Spatial - Summer 2020

SPATIAL The magazine of the Geography Society

SPATIAL ‘FORGOTTEN GEOGRAPHIES’

Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory Heartland and Rimland Theory The Epidemiological Transition Theory The United Nations Millennium Development Goals Urbanisation Rank-Size Rule Carl Sauer’s Cultural Landscape Theory

Currently, all eyes are turned to the future, as geographers, epidemiologists, economists, writers and just about everyone else attempts to anticipate the impacts of COVID-19 on society. However, we have decided to cast our anchor back to revisit a variety of old and sometimes forgotten geographies. The past can be an incredibly useful tool in deciphering the present, and indeed the future. In examining historical theories, we have considered their relevance to the present and whether they deserve a role in informing contemporary policy and planning. From familiar names such as Wallerstein and the Millennium Development Goals to the more obscure, such as Sauer and the Epidemiological Transition Theory, we’re sure you’ll find something that sparks your interest.

- The Geography Society 2020-2021

Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration Lucie Price Ernst George Ravenstein was a geographer and cartographer born in 1834. He was born and died in Germany but spent the majority of his life in England.

In 1885, Ravenstein published a book that proposed that there were 10 laws of migration, and these can be summarised as: Most migration is over short distances Migration occurs in steps Long-range (international) migrants usually move to urban areas Each migration produces a movement in the opposite direction Rural dwellers are more migratory than urban dwellers Within their own country, females are more migratory than males, but males are more migratory over long distance Most migrants are adults Large towns grow more by migration than by natural increase Migration increases with economic development Migration is mostly due to economic causes

However, these laws were published 135 years ago as well as being largely only based on migration to the UK where he lived, and so their relevance globally now in 2020 is debatable.

terms of where they can move to because of their financial situation. An example of this is Burkina Faso, where most of the migration is to surrounding countries Ghana, Mali, Benin and Niger. However, migrants from richer countries like the UK travel further to destinations like Australia, New Zealand and the US because they can afford to fly there. Therefore, Ravenstein’s law is no longer applicable worldwide, but still largely applicable to less developed countries where people have less access to long-distance transport.

The second law states that migration occurs in steps.

This law is sometimes still accurate today because people may intend to reach a destination but may encounter barriers along the way (e.g. visa expiration, lack of passport or money, language barrier, etc.) that may force them to stop at other locations which they did not intend to stop at. An example of this is the migration from Africa into Europe, where migrants intend to travel across the Mediterranean Sea by boat to coastal southern-European towns then move on to Rome by train but end up having to stop in the coastal cities because they don’t have enough money from a train ticket. As well as unintentional, step migration can also be decisive and tactical. Ukrainian migrants often move to Poland before moving to Germany where employment and quality of life is better because Poland is in close proximity to Germany and easier to get into for Ukrainian migrants. However, this law is not always applicable for modern-day migration as richer migrants can easily migrate across the globe using modern transport technology; planes enable them to fly directly to their destination without stopping in an intervening place as someone less wealthy may be forced to do.

The third law of migration above, long-range migrants usually move to urban areas, is still applicable today: urban areas are expected to increase by 68% by 2050.

Migrants move away from their home country to attain a better perceived quality of life. Urban areas generally have a better quality of life than rural areas due to their better access to health care, education, job opportunities and better health care, so people move to urban areas to have a better quality of life. However, the law could be adjusted so that it stated that both short- and long-range migration was often to urban areas, as the shorter distanced rural-urban migration is also a common worldwide trend.

The first law states that most migration happens over short distances, and though this may have been true at the time, it is no longer as applicable in the same way due to the invention of long-distance transport methods, like planes, facilitating migration across the globe and time-space compression happening as a result of that. Ravenstein’s law is closely linked with the modern-day distance decay model seen on the right, and both this model and Ravenstein’s model could be applicable for emigration from poorer countries, as poorer citizens are more restricted in

The fourth law suggests that each migration produces a movement in the opposite direction, though not necessarily of the same volume. In the recent past, this has been seen in areas in America in the 1950s and 1960s, in which the white residents of a neighbourhood would emigrate to a more racially homogeneous (white) area as a result of the influx of a black community or other ethnic minorities. This was named ‘White Flight’. This sort of migration still currently happens in Europe. Often when minority

migrants move into upper-class, white areas, the upper-class white residents move out, often to the suburbs, and so this law is still applicable today.

The fifth law is that rural dwellers migrate more than urban dwellers and this is no longer applicable today at all. Studies, such as the one above, have shown that this law is no longer true as it is more common for urban residents to migrate to other urban areas than for rural residents to migrate to urban areas. This is likely because people living in urban areas have more money and so are able to afford to migrate to another city or country.

The sixth law states that within their own country, women are more migratory than men, but men are more migratory over longer distances. This is somewhat still applicable now because men are still more migratory over long distances for manual labour jobs however it is gradually becoming less applicable now because women are working less in the domestic work sector, e.g. as nannies and cleaners, and their work is instead becoming more globalised. One example, however, of men migrating long distances for manual labour jobs is in the United Arab Emirates. The population pyramid on the right shows that there is an unusually high percentage of men between the ages of 25 and 39 in the UAE and this is because men temporarily move there for work so that they can earn enough money to send home to their families, showing that men often migrate long distances for work.

The seventh law suggests that most migrants are adults and this is still true today because most migrants move for better economic prospects and so must be adults to be economically active. However, an increase in dependent migrants may be seen as a result of conflict or increased climate change.

The eighth law says that large towns grow more by migration than by natural increase, and this law is only partly applicable because although developed countries see a higher rate of migration than natural increase, developing countries often have a higher rate of natural increase. In developing countries, there is both a high rate of natural increase, due to high fertility rates, and a large volume of migrant, due to sectoral shift, but the rate of natural increase is often higher than the rate of migration. However, in developed countries, cities are growing more by migration than by natural increase. An example of this is London which gains 200,000 new migrants per year and only 130,000 people through natural increase.

The ninth law states that migration to a country increases as it develops economically. This is still applicable today as economic development is one of the factors that makes a good perceived quality of life in a country, as migrants are more likely to have better job opportunities and a higher salary in an economically developed country. Therefore, people move to economically developed countries in search of a better quality of life.

The final law states that migration is mostly due to economic causes, which is still applicable now because people most often migrate to find a better job and earn more money so that they can live a better-quality life.

However, as we see an increasingly healthy ageing population, we may begin to see a reduction in migration solely due to economic causes as old people may move abroad for environmental reasons, e.g. moving to Spain because it is sunny there and an increase in people migrating to protect themselves from the impacts of climate change.

Overall, Ravenstein’s laws of migration are largely still applicable to today’s society, though many of them need adjusting so that they include more consideration for the effects of countries’ varying levels of development on migration.

Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory Ariella Grossbard

which relied on the exploitation of territories (many of which would be now classified as periphery or core countries) for its economic success. Through this, Wallerstein recognises the use of a global division of labour which is ‘the assignment of different parts of a process or task to different people/countries in order to improve efficiency’, which to some extent is productive, but can lead to global inequality.

The World Systems Theory also allows for mobility between the three sections, which models such as the Brandt line do not allow for. This means countries can gain or lose status and therefore it does not discourage countries in the periphery from developing.

Furthermore, whereas in many models the importance is placed on the core countries, Wallerstein shows the importance of the periphery countries to global economic development. There is an aspirational attitude placed on developed countries in the sense that every country needs to industrialise and develop in the same way that countries in the West have, in order to achieve global importance and economic stability.

Immanuel Wallerstein developed the World Systems Theory during the 1970s. In order to develop his theory, although he would reject the use of the word theory due to him believing this is instead a mode of analysis, he traced back the use of capitalism, which he believed the West used in order to gain power and develop through industrialisation. Over time, this led to unequal development as many countries either did not have the resources to industrialise. In other words, the West’s approach to development is not one that they could duplicate.

The World Systems Theory is a macro scale approach to world history and social change, which looks at the extent to which the world is divided into three main levels: core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries. Core countries are highly developed countries that have a large amount of dominance established via capitalist structures. They are therefore classified as post-industrial economies which focus on high skilled, capital-intensive production with the main sectors of work being tertiary and quaternary. Semi-periphery countries are equivalent to emerging countries that are in the process of industrialising or are partaking in a different process of the equivalent. Periphery countries are developing countries with high levels of poverty. They focus on low skilled labour-intensive production and the abstraction of raw materials.

