THE COMMODIFICATION GAP ‘In an elegant and careful theoretical analysis, this book demonstrates how gentrification is always entwined with institutions and distinctive contextual processes. Matthias Bernt develops a new concept, the “commodification gap”, which is tested in three richly researched cases. With this, the concept of gentrification becomes a multiplicity and the possibility of conversations across different urban contexts is expanded. A richly rewarding read!’
—Jennifer Robinson, Professor of Human Geography, University College London, UK
‘Urban studies has reached a stalemate of universalism versus particularism. Matthias Bernt is breaking out of this deadlock by being very precise about what exactly is universal and what is not – and how one can conceptualize both. The Commodity Gap is a key contribution to not only gentrification studies, but also to comparative urbanism and urban studies at large.’
—Manuel B. Aalbers, Division of Geography & Tourism, KU Leuven, Belgium
The Commodification Gap provides an insightful institutionalist perspective on the field of gentrification studies. The book explores the relationship between the operation of gentrification and the institutions underpinning - but also influencing and restricting - it in three neighborhoods in London, Berlin and St. Petersburg. Matthias Bernt demonstrates how different institutional arrangements have resulted in the facilitation, deceleration or alteration of gentrification across time and place.
The book is based on empirical studies conducted in Great Britain, Germany and Russia and contains one of the first-ever English language discussions of gentrification in Germany and Russia. It begins with an examination of the limits of the widely established “rent-gap” theory and proposes the novel concept of the “commodification gap.” It then moves on to explore how different institutional contexts in the UK, Germany and Russia have framed the conditions for these gaps to enable gentrification. The Commodification Gap is an indispensable resource for researchers and academics studying human geography, housing studies, urban sociology and spatial planning.
Table of Contents:
List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
Series Editors’ Preface xi
Preface xii
1 Introduction 1
Gentrification Between Universality and Particularity 1
How to Compare? Why Compare? 8
Concepts and Causation 11
Design of this Study 15
Notes 22
2 Why the Rent Gap isn’t Enough 25
Where the Rent Gap Works Well 25
Where the Rent Gap Falls Short 30
When and Why does Capital Flow? 32
At Which Scale is the Rent Gap Positioned? 34
Which Rent? 37
Property as Control? 40
How is the Rent Gap Realised? 43
Embedding Gentrification 48
Economy, Society and States 48
The Commodification Gap 51
Notes 54
3 Three Countries, Three Housing Systems 57
The British Experience 57
From Private Landlordism to a Dual Market 58
The Thatcherite Revolution 60
New Labour: More of the Same? 65
Austerity and New ‘Class War Conservatism’ Under the Coalition Government 70
Conclusion: Neoliberalism, Tenurial Transformation and Gentrification 73
The German Experience 77
From the Controlled Housing Economy to the Lücke Plan 77
The Design of Tenant Protections 84
The Conservative Wende 86
Reunification and Neoliberal Consensus 89
Conclusion: Gentrification Between Regulation and Deregulation 91
The Russian Experience 98
Housing in the Soviet Union 99
From Shock Therapy to Failing Markets 102
Restricted State Capacities and Opportunity Planning 110
Conclusion: Gentrification in a Dysfunctional Market 112
State Intervention in Housing: Setting the Parameters for Gentrification 118
Notes 124
4 Barnsbury: Gentrification and the Policies of Tenure 129
The Making of Early Gentrification 129
The Right to Buy: Pouring Fuel on the Fire 137
The New Economy of Gentrification 141
Capital Gains Instead of Owner-Occupation 142
Penalty Renting 145
From Value Gap to Super-gentrification 150
Notes 154
5 Prenzlauer Berg: Gentrification Between Regulation and Deregulation 157
From Plan to Market 158
Rolling out the Market, Weakening Public Control 162
Since 2000: Privately Financed Refurbishments, Condominium Boom and No Regulation 164
New Build Gentrification and Energy Efficient Displacement 167
Between Deregulation and Re-regulation 171
Gentrification with Brakes? 174
Notes 179
6 Splintered Gentrification: St Petersburg, Russia 181
Unpredictable Regeneration Schemes 183
World Heritage vs. Gentrification 186
The Dissolution of Kommunalki Flats 192
State-run Repair and Renewal 198
Pro and Contra Gentrification 202
Notes 206
7 The Commodification Gap 207
Universality vs. Particularity Revisited 207
Gentrification and Decommodification 216
Meeting the Challenge: New Directions for Research and Politics 217
Notes 221
Appendix A Compulsory Purchase in Barnsbury 223
Appendix B Residents in NS-SeC Classes 1 and 2 229
References 235
Index 257
About the Author :
Matthias Bernt is a sociologist and political scientist who works as a Senior Researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space in Erkner, Germany. He is also Adjunct Professor at Humboldt University in Berlin. His research focuses on the interrelations between urban development and urban governance.
Review :
‘In an elegant and careful theoretical analysis, this book demonstrates how gentrification is always entwined with institutions and distinctive contextual processes. Matthias Bernt develops a new concept, the “commodification gap”, which is tested in three richly researched cases. With this, the concept of gentrification becomes a multiplicity and the possibility of conversations across different urban contexts is expanded. A richly rewarding read!’
Jennifer Robinson, Professor of Human Geography, University College London, UK
‘Urban studies has reached a stalemate of universalism versus particularism. Matthias Bernt is breaking out of this deadlock by being very precise about what exactly is universal and what is not – and how one can conceptualize both. The Commodity Gap is a key contribution to not only gentrification studies, but also to comparative urbanism and urban studies at large.’
Manuel B. Aalbers, Division of Geography & Tourism, KU Leuven, Belgium
