Offices and capital accumulation in the United Kingdom

The thesis is an attempt to apply the historical dialectical method of social analysis to the phenomenon of offices in capitalist societies, with particular reference to Britain. Office activities are identified as making an essential contribution to the expansion of the productive base. Thus the social relations of office work are developed from the relations of production and the basic contradiction between capital and labour. The notion of a service class is rejected in favour of an intermediate group buffered between the two main classes. A survey of manufacturing firms in Leicester examines the in-house service provisions of manufacturing firms and their requirements of 'producer' services from outside. Offices are conceived to be an integral part of the accumulation process and therefore examined as a particular form of fixed capital with its attendant problems and contradictions. The use value of offices derives from its function as fixed capital in a specific locational context. Offices as buildings and commodities have exchange value as well as use value. It is shown that the concept of rent provides the link between both types of value. Rent in the urban context is analysed in relation to the production process in general, and to property investment in particular. By dividing the category of fixed capital into land and building (including fixtures) on the one hand, and into machines employed in the labour process on the other, it is argued that under certain conditions of valorisation there are tendencies towards lower building densities at the same time as higher levels of organic composition. However, strong opposing forces are identified which, supported by state regulation and investments, are mobilised by fractions of capital with ownership or equity interests in predominantly city centre property. Given the tendency toward a declining profit rate in production, it is shown that the contradictions attached to property become increasingly problematic. Unitisation and securitisation are interpreted as efforts to overcome the barriers deriving from locational specificity and the building as fixed capital. The role of the state is considered crucial in regulating land use and providing infrastructure for defending the viability of property as interest-bearing capital which has historically accumulated in the commercial cores of major cities in Britain. The contradictions of fixed capita] also surface as realisation crises with inherent cyclical tendencies. These tendencies are, however, conditioned by 'external' factors impinging upon both use and exchange value of offices. The use value of offices is conditioned by the spatial organisation of production and by changes in the service sector itself. Exchange value, although ultimately guaranteed only by use value, is largely dependent upon credit politics and the attitude of financial institutions. Data on office development in Leicester over the last two decades are used to illustrate the general cyclical tendency in office develoment as well as its regional characteristics. The analysis concludes with a brief examination of the political and economic circumstances, specific to Britain, which have shaped the provision of office property during the post-war period

Landownership in Britain and the quest for town planning

In this paper I endeavour to show that town planning in Britain, although placed within the 'public domain', is largely operating in accordance with the principles of private law. I also argue that town planning is an integral part of the land and property market which itself is conditioned by the definition of the rights in land and property. These rights are shown to be grounded in the traditions of the private land law as evolved over centuries from the feudal system of land and property relations. I therefore begin with an examination of development under the leasehold system in London during the 18th and 19th centuries and find that landowners, in their efforts of maintaining the value of their estate, conducted a form of environmental control very similar to what planners do nowadays as part of their activities in development control. It is then shown how the old system was unable to cope with the pressures of industrialisation and rapidly expanding urban areas. Politicians, royal commissions, and expert committees sought to adapt the leasehold system and to reform existing property rights to accommodate a newly emerging property market. These efforts finally culminated in the 1925 Property Statutes. At the same time governments pursued efforts of devising new structures of urban governance. However, these measures generally were piecemeal and their implementation was fraught with difficulties. A new approach, recognising the interdependence between market processes, market regulation, and 'public improvement', were championed by the radical Liberals towards the end of the 19th century. This philosophy is reflected in the enactment of the first planning statutes of 1909 and 1919. Both Acts made provisions for the retainment of development value for reasons of social justice and the funding of urban infrastructure. Subsequent enactments have tended to isolate town planning not only from housing but also from the land market and the issue of betterment, and thus from urban governance. The reason, it is argued, is that property as well as planning legislation are still hemmed in the straitjacket of the private land law. I conclude that the isolation of town planning within a fragmented 'public domain' bodes ill for the future of our cities.

Offices and capital accumulation in the United Kingdom

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DX198573 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo