Land Rent Theory

J Ja¨ ger, University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna, Vienna, Austria

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary
Accumulation The term refers to the growth of the stock of capital. It is commonly assumed to be an important prerequisite
for sustained economic growth.
Fictitious commodity Goods which are not produced directly by a firm but are treated as a commodity such as land,
labor, etc. Surplus It refers to the part of an output which is not used for the reproduction of labor in the form of wages.
It is either obtained by capitalists in the form of profit or by landowners in the form of rent.

Property markets play an important role in structuring geographic phenomena and processes such as the spatial distribution of
economic activities or residential segregation. Land is an important factor which has a crucial impact on economic activity
and on the distribution of income between individuals and groups in society. The analysis of land markets is important for the
under- standing of landed property. Therefore, land rent theory is crucial for an understanding of these phenomena. Land rent
is not merely about markets, but embraces a systematic analysis of the institutions, societal structures, and interests behind
the market which constitute and structure it. In a narrow sense, land rent refers to the payment of a tribute to the landowner
for the use of geographical space or natural resources in specific places. The total sum of capitalized future rent payments
represents the land price. If the land- owner uses the land himself or herself and, hence, no payment takes place, she/he
implicitly benefits from the land. This implicit benefit is commonly also considered as rent.
Land rent as a theoretical concept had originally been used mainly to explain agricultural rent but later was extended to
analyze different spatial phenomena and urban structures and developments such as the location decisions of individuals and
enterprises, suburbanization, gentrification, etc., within the urban and regional context. In a classical political economy
perspective, prices for a produced commodity depend on the costs of production. As there is no capitalist process of
production of land by a single firm, the factors which determine the price of land differ from those of an ordinary commodity.
This means that land is a fictitious commodity. Furthermore, besides regulating the access to and the use of land, land rent
regulates the distribution of income between different social groups or classes such as capitalists, landed classes, and
workers. Therefore, land rent is crucial for explain- ing spatial developments and their relation with economic and social
developments. Although land rent theory cannot build on one single paradigm, two broad lines of theoretical traditions are to
be distinguished. The first type of theoretical approach treats land rent as a historical invariant institution which is interpreted
as a natural mechanism. The second type of approach interprets land rent as a specific historical institution which changes
over time. Furthermore, within both paradigms numerous distinctions are observable. This makes the field of land rent theory
a challenging terrain.

Historical Foundations of Land Rent Theory

Although the above definition of land rent as a tribute to a landowner is generally agreed upon, the aim and scope of different
approaches varies widely. Diverging aims and scopes explain many important but not all differences between the approaches.
In order to provide a sound base for the understanding of land rent different concepts are examined in the context of their
broader theoretical, but also historical background.

Land Rent in Political Economy

Rent theory was developed by classical economists. They built their concept of land rent on central categories which had
been devel- oped by forerunners such as William Petty in the 17th Century and James Anderson in the 18th Century. Starting
with Adam Smith and continued by David Ricardo and Karl Marx classical political economists developed different concepts
of land rent. While French physiocrats had supposed that land was the origin of surplus, Adam Smith argued that it was the
human labor. One of the main concerns of classical political economists was to understand the overall dynamics of growth
and to explain the distribution of income among social classes. Land rent was understood as part of the surplus value
obtained by the landed classes. In the context of a dominant role of agriculture in society, land rent theory developed by
classical economists mainly focused on agricultural rent. Some of the central questions were whether the growth of industrial
production was restrained by land rent and how the landed classes were affected by the process of capitalist accumulation.
Smith developed a rather harmonistic perspective regarding the inter- ests of the landed classes and the capitalists, although
at the same time blaming landlords for obtaining unearned income. Taking
International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10666-3 93
94 Land Rent
Theory

different conceptualizations of rent such as absolute rent and differential rent and having no coherent explanation for the
determi- nants of profit his statements on land rent resulted in contradictory perspectives.
Ricardo had a much more coherent explanation of profit and based his rent theory mainly on the concept of extensive
differ- ential rent. In his perspective, land rent was a deduction of profit and determined by the difference in
productivity/location between a specific land and the worst land used for production, as the conditions at the latter determine
the price of the commodity produced (e.g., corn). Therefore, better land should yield a higher rental payment whereas no rent
is obtained on the inferior land. An expansion of capitalist production and population, in his opinion, leads to the inclusion of
land of inferior quality with the consequence of increasing differential rent and, therefore, lowering overall profit. The fall in
profit reduces investment, and the process of accumulation finally leads to crisis and stagnation. Marx (and Friedrich Engels)
continued with the tradition set up by Smith and Ricardo but also criticized it. Combining classical political economy
approaches with different types of land rent for explaining different phenomena they insisted on the social dimension of rent
and argued against the naturalization of it. They did this by analyzing the historical emergence of modern capitalist forms of
land rent. Modern landed property was assumed to presuppose a disentanglement of direct producers from land. They were
supposed to be converted into workers who are free to sell their labor but also free from the ownership of land which would
have allowed a subsistence economy. That means that land was defined as private property within specific societal structures.

Johann Heinrich von Thünen’s Land Rent Theory

Heinrich von Thünen published his model of the isolated state in 1826. The second part of it came out in 1850. He was the first to
explicitly bring land rent theory together with geography and in so doing explains the spatial structures of production within
a coherent model. He took land rent in the form of differential rent as a key concept for explanation. This means that better
land (in this case due to a more favorable location) allows the appropriation of higher rents because the conditions of production
are relatively better. von Thünen provided a model of marginal productivity for the simple case of an isolated state with one city
center. He assumed that all the agricultural products had to be transported to the market place in the center of the city. A second
simplifying assumption was the existence of a homogenous hinterland. He intended to trace back the causes of rent to the given
conditions of production and to explain how and why rents are determined by transport costs to the city center. Furthermore, his
model demonstrated how rent determines the type of goods produced at different distances from the center. This is represented
graphically by the so-called Thünen-rings.

Current Developments in Land Rent Theory

Modern approaches to land rent theory build either on the broader and more heterogeneous political economy tradition or on von
Thünen’s model. While modern theories based on the latter linked their modeling to neoclassical theory, the modern political
economy tradition in land rent theory resulted in a relatively higher degree of heterogeneity.

Land Rent in Neoclassical Economics and Urban Applications

In general, the principal insights of von Thünen’s theoretical model are still at the core of modern approaches to the analysis of
transport costs as determinants of land use and rent. His key argument that at each location the good providing the highest rent
is produced and, hence, spatial structure is determined is still a central starting point of theory. In 1909, Friedrich von Wieser devel-
oped a model conceptualizing rent within a neoclassical framework. This took the form of monopoly rent, assuming that house-
holds’ demand, that is their capacity and willingness to pay for urban locations, differs. This was supposed to be a central
mechanism to assign urban space to households. Nevertheless, this did not have a considerable impact on the debates that fol-
lowed. The takeoff of land rent theory in the von Thünen tradition is to be dated back to 1964, when William Alonso published
his book on location and land use. He was the first to fully integrate von Thünen’s approach into a neoclassical model. In so doing,
he provided a spatial model of economic activity and founded a new field of research branded new urban economics. Rent is consid-
