IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v60y2023i2p238-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business improvement districts, class turf war and the strategic weaponisation of class monopoly rent

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Anderson

    (Eastern Washington University, USA)

  • Zachary Arms

    (Eastern Washington University, USA)

Abstract

Business improvement districts (BIDs) are understood as a proactive response by locally dependent property owners and businesses aimed at attracting capital investment and consumers back to the central city at a time of increasingly gutted public sector resources. BIDs have yet to be explicitly examined as a form of rent-seeking, even though the primary motivation for property owners to self-impose additional taxes for implementing ‘clean and safe’ programmes is rent. In this context, the self-imposed tax is treated as a speculative investment that will hopefully yield a return in the form of enhanced profit for businesses and rents for landowners. As such, we conceptualise BIDs as not only a form of rent-seeking, but an alliance of private-sector actors engaged in the collaborative and strategic mobilisation of class monopoly rent as a weapon against all perceived barriers to profitability. Based on evidence from Seattle, Washington, the paper deepens our understanding of BIDs by linking this phenomenon to the spatial dynamics of rent within the contemporary neoliberal city and concludes by discussing the implications for what BIDs reveal about class monopoly rent in particular, the kind of class conflict this form of rent configures and its role within wider processes of neoliberal urbanisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Anderson & Zachary Arms, 2023. "Business improvement districts, class turf war and the strategic weaponisation of class monopoly rent," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(2), pages 238-255, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:60:y:2023:i:2:p:238-255
    DOI: 10.1177/00420980221092339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980221092339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00420980221092339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:60:y:2023:i:2:p:238-255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.