemporary Banking System’, Ovidius University Annals, Series Economic Sciences, 15(2), p. 179. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=11373 2222&site=eds-live&scope=site

ii Ackerma, James M. (1981). ‘Interest Rates and the Law: A History of Usury’, Arizona St. L.J.61

iii Vogel, David. (2018). ‘California Greenin’”, Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International and Comparative Perspectives, Princeton University Press, p. 3.

iv Hawken, Paul. (1997). ‘Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution’, US Green Building Council; 1st edition, p. 277.

v Pereira Moreira, J. de A., das Graças Vieira, M. and Gomes da Silva, C. (2015) ‘Among Theory, Practice and Technology: the Relation Between Theoretical and Practical Knowledge in the Context of Accounting Training and the Thinking of Jürgen Habermas’, Brazilian Business Review (English Edition), 12(4), pp. 123–139. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=10858 9598&site=eds-live&scope=site

vi Pearce, David & Barbier, Edward. (2000). ‘The Economic System’ vii Ibid. p. 268 viii Cox, Harvey. (2016). ‘The Market as God’, Harvard University Press

ix Sassen, Saskia. (2001). ‘The Impact’, p. 652-655. x Brenner, Neil & Keil, Roger. (2006) ‘From Global...’, p. 668-675.

xi Bullard, Robert. (2003). ‘People of Color Environmentalism’ p. 143-148

xii Sassen, Saskia. (2001). ‘The Impact”, p. 652

xiii Ibid. p. 654

xiv Brenner, Neil & Keil, Roger. (2006) ‘From Global...’, p. 668-675.

xv Bullard, Robert. (2003). ‘People of Color Environmentalism’ p. 143-148

xvi Urban Land Institute. Available at http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

xvii Brenner, Neil & Keil, Roger. (2006) ‘From Global...’, p. 668-675.

xviii Sassen, Saskia. (2001). ‘The Impact”, p. 652

xix Lauren J. Krivo and Robert L. Kaufman (2004) ‘Housing and Wealth Inequality: Racial-Ethnic Differences in Home Equity in the United States’, Demography, (3), p. 585. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsj sr.1515194&site=eds-live&scope=site

xx ‘Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act’ (2018) Journal of Property Management, 83(2), pp. 18–21. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12843 0799&site=eds-live&scope=site

xxi Tobias Kaempf (2018) ‘Lean and White-Collar Work: Towards New Forms of Industrialisation of Knowledge Work and Office Jobs?’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, Vol 16, Iss 2, Pp 901-918 (2018), (2), p. 901.

xxii National Center for Education Statistics (2005) ‘College Persistence On the Rise?’, U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2005-156. Available at: https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo9895/2005156.pdf#?

xxiii Rai, Kul B & Critzer, John. (2000). ‘Affirmative Action and the University: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in Higher Education and Employment’, University of Nebraska Press, Available at: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=4c6b878c-7084-432c-9e59- bd7f0a475fa6%40pdc-v-sessmgr02&vid=0&format=EB APA (American Psychological Assoc.) Rai, K. B., & Critzer, J. W. (2000). Affirmative Action and the University : Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in Higher Education Employment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

xxiv BBaker, R., Klasik, D. and Reardon, S. F. (2018) ‘Race and Stratification in College Enrollment over Time’, AERA Open, 4(1). Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ119 4137&site=eds-live&scope=site

xxv Mahoney, Martha. (1995). Segregation, Whiteness and Transformation, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 1659, 1667.

xxvi Kneebone, Elizabeth. (2017). The Changing Geography of U.S. Poverty, Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/

xxvii Hively, T. (2018) Detroit, Let’s Take a Look at Michigan. Great Neck Publishing, p. 1. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=14144 055&site=eds-live&scope=site

xxviii Gorman, L. (2016) ‘Means testing social security: income versus wealth’, The NBER Digest. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=eds big.A464897363&site=eds-live&scope=site

xxix Bruegmann, Robert. (2013). ‘The Cause of Sprawl’.

xxx Miguel, de Oliver. (2017). Defending Gentrification as a Valid Collective Conception: Utilizing the Metanarrative of “Suburbia” as a Common Axis for the Diversity of Middle-Class Reurbanization Projects, Urban Affairs Review, 1– 25, pp. 8-15.

xxxi See Sassen, supra note ix

xxxii See Bullard, supra note xi

xxxiii Singh, M., Thind, P. S. and John, S. (2018) ‘Health risk assessment of the workers exposed to the heavy metals in e-waste recycling sites of Chandigarh and Ludhiana, Punjab, India’, Chemosphere, 203, pp. 426–433. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.138.

xxxiv Huang, C.-C. et al. (2018) ‘Level changes and human dietary exposure assessment of halogenated flame retardant levels in free-range chicken eggs: A case study of a former e-waste recycling site, South China’, The Science Of The Total Environment, 634, pp. 509–515. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.386.

xxxv Yeom, J.-M. et al. (2018) ‘Environmental Effects of the Technology Transition from Liquid-Crystal Display (LCD) to Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) Display from an E-Waste Management Perspective’, International Journal of Environmental Research, 12(4), pp. 479–488. doi: 10.1007/s41742-018-0106-y.

xxxvi Mario Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi (2018) ‘Unraveling the Complexity of the Jevons Paradox: The Link Between Innovation, Efficiency, and Sustainability’, Frontiers in Energy Research, Vol 6 (2018). doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2018.00026/full.

xxxvii Morgan, Jamie. (2016). Paris COP 21: Power That Speaks Truth? Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2016.1163863?journalCode=rglo20

xxxviii ‘Why The California Wildfires Are So Hard To Contain’ (2018) All Things Considered. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=eds gcl.563029161&site=eds-live&scope=site

xxxix ASHFORD, R. (2015) ‘Unutilized Productive Capacity, Binary Economics and the Case for Broadening Capital Ownership’, Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 10(2), pp. 11–53. Available at: http://login.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=10833 3524&site=eds-live&scope=site

xl See Ashford, supra note xxxix

xli See Ashford, supra note xxxix pp. 17

Ellie Muraca