ered as a payment for land or more precisely for urban space. Type and intensity of land use and rent are described as a function of
distance from the Central Business District (CBD) which determines a general economic and spatial equilibrium.
While von Thünen’s model is directed toward the explanation of location decisions for the case of production, Alonso integrated
into his model reproductive activities, such as the location decisions of households. At the core of this neoclassical model stands the
idea of rational utility maximizing behavior not merely that of firms but also that of households. The model assumes that house-
holds choose locations at a specific distance to the CBD and thereby maximize their utility. Living closer to the city center implies,
on the one hand, lower transport costs (in terms of money and time) but on the other hand, less space for living due to higher rents.
At more distant locations rents are lower but transport costs are higher. Given a budgetary restriction households have to make their
location decision in accordance with their preferences. This is represented by the bid price function which is a set of land prices
a household is willing to pay at different distances while maintaining a constant level of satisfaction. As a consequence, households ’
preferences, budgetary restrictions, and transport costs determine rents and urban structure.
The models based on Alonso provide a deductive explanation of rental levels and regional structures. Moreover, as rents
are higher in the CBD and lower in the periphery they are often assumed to be a good approximation to reality. Nevertheless,
these
models fail to explain the often very different spatial structures between different cities. This is due to a high degree of interdepen-
dence with a huge variety of relevant variables such as multiple forms of agglomeration benefits and costs which are difficult to be
grasped in formal models. Another problem of such models is that they find it difficult dealing with historical time, let alone the role
of institutions, which are both crucial for the explanation of urban structures and their development. The models were used to argue
that the maximization of utility or profits via the rent mechanism leads to an optimal structure of land use. The political conclusion,
hence, usually was not to intervene in market forces. Nevertheless, the Alonso model has been re fined since then. Relaxing the rigid
assumptions has also led to more diverse conclusions for political intervention in urban and regional space.
Some of the rigid assumptions were abandoned and other factors such as transaction costs and externalities were included by
authors such as Masahisa Fujita. These refined models focus not only on the spatial implications of rent but also on the
question of whether political interventions such as rent controls have negative consequences on overall well-being or not.
While traditional Alonso-type models usually conclude that any intervention in the private market is harmful, the modernized
versions depict a more heterogeneous picture. As Yan Song and Yves Zenou have argued, property taxes may be welfare
enhancing under certain conditions, even within a neo- classical framework. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in the Cambridge
controversy in capital the theoretical base of the core of neoclass- ical theory is rather unsound. The controversy highlighted the
fact that the neoclassical concept of capital and the idea of marginal productivity and the production function describing the
relation between inputs of capital, labor, and land presuppose a distribution of income among these factors. Therefore, it is
theoretically inconsistent to explain the aggregate distribution of income between factors of production with the concept of
marginal productivity. This means neoclassical theory is characterized by a substantial inconsistency. Notwithstanding, this theory
continues at the core of new urban economics. Furthermore, it is frequently a criticism that the societal fundamentals of rent
as well as the preferences of people are taken as given and, therefore, not subjected to reflection. While different empirical
patterns of land use and rental structures are interpreted as resulting ultimately from a different set of individual preferences in
market decisions, this is substantially different in modern approaches in the political economy tradition. Moreover, within the
tradition of neoclassical theory the term rent is not used exclusively for referring to the income on land but is often used in a
very general way for income which is a result of market imperfections as in case of monopoly power.

