Search

In 2007, on the cusp of the economic crisis, a paper was published in Growth and Change (June 2007) entitled “Shadow Europe: alternative European financial geographies,” which began to tackle the idea of shadow finance in Europe and the size and inseparability of what was regarded as “shadow” from “normal” financial flows. A number of the observations made have proved remarkably prescient and one particular phrase stands out in the light of the recent revelations about the so-called Panama Papers in 2016: “Strategically important flows of capital derived from complex underground production systems that have seldom been analyzed in detail move through the European financial networks that connect to offshore tax havens (Christensen, 2003). These havens are not a separate and distinct entity from the financial networks that connect world cities but rather a vital counterpart on which the functioning of the cities connected via those networks depends” (2007, p. 319). The revelation of the Panama Papers constitutes a new critical juncture from which to re-visit that 2007 paper and to re-examine the state of knowledge on shadow and formal financial flows.

Summary In this paper it is proposed that the territory of governance is currently being reconfigured by the state. The state is pulling back from a universalist, welfare role, which entailed comprehensive governance of the whole national territory. Now a much more selective form of government is coming into being, concerned with ‘community’, ‘diversity’ and ‘locality’. This is not, however, simply a belated recognition by the state that these are ever more important features of socio-spatial life: rather, it is part of the reconfiguration of the territory of government as the state invokes these characteristics in order to modify its ways of governing. Using Foucault's concept of governmentality–that is the means used by the state to ‘problematise’ life within its territorial borders and then act on the basis of these problematisations—the recent case of the Rural White Paper is examined. It is proposed that this is a very clear example of a governmental retreat from a comprehensive role in the governance of rural areas and shows how the state now seeks to govern ‘through communities’.

National censuses are expensive. They are conducted infrequently. They collect information that some feel infringes their human rights, and people are required by law to complete them. The outputs are not perfect, and in some situations may be misleading. Some suggest that censuses hark back to a period when regularly collected administrative data were not available. These are some of the views held about national censuses. Why, then, would others argue that they are an essential resource? In this paper, we consider some of the pros and cons of conducting national censuses, before introducing a series of papers that draw on early data available from the 2001 UK census. We argue that these papers, and the wealth of research that will be conducted in the future with 2001 census data, make a strong case for supporting the compulsory collection of personal information about the ‘entire’ population every ten years.

This paper draws on a case study of a pilot project that developed support resources for new fathers under the auspices of a co‐production research design. It suggests an important way in which the success of co‐production can be judged that includes practical and tangible outputs beyond academic knowledge and takes objects and materiality seriously as a dimension of co‐production in an academic setting., This paper adds to an increasing body of social science literature, which engages with the research practice of “co‐production.” It aims to make a distinctive contribution by suggesting that what is produced under this process should be given greater attention. Previous literature has focused on the “co” (cooperative) element: debating whether and under what conditions wider participation between academic and non‐academic actors can be genuinely emancipatory, and the degree to which more radical research approaches centred on empowering marginalised groups have been usurped through management discourses of participatory governance. Drawing on a case study of a pilot project that developed support resources for new fathers under the auspices of a co‐production research design, the paper highlights the dynamics and limitations of the process, but additionally and distinctively suggests an important way in which the success of co‐production can be judged that includes practical and tangible outputs beyond academic knowledge and takes objects and materiality seriously as a dimension of co‐production in an academic setting.

In this paper we call for a closer analysis of the role of the nation state in shaping the geographies of knowledge created through public–private infrastructure collaborations, focusing on the empirical case of smart grids. We draw on contributions from economic geographers and political scientists, identifying an empirical and analytical blind spot around how states shape knowledge production and mobility in regulated infrastructure economies. We argue that national state institutions have strong influence through their initial framing of what is relevant knowledge, and the geography of its applicability. The type of knowledge valued by the state institutions in our two case studies of public–private smart grid initiatives is that which can be rescaled to apply to national energy systems, by being stripped of its local context. In practice, however, many types of knowledge are produced through smart grid experiments, including tacit, context‐specific knowledge. In this short paper we demonstrate the need to be attentive to both corporate and policy theories about types of knowledge and their mobilities, in order to better understand the geographies of smart grid and other regulated infrastructure knowledges.