The World Systems Theory visualises globalisation and the need for interconnectivity with greater depth than most preceding models. It notices the importance of global connection and shows that our global system is the way it is today because of the reliance and frequently, the exploitation of other countries. For example, Britain’s status as a core country has been established in large part due to the British Empire,

However, a critique of the World Systems Theory is that it places too large an emphasis on economic factors and in doing so, neglects the importance of internal factors such as cultural factors in the failure of developing countries to develop. The main focus of this model is moving away from the use of capitalism and finding another route that does not rely on the exploitation of developing countries. It does not touch on the fact that developing countries can often hinder their own levels of development.

The World Systems Theory also lacks guidance as to what differentiates a core country from a semi periphery or a periphery country. Therefore, there is little to no way of measuring a countries level of development along with its ability to move between sections. The World Systems Theory also fails to notice that some countries may not have a want or a need for the interdependence/reliance on other countries that this theory focuses on, due to the fact that it removes a large portion of their sovereignty.

While many models and theories are outdated, the World Systems Theory is arguably still very much applicable to the present day. Furthermore, with globalisation set to increase throughout the twenty-first Century, it can be applied to the future. Whilst it could be critiqued for having a simplistic approach to globalisation, it outlines a clear pathway to equality and offers solutions in order for us to reverse the effects of capitalism and close the global inequality gap. It is important for us as a global community to take a step back from the system we have created and re-evaluate the ways in which it functions. This theory allows us to do so in order to not hinder developing countries and allow them to focus more on developing with an increased ethical and moral mind-set.

Heartland and Rimland Theory Aimee Shah

In 1904, Halford Mackinder proposed the theory argues that whoever was able to control the Heartland would be able to control the whole world. However, this was later adapted by Nicholas Spykman in 1942 to include the concept that the Rimland was vital in securing the Heartland. As such, this theory focuses on the dominance of Eurasia and its power across the world. This idea of controlling the whole world links together the idea of the occupation of space or land mass and its political ramifications.

This theory was fairly useful when it was created as it took into account the location of natural resources which were deemed necessary for the obtention of power. This is because, during the 20th century the amount of land mass that a country had and the resources within that area were of significant importance in relation to how powerful that country was across a global scale.

However, today, this theory is very much outdated.

Technology advancement has meant that power has been removed from its association with natural resources or even the size of the land that a country occupies, and instead exists alongside media and technology supremacy.

Furthermore, time-space compression, which links to the rapid rise of technological advancements, has meant that perception of space has been distorted and so there is less relevance to the occupation of space in relation to the idea of world dominance. Therefore, the amount of land occupied is not necessarily what gives a country the most power, instead other factors, such as a how ‘switched on’ a country is, measures this.

Additionally, this theory can tie in with the Westernisation theory. This is the idea that Western ideas, morals and cultural values are being transmitted across the world and adopted by many. Hence, this indicates the greater power of western countries such as the USA and the UK and can be argued that this is

their means of gaining control over the world. As such, this can partially link to Spykman’s interpretation of the Heartland and Rimland theory by which domination, here in terms of culture, leads to the domination of the Heartland area and then eventually the world. Although the theory proposed focused on land occupation, if taken into a more modern context, power domination through cultural or social values can reflect how this theory may be modified. Yet, there is still a key anomaly to this - the USA. The USA holds significant geopolitical importance however, the Heartland and Rimland theory omits any indication towards the role they play within power dynamics on a global scale. Therefore, this theory holds little significance in a modern day context where geopolitics is primarily controlled by technological advancement.

The Epidemiological Transition Theory Raabia Kara

The second preposition is – during the transition model, a long-term shift occurs. This long-term shift occurs in morality and disease, where pandemics of infection are overtaken and displaces by ‘man made diseases.’ This may be related it industrialisation in the long term with the growth of ‘man made diseases’ being related to emissions and toxic waste, or could further be related to the age distribution.

The third is the most interesting in my opinion, which is that the most profound changes in health and disease patterns obtain among young children and women. He justifies this phenomenon with the declination of the infant and mortality rates, and therefore a drop-in fertility.

Between the first and last half of the 20th century, there was a huge increase in the life expectancy of females – which may further support this and reflect the reduction in female childbirth morality.

This long-lost theory was originally posited in 1971 by Abel Omran, and describes changing population patterns in relation to patterns of fertility, morality and the leading causes of death. ‘Epidemiological’ is referencing the field of study which determines the distribution of health risks and diseases with regards to population, combining science with the social science of geography. The idea behind this theory was not original to Omran, however he is typically credited with formulating this theory of the epidemiological transition in the form that came to be most popular and recognized. In one of his 1971 articles he wrote that “conceptually, the theory of epidemiological transition focuses on the complex change in patterns of health and disease and on the interactions between these patterns and their demographic, economic and sociologic determinants and consequences.”

