Suchergebnisse

Annotation Urban re-industrialisation could be seen as a method of increasing business effectiveness in the context of a politically stimulated `green economy¿; it could also be seen as a nostalgic mutation of a creative-class concept, focused on 3D printing, `boutique manufacturing¿ and crafts. These two notions place urban re-industrialisation within the context of the current neoliberal economic regime and urban development based on property and land speculation. Could urban re-industrialisation be a more radical idea? Could urban re-industrialization be imagined as a progressive socio-political and economic project, aimed at creating an inclusive and democratic society based on cooperation and a symbiosis that goes way beyond the current model of a neoliberal city?In January 2012, against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis, Krzysztof Nawratek published a text in opposition to the fantasy of a `cappuccino city, ¿ arguing that the post-industrial city is a fiction, and that it should be replaced by `Industrial City 2.0.¿ Industrial City 2.0 is an attempt to see a post-socialist and post-industrial city from another perspective, a kind of negative of the modernist industrial city. If, for logistical reasons and because of a concern for the health of residents, modernism tried to separate different functions from each other (mainly industry from residential areas), Industrial City 2.0 is based on the ideas of coexistence, proximity, and synergy. The essays collected here envision the possibilities (as well as the possible perils) of such a scheme

In all geographical departments of Greece there has been noticed a significant population change since 1920. Until 1928 the population of the country increased because of the compulsory exodus of the Greeks from Asia Minor which followed the great military defeat of 1922. The mo st important population increase was noticed in the Greater Athens Area during the period 1920-28. Also in Macedonia which has shown la considerable density rate there was an increase from 30.9 to 40.5 inhabitants per square kilometer while Thrace showed a greater increase from 24.1 to 34.8 inhabitants per square kilometer. ; peer-reviewed

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION IN ISRAEL: A SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCES -- KIBBUTZ INDUSTRIALIZATION -- MOSHAV-BASED INDUSTRY -- THE NON-AGRICULTURAL VILLAGE -- INDUSTRIALIZATION IN ARAB VILLAGES IN ISRAEL -- RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION IN ISRAEL: CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS -- ABOUT THE AUTHORS.

Urban re-industrialisation could be seen as a method of increasing business effectiveness in the context of a politically stimulated 'green economy'; it could also be seen as a nostalgic mutation of a creative-class concept, focused on 3D printing, 'boutique manufacturing' and crafts. These two notions place urban re-industrialisation within the context of the current neoliberal economic regime and urban development based on property and land speculation. Could urban re-industrialisation be a more radical idea? Could urban re-industrialization be imagined as a progressive socio-political and economic project, aimed at creating an inclusive and democratic society based on cooperation and a symbiosis that goes way beyond the current model of a neoliberal city? In January 2012, against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis, Krzysztof Nawratek published a text in opposition to the fantasy of a 'cappuccino city,' arguing that the post-industrial city is a fiction, and that it should be replaced by 'Industrial City 2.0.' Industrial City 2.0 is an attempt to see a post-socialist and post-industrial city from another perspective, a kind of negative of the modernist industrial city. If, for logistical reasons and because of a concern for the health of residents, modernism tried to separate different functions from each other (mainly industry from residential areas), Industrial City 2.0 is based on the ideas of coexistence, proximity, and synergy. The essays collected here envision the possibilities (as well as the possible perils) of such a scheme.

Like many other parts of the world, in the last two hundred years or so the Middle East has gone through a process of de-industrialization followed by reindustrialization.* The decline in handicrafts continued until well after the First World War. But by then another development was under way: the growth of a modern factory industry that started around the 1890s, gathered increasing momentum in the 1920s and 1930s, and since the Second World War has proceeded at a very rapid pace.

The purpose of this short discussion paper is to raise some general questions concerning the current state of the historiography on the industrialization of pre-Independent India. Although triggered off by a close reading of Professor Morris's contribution to the recentCambridge Economic History of India, volume 2, it is not my intention to review the essay in a detailed and systematic manner; rather I seek to place it in the wider context of what is, in my view, the unsatisfactory state of our accumulated knowledge. The paper is organized in the following way. Section II contends that all too little is known about a seemingly crucial sector—a vacuity that is not confined to India alone among the Third World economies—and that this tends to distort accounts of the general functioning of the international economy. In Section III I try to pinpoint the major areas of weakness, and then go on to suggest the main reasons for this somewhat surprising situation. Finally, in Section IV, I argue that Morris's study reflects the problems I identify but does not take us further down the road towards their resolution.