Modern Political Economy Approaches

An upswing in critical political economy theorizing has taken place since the end of the 1970s. This has provided an important
stimulus for the further development of land rent theory. Compared to new urban economics, assumptions are less rigorous and
theoretical approaches have a much higher degree of diversity. There are three main explanations for this: first, the political
economy approach has a much broader scope in terms of the explaining phenomena related to land. This is due to the fact that
political economy deals with economic, political, and social phenomena not in a separate manner but sees them as embedded
into societal structures. Second, and related to the first point, the type of questions raised and the way in which they are answered
is much more heterogeneous. Third, political economy itself is not one monolithic theory, such as neoclassical theory, but an
approach with a broad diversity of theoretical paradigms.
Most of the modern approaches in a broader political economy tradition were oriented toward urban questions and dealt with
different types of rent which were often defined in diverging ways. Nevertheless, on a general level, absolute rent, monopoly rent,
extensive differential rent, and intensive differential rent are to be distinguished. The different types refer to different “logics” and
usually are not understood as accounting tools but rather as analytical approaches to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of
the role of land. Absolute rent was a concept put forward by Karl Marx and refers originally to a land tribute which is due to a
lower organic composition of capital in agriculture. This means that production is relatively less capital intensive. Modern theorists
considered this to be a key feature in the construction industry. This notion of absolute rent is based on the value theory of labor
which was criticized for its theoretical inconsistencies. Besides this interpretation of absolute rent this type of rent was also consid-
ered as a class monopoly rent caused by the power of landowners to retain land from productive or reproductive use. As a
theoretical concept absolute rent was mainly applied for the analysis of agriculture and resources.
The concept of monopoly rent refers to the different capacities of different classes and social strata to pay for socially privileged
space. Social groups which have more financial resources than others exclude the latter from their residential areas. Hence,
monopoly rent is used to explain phenomena like urban segregation. Monopoly rent and its specific effects depend substantially
on institutions such as rental contracts, housing policy, zoning, etc. Furthermore, monopoly rent is also used to explain spatial
phenomena related to retail trade and service provision. Locations where higher-income groups purchase or consume goods which
have a monopoly character (e.g., exclusive wines and exclusive recreational areas) enable the seller to obtain surplus pro fit. This
surplus profit due to monopolies is supposed to be converted into monopoly land rent. Extensive differential rent stems directly
from the production sector and is a result of more favorable conditions of production at specific places. An example for this is retail
space in prime sites which enables higher turnover and therefore reduces costs per unit. Surplus pro fits resulting from these priv-
ileged spaces are assumed to go into landowners’ pockets in the form of extensive differential rent. Both, monopoly rent and exten-
sive differential rent were used to analyze demand-driven developments in the urban case. Intensive differential rent and, in part,
absolute rent served to analyze the active role of the landed classes in general and the role of real estate developers and speculators
in particular. Intensive differential rent is supposed to stem from a more intensive use of land compared to the prevailing norm. The
introduction of multistory buildings is behavior by landowners or speculators which allows the attainment of intensive differential
rent. Another way to obtain this form of rent is by changing the social value of certain spaces. This can take the form of
gentrification or the production of gated communities in quarters which were formally occupied by social groups with a lower
capacity to pay rent.
 Neil Smith’s rent gap theory represents a concrete approach to deal with a phenomenon caused by intensive differential
rent. Instead of demand-led explanations Smith proposed taking the speculators search for intensive rent as a key variable to
explain gentrification. Gentrification as a phenomenon and Smith’s explanation attracted the attention of numerous scholars
and caused controversial discussions. He explained gentrification as a historical process which was linked via land rent to the
development of capitalism. In so doing, he made a distinction between a site ’s capitalized land rent and its potential rent.
Capitalized land rent, conceptualized as a deduction from surplus value, was assumed to represent the actual quantity of
ground rent that was appro- priated by the landowner, given the present land use. Potential land rent was defined as the
amount of rent that could have been capitalized under the land’s highest and best use. A reason for the difference between
both values was seen in the disinvestment in certain places. This disinvestment led to a reduction of the overall surplus
obtained at a plot of land and hence the actual rent. This mechanism was used to explain the deterioration of inner-urban
areas which was observable in many cities and went hand in hand with suburbanization.
At the same time, the overall amount of capital applied to land increased and potential rent was supposed to experience a similar
development. The growing difference between the actually capitalized land rent and the potential rent was supposed to be the
driving force of gentrification because it created the possibility of surplus profits through reinvestment in the plot. This theoretical
approach to land rent theory was frequently applied to address empirically the phenomenon of gentri fication. In general, rent gap,
and in particular its theoretical core, the difference between capitalized and potential land rent, caused considerable controversies on
how to measure these values. Smith’s rent gap theory was linked to his approach explaining uneven capitalist development in
general. The geographical configuration of the landscape was assumed necessary for the survival of capitalism. Capitalism trans-
formed space in its constant drive to accumulate larger quantities of social wealth. This was supposed to be associated with a dia-
lectical interaction of a tendency toward differentiation and a tendency toward equalization of the levels and forms of production.
In general, the rent gap theory is an important approach to land rent theory which helps to understand urban processes such as