Since the 1971 publication, the theory has been adopted and adapted, revised and criticized, demonstrating both its influence and its limitations.

Omran’s theory was broken down into 5 stages, or prepositions. The first was that this theory begins with a major premise that mortality is a fundamental factor in population dynamics. The preposition is built on the proved theory that declining morality is followed by declining fertility, which therefore impacts the population distribution and dynamic.

The fourth preposition ties the other 3 by effectively outlining what was already mentioned, as Omran theorises that the shift in health and disease patterns in this model are associated with the demographic transitions that then in turn make up the process of modernisation. This, in other words means that the current patterns of disease display how population changes – and how this population affects out modern world.

The final preposition connects his 3 models – the ‘Age of Pestilence and Famine’, the ‘Age of Receding Pandemics’ and the ‘Age of Degenerative Man-Made diseases’ which all link back to his prepositions and aims of developing and exploring this model. Today, Omran’s theory is being applied to obesity levels around the USA, to compare countries of various incomes globally and to understand infection emitting microorganisms and their relation to natural disease.

But, the future will only show if this theory unravels.

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals Sophie Waller

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality and empower women 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combating HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight goals with measurable targets and deadlines which were introduced in 2000 and signed by 189 countries at the UN Millennium Summit. Their aim is focused on improving the lives of the world’s poorest population through these quantitative objectives which were to be achieved by 2015. The MDGs were important as they represented the commitments of UN Member States to reduce extreme poverty along with its manifestations: hunger, disease, gender inequality, lack of education and access to basic infrastructure, and environmental degradation. MDGs also encouraged the international development policy by highlighting the responsibilities of rich countries to support the poorer countries through aid, debt relief and improved market access. The MDG agenda has been said to become a uniting and organising principle for the work of the entire international system in the area of development.

However, the success of the MDGs is perhaps more questionable. “The MDGs helped to lift more than one billion people out of extreme poverty, to make inroads against hunger, to enable more girls to attend school than ever before and to protect our planet,” stated the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon. The UN has also addressed it as “the most successful anti-poverty movement in history.” Although these goals have led to significant developments, overall inequalities still largely persist, and this progress has been uneven.

Primarily, there were several issues which the developing nations had to face in order to achieve the MDGs, some of these barriers were unique or countryspecific, others were broader in general. The most common problems faced were categorised into four main groups which the fragile nations had to tackle.

These included; poor starting conditions, weak

governance and institutions, conflict and instability, and environmental degradation.

As the stage of the MDGs came to a close, the next set of goals for development were adapted and a new target was set to aim to achieve. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by world leaders in the United Nations in 2015 and countries began efforts to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) over the next 15 years.

These new goals are set as a universal call of action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. It is aimed to be seen as a shared vision of humanity and a social contract between the world’s leaders and the people, as well as also being labeled “a blueprint for success” by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The main difference between the MDGs and the SDGs is based on who they will be targeting. MDGs were focused on targeting the developing or least developed countries, as it was designed in the context of “rich donors aiding poor recipients”. SDGs, meanwhile, are targeted to apply uniformly to all countries at every stage of development.

Overall, the MDGs were critical in providing a common language to settle global disagreement. The 8 goals which were set were clear, easy to communicate, realistic and were able to be measured and monitored.

They provided a base which allowed substantial progress to be made, such as halving the extreme poverty rate by 2015. However, these developments have been uneven with different countries progressing at different rates, and the countries which possibly needed the most aid did not receive as much attention as would have been optimal. These goals are still of a significant relevance today and will continue to be until each of them has been met and an acceptable level of equality has been achieved. Today, the focus is now on building a more sustainable world where environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and economic development are all of an equal value.

Urbanisation Rank-Size Rule Riya Patel First proposed in 1949 by G.K. Zipf, the rank-size rule is an empirical rule used to describe the population distribution in relation to the city size. According to the rule, the population of a settlement in an urban system can be determined from the population of the largest city in that system and the position of the settlement being considered in an urban hierarchy.

When cities are ranked in descending order with 1 denoting the largest city by population, each city is half the size of the preceding city.

