Dan Cohen’s research while affiliated with Queen's University and other places

This commentary traces the longer history of what Su and Lim refer to as urban state venturism as a means of posing questions about the distribution of benefits and risks which result from this model of state investment. Drawing upon the history of the Hudson Bay Company's role in both securing profits and building the British settler colonial empire, we ask how these state projects shape political economic processes beyond regional economic competitiveness. Specifically, we focus on how political projects of stigmatization and marginalization may interact with the geographies unleashed by urban state venturism and how they articulate with other priorities of the state. Through this generative critique we hope to build upon the potential of Su and Lim's work to contribute to debates in economic geography over state capitalism, the blurred lines between public/private finance, and questions of who benefits from these arrangements.

The introduction to this theme issue discusses a series of papers examining the increasing marketisation of social reproduction and its effects on systems that sustain human and social life. This is done by examining the frontiers, framings, and frictions that arise when market systems are constructed to enable capital accumulation in the realm of social reproduction. Frontiers identify the expansion of market logic into new areas, framings explore how financial actors attempt to bring the logic of social reproduction within the purview of market competition, and frictions highlight the various tensions that generate resistance to the roll out of market logics. Through establishing these three areas, we argue that both market structures and systems of social reproduction should be understood as geographically variegated and, at times, uncertain. This variegation necessitates an understanding of marketised social reproduction as forged through complex articulations of market and non-market logics. Using cases from surrogacy to smart electricity meters, the papers in this theme issue illustrate that while these articulations may generate benefits for some individuals, households and communities, such processes of marketisation can introduce new layers of inequity and undermine the ethical relations and social commitments that sustain life—in the service of enabling accumulation.

This paper analyzes the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) pandemic-era quantitative easing (QE) programs and their distributive implications, focusing on the Canadian housing market. First, we analyse the priorities and effects of QE: increasing liquidity and encouraging lending and borrowing. Next, we identify the sectors of the economy most influenced by QE, highlighting that investment in real estate soared in comparison to other sectors. Finally, we present a case study of real estate transactions in Toronto, finding that the increased investment in residential and multi-family housing worked to the detriment of marginalised populations. In spatializing macrofinance and identifying monetary policy’s role in geographies of housing, we call for increased attention to central banks and the distributional effects of monetary policy.

As student debt in the United States rose to $1.7 trillion in 2021, the value and accessibility of higher education has been a subject of fierce public debate. In this context, income share agreements (ISAs) are framed as an alternative to conventional student loans. ISAs entail investors paying a student’s tuition in exchange for a share of the student’s future income. As the use of ISAs increases, especially within U.S. vocational schools, there is evidence that ISAs have used predatory financial practices aimed at marginalized students. Motivated by the rapid growth of ISAs in the United States and the relative absence of geographic attention to them, this article discusses their nature and broader significance to geographic debates. Informed by gray literature, news articles, industry documents, and the scant academic writing on ISAs, we discuss the characteristics, histories, and geographies of ISAs before examining the roles and motivations of three involved constituencies: students, higher education institutions, and investment intermediaries. In doing so, we highlight how ISAs reorient who pays for education and when, what sort of education is paid for, and how private markets profit from higher education. We then highlight the broader significance of ISAs to geographical understandings of (1) the financialization of social reproduction, (2) geographies of education, and (3) digital capitalism. We argue that ISAs’ individuating logics and broader context of social reproductive crises are revealing of a wider trend toward private profit via predatory inclusion, accelerated by financial technologies.

For decades investors have sought to find ways of profiting off the billions of public dollars spent annually on systems of public schooling across the world. This interest has coincided with the growing marketization of systems of public schooling, especially in the United States, as well as the increased use of educational technologies (or EdTech). This study examines the implications of the growing use of profit-driven educational technologies for the politics and spatial practices of schooling. Specifically, it examines past experiences with market-oriented EdTech systems in Oregon and Michigan to highlight how the combination of market systems of governance and profit-driven EdTech practices depend on the deconstruction of links between schools, communities, and students in order to roll out aspatial and apolitical educational practices that maximize profits. The placeless vision for education embedded in profit-driven EdTech helps promote the reproduction of dominant orders and stifles place-based struggles over educational justice.