gentrification. Nevertheless, whether and how intensive differential rent is obtained depends heavily on the institutions regulating
this type of rent-seeking behavior.
The neo-Ricardian approaches to land rent were based on Piero Sraffa’s systematization of David Ricardo’s political economy
approach, for which he provided a formal model. Land rent is conceptualized as external and internal differential rent as shown by
Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori. Based on a neo-Ricardian framework, Alan J. Scott developed a model for the urban context. He
used Sraffa’s theoretical approach assuming that land rent was caused by scarcity (external differential rent) and the application of
additional capital to land (intensive differential rent). He showed how a high density of housing in inner-city areas and a rela- tively
lower density of housing in suburban areas are produced by the land rent mechanism. In contrast to Alonso, he explained urban
patterns without taking preferences and utilities into account. Extensive and intensive differential rents in addition to trans- port
costs made up the main factors which determined urban structures. Scott went well beyond traditional neo-Ricardian interpre-
tations of land rent and argued that rent had to be seen in the context of the capitalist mode of production. Building on the work by
Doreen Massey and Alejandrina Catalano he insisted that specific types of landowners constituted specific sorts of social fractions.
Scott also tried to integrate important urban phenomena such as urban planning into his framework. This made him exceptional in
the neo-Ricardian tradition, which, in general, was located at a relatively high level of abstraction and, therefore, abstracted from
the analysis of institutional and political factors and their constitutive role for land rent. This was considerably different to the
treatment of land in broader political economy traditions.
The distinction among the broader approaches in the political economy tradition along nomothetic and ideographic lines
of theoretical enquiry has been investigated by Anne Haila. The ideographic approach was characterized by emphasizing the
singu- larity of historical situations and social relations and by neglecting the existence of general laws. Michael Ball was one
of the leading authors of this tradition. The merit of the ideographic tradition was that it directed the focus toward the analysis
of concrete histor- ical developments. Land rent was referred to as an act of payment of money and therefore interpreted as
circulation of revenues, but not explained by relating rent to the process of production. The explanatory value of any general
rent theory was largely denied. This was criticized and stood in sharp contrast to the prevailing nomothetic approach which
was characterized by the search for laws in land rent theory. David Harvey is considered to be the central author of this
nomothetic tradition. He built heavily on the different types of rents distinguished above. According to him and other authors,
land rent was supposed to become increasingly a financial asset. Along with that a merger between capitalists and the landed
class was observed. It was assumed that the landed classes had abandoned their rentist behavior and, therefore, opposing
interests to capitalist development were neutralized.
As such, land was assumed not to be an obstacle to the process of capitalist accumulation anymore. On the contrary, land
rent was assumed to fulfill a coordinating function by assigning land to efficient uses and thereby boosting capitalist
accumulation. Land rent was no longer supposed to be determined exclusively by production, but was assumed to be
dependent on (international) investment flows in the built environment. This led to the neglect of the relation between
economic accumulation, the rate of profit and land rent, and hence, the question of distribution. Moreover, within a
nomothetic tradition specified in the above way, there was no systematic space for the analysis of contradictory interests and
the treatment of politics left. Both, the ideographic and nomo- thetic theoretical traditionsdalthough offering important
insightsdhave considerable shortcomings. Johannes Jäger proposed going beyond the nomothetic and ideographic traditions.
He argued that the concrete context of rent should be analyzed and the fact that land rent represents a social relation should
be taken seriously. Therefore, land rent was proposed to be analyzed embedded within the broader institutional context.
In doing so, the specific historic interests and spatial dynamics related to land can be analyzed by building upon the different
types of rent. Those different types of rent are assumed to be not invariant over time but to be changing according to their specific
institutional embedding. In order to link land rent theory coherently to general developments it was proposed to integrate it
into a medium-range theory, in particular the regulationist approach. In regulation theory, capitalist accumulation is
considered to be characterized by contradictions which temporally might be offset with an adequate regulation of its
institutions or structural forms which land rent forms a part of. As land (or space) is required for any productive or
reproductive economic activity it is necessary to have institutions such as land rent which regulate it. Patterns of urban
development such as urban redevelopment and segregation can be analyzed linking them to distributional struggles between
capitalists, landowners, and workers. In general, such an integra- tive conceptualization allows us to link the dynamics of
economic accumulation and political regulation to urban geography and vice versa.
Moreover, the use of the concept of rent has been expanded more explicitly beyond land to nature in more general terms.
The creation of intellectual property monopolies is understood as a specific process which allows for access to or use of
nature. As Chris- tian Zeller has proposed, insights from land rent theory can be used for a better understanding of struggles
about nature. With the subprime crisis in the United States and the real estate crisis in Spain many scholars became more
aware of the contradictions of (financialized) capitalism and the role of land and rent. The housing boom was closely related
to rising land rent and this was fueled by new financial instruments such as mortgage backed securities (MBS) which allowed
house prices to be temporarily detached from conditions of production and distribution and, hence, from land rent levels.
Moreover, specific city policies played a role herein as Greig Charnock, Thomas. F. Purcell, and Ramon Ribera-Fumaz have
shown. More recently, Koen Smet has demonstrated how rent theory which takes institutional accumulation dynamics
explicitly into account can help to understand housing prices in urban areas and explain differences between different cities.

