Land Rent Theory

J Jäger, 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
 Land Rent Theory 95

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 refined 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 profit. 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 profits 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.
96 Land Rent Theory

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 gentrification. 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
 Land Rent Theory 97

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.
98 Land Rent Theory

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.