The study of public finance—the role of government in the economy—has faded in geography as attention to private finance has grown. Disrupting the tendency to fetishize private financial power, this article proposes an expanded conception of public finance that emphasizes its role in shaping geographies of inequality. We conceptualize the relationship between public and private finance as a dynamic interface characterized today by asymmetrical power relations, path-dependent policy solutions, the depoliticization of markets, and uneven distributional effects. A reimagined theory and praxis of public finance can contribute to building abolitionist futures, and geographers are well positioned to advance this project.

As municipal governments in the US struggle under austerity, philanthropic elites have seemingly come to the rescue. Their money has not come without strings attached, however. By leveraging political contributions and donations to non-profits, philanthropists have moved beyond funding services and into the promotion of their preferred policies to cash-strapped municipalities. This has meant that the super-wealthy can now set the terrain of urban policy debates in cities struggling under austerity, ignoring democratic processes and often working to actively co-opt or stifle dissent. Through a study of the politics surrounding an impending bankruptcy of the Detroit public school system in the mid-2010s, this article provides crucial insights into the nature of elite-led urban policymaking under conditions of racialized austerity. Specifically, it focuses on how competing coalitions of liberal and conservative philanthropists used their wealth and influence to define the parameters of the policy debate over the future of Detroit’s schools. In doing so, these coalitions constrained the ability of residents with alternative visions to participate in decision-making processes and promoted a market-based system of schooling that served Detroit students poorly. This result must be understood as facilitated by the city’s context of racialized austerity, as manifested both through the financial crisis facing Detroit’s schools and through the system of emergency management used to take over Michigan’s majority-Black municipal institutions. These findings highlight that as philanthropic funding and influence have grown under conditions of racialized austerity, we must critically examine their effects on policymaking and on systems of democratic accountability.

With the growing global recognition that environmental and social crises are pushing systems of social and ecological reproduction to their breaking points, governments, philanthropists, and the private sector are proposing a variety of strategies that aim to shift the social and environmental role of finance capital from an extractive process to a reparative one. A frequent refrain is that only finance capital promises the scale of investment necessary to address Earth’s complex social and environmental problems, and that trillions of private investment dollars wait in the wings ready to mobilize for the right kinds of projects. A hallmark of these approaches is their promise of “triple bottom line” outcomes, with social, environmental, and financial benefits—what the industry refers to as “responsible investing.” This symposium interrogates the political dynamics and financial mechanisms underlying ongoing experiments in so-called responsible finance, including various forms of impact investing and financial “solutionism” to social and environmental problems. We develop the term “reparative accumulation” to conceptualize the divergent forms and continuities in how these new financial devices function across sectors, what types of futures the industry is attempting to create, the effects on socionatures, and what resistance might look like both within and outside these systems.

Over the past several decades market-based systems have increasingly been used to govern the delivery of urban services. Drawing on insights from the geography of markets, this paper investigates how market-based policies such as interdistrict choice and charter school programs have reshaped publicly funded schooling in the Detroit region. Through doing so it explores how market systems are made to align with the interests of actors who advance market structures that rework (rather than challenge) existing patterns of wealth and racial power. As described in this paper, such market systems must be understood as shaped by the economic, political, and social contexts they emerge from, with Detroit’s regional context of segregation and anti-Black racism a key element guiding the creation of market institutions. Understanding markets in this manner allows insights into how the articulation of market logics with urban geographies shapes the lives of those who depend on urban services.

In the face of planetary crises, from inequality to biodiversity loss, “impact investing” has emerged as a vision for a new, “moral” financial system where investor dollars fund socio‐environmental repair while simultaneously generating financial returns. In support of this system elite actors have formed a consensus that financial investments can have beneficial, more‐than‐financial outcomes aimed at solving social and environmental crises. Yet critical geographers have largely studied “green” and “social” finance separately. We propose, instead, a holistic geography of impact investing that highlights the common methods used in attempts to offset destructive investments with purportedly reparative ones. This involves interrogating how elite‐led ideas of social and environmental progress are reflected in investments, as well as deconstructing the “objects” of impact investments. As examples, we use insights from both “green” and “social” literatures to analyse the social values embedded in projects of financialisation in schooling and affordable housing in the US.