Scope of Explanation and Critique

Land rent is the particular institution which links the economy to geography and contributes to an understanding of urban and
regional phenomena. Without doubt economic developments are crucial for the analysis of spatial structures and changes. More-
over, land rent is a category which helps to explain how geography, or the spatiality of economic activity itself, affects economic
processes. There are two broad theoretical ways of dealing with land rent theory which differ substantially in scope of explanation,
the underlying assumptions, and the conclusions drawn. On the one hand are the models based on von Thünen and Alonso and the
work in the context of new urban economics which demonstrates a higher degree of rigidity but its scope of analysis is relatively
narrow. Based on a neoclassical theoretical base, household’s preferences, budgetary restrictions, and transport costs determine
land rent and urban geography. While traditional approaches within this framework basically conclude that unregulated markets and
land rent lead to an optimal outcome, more recent work, including externalities and market imperfections, arrives at more diverse
conclusions. On the other hand, land rent theory in a political economy tradition shows a much higher degree of diversity at the
cost of a higher heterogeneity between different approaches. It allows for a broader understanding of complex urban phenomena as
it provides a comprehensive tool of analysis which links economic and social processes and (class) agent ’s strategies via different
types of land rent to the production of geography.
Taking the richness of land rent theory and its potential to explain urban and regional structures and development into
account it is quite surprising that its use and further development in human geography is not very widespread today. This lack
might be explained, at least in part, by the high degree of complexity of the different approaches; however, the 2007 financial
and real estate crisis in several countries led to a renewed interest in land rent theory. Notwithstanding, the right way forward
in land rent theory in a political economy tradition remains contested as recent review articles show. The debates echo the
distinction between the nomo- thetic and the ideographic perspective. In a rather traditional nomothetic way, scholars such as
Callum Ward and Manuel B. Aalbers insist on the use of absolute rent as the central category to understand capitalism today.
Joon Park demands a more consistent theory of land rent. Based on the work of Haila, Jäger, and Smet, however, it can be
concluded the right way forward is less to be found in an abstract clarification of the essence of different forms of rent. More
promising is to go beyond the nomothetic and ideographic approach trying to link systematically the use of abstract
categories in rent theory to the concrete analysis of real phenomena within specific capitalist contexts and struggles and their
spatial dimension. In so doing the different categories of rent can be specified further in order to obtain insights into specific
spatial dynamics and the role of concrete institutions. Thereby one can contribute to the reflection of strategies of different
(class) agents about rent related issues in contemporary modes of capi- talist production.

See Also: Capital and Space; Gentrification; Location Theory; Natural Resources; Quantitative Economic Geography; Regulation; Segregation.

Further Reading

Alonso, W., 1964. Location and Land Use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ball, M., 1985. The urban rent question. Environ. Plan. 17, 503–525.
Charnock, G.F., Prcell, Thomas, Ribera-Fumaz, R., 2014. City of Rents: the limits to the Barcelona model of urban competitiveness. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 38 (1),
198–217. Fujita, M., 2003. Urban Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Haila, A., 1990. The theory of land rent at the crossroads. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 8, 275–296.
Haila, A., 2015. Urban Land Rent: Singapore as a Property State. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.
Harvey, D., 1982. The Limits to Capital. Blackwell, Oxford.
Jäger, J., 2003. Urban land rent theory. A regulationist perspective. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 27, 233–249.
Kurz, H.D., Salvadori, N., 1998. The ‘standard commodity’ and Ricardo’s search for an ‘invariable measure of value’. In: Kurz, H.D., Salvadori, N. (Eds.), Understanding ‘Classical’
Economics. Studies in Long-Period Theory. Routledge, London.
Massey, D., Catalano, A., 1978. Capital and Land, Landownership by Capital in Great Britain. Edward Arnold, London.
Park, J., 2013. Land rent theory revisited. Sci. Soc. 78 (1), 88–109.
Scott, A.J., 1980. The Urban Land Nexus and the State. Pion, London.
Screpanti, E., Zamagni, S., 1993. An Outline of the History of Economic Thought. Clarendon Press,
Oxford. Smet, K., 2016. Housing prices in urban areas. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40 (4), 495–510.
Smith, N., 1979. Towards a theory of gentrification. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 45, 538–549.
Smith, N., 1984. Uneven development. In: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Song Yan, Zenou, Y., 2006. Property tax and urban sprawl: theory and implications for US cities. J. Urban Econ. 60 (3), 519–
534. Sraffa, P., 1960. The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Von Thünen, H., 1966. Von Thunen’s Isolated State. In: Hall, P. (Ed.). Pergamon Press,
London. Von Wieser, F., 1909. Die Theorie der StädtischenGrundrente. Deuticke, Wien.
Ward, C., Albers, M.B., 2016. Virtual special issue editorial essay: ‘The shitty rent business’: what’s the point of land rent theory? Urban Stud. 53 (9), 1760–
1783. Zeller, C., 2008. From the gene to the globe: extracting rents based on intellectual property monopolies. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 15 (1), 78–96.