An example of the rank size rule can be seen in the USA, where the top five most populated cities are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

New York (8,336,817) Los Angeles (3,979,576) Chicago (2,693,976) Houston (2,320,268) Phoenix (1,680,992)

The curve for which this can be seen has the formula:

Pr =

P1 r

where ‘Pr’ is the population of the city to be determined, ‘r’ is the rank of that city and ‘P1’ is the population of the largest city.

The rank-size rule is a multiplicative relationship (hyperbola / curved) and when graphed, is convex to the origin.

The rank size rule is taken into consideration during regional planning as it helps in the interpretation of the relationship between rank and population size of settlements as well as the analysis of the settlement networks. The rank size rule explains settlements with respect to economic activities as increase in activities increase the population size. It also provides an explanation for the imbalance between the settlements due to rapid growth in population or activities.

The rank size rule can also be modelled by the rank size distribution, which is seen when the natural logarithms of the rank and the city size (population) are calculated and represented graphically. This forms a log-linear pattern.

However, the rank size rule does not hold true for all countries, more specifically countries with primate cities. A primate city is the largest city within a nation which dominates the country not solely in size – being more than twice as large as the second city – but also in terms of influence. Paris, at a population of 11.02 million is the focus of France, while Marseilles has a population of 1.61 million. In the UK, London has a population of 9.3 million while the second largest city, Birmingham only has around 1.2 million people. The rank size rule may also not hold true as in some countries the difference between a first ranked and second ranked city is much less than expected.

The rank size rule applies to a proportion of the modern cities but there is difficulty correlating the theory with ancient cities. There is a lack of availability in terms of the data needed to correlate the theory. As well as this, although ancient cities were characterised by city walls and fortifications, the settlements exceeded the city walls depending on the population.

Carl Sauer’s Culture Theory Clara Grosz

Carl Sauer (1889-1975) was an American geographer labelled as ‘the dean of American historical geography’. In 1927, in his article Recent Developments in Cultural Geography, Sauer argued that “cultural landscape” is formed via human activity, which superimposes itself on the physical landscape.

In his words, “the cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape is the result”.

This theory directly contradicted the prevailing theory at the time of ‘environmental determinism’ - that the physical environment, primarily its landforms and climate, shapes the trajectories of societal development. Whereas an environmental determinist might argue that nature creates culture, Sauer fiercely rejected this in favour of his own theory that culture shapes nature. Sauer viewed human impacts on landscapes - such as agricultural uses of land - as expressions of culture, moulding the land to create ways-of-life specific to particular settlements. To Sauer, the landscape was only important in that it provided the raw materials that would be used to construct his “cultural landscape”.

This approach highlighted Sauer as a forward-thinking geographer for his time. His interrogation of environmental determinism exposed many of its inherent flaws, such as its devaluing of human agency in non-Western countries, which in recent years has been used as an argument to support colonialist viewpoints. Conversely, Sauer’s desire to remove societal and personal biases when considering cultures and cultural practices - especially those typically frowned upon by the West in the 1920s - must be commended for its open-minded approach to cultural development.

However, his failure to fully develop an explanation of the term “culture” might be critiqued, especially given

the name he gave to his theory. Whilst Sauer loosely regarded culture as a “way of life”, he deferred to anthropologist Franz Boas to explain that “culture is an integrated system of symbols, ideas and values that should be studied as a working system, an organic whole”.

In the 1930s and 40s, Sauer’s former students and others attempted to put this study of culture into practice in two main ways. The first method, known as “chorology”, suggested studying the cultural landscape systematically: firstly by identifying its cultural elements, then noticing similarities between this and the area’s morphology, and by doing so create an analysis of the development of the area.

The second method focussed on the particular cultural landscape as an end product of a set of historical and spatial processes. Over time, these approaches diverged further, with the term “cultural landscape” retaining the most significance for those who adhered to the second trajectory. Whilst Sauer’s theory lost some of its currency in the 1960s as the social sciences became increasingly focused on quantitative methods, it certainly holds importance in the present day.

From a modern perspective, Sauer’s work seems strikingly environmentalist. Indeed, whilst Sauer had previously studied and taught from an environmental determinist perspective in his early days at the University of Michigan, after examining the deforestation of pine forests on Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, he moved away from this theory towards his own. Furthermore, Sauer repeatedly expressed concerns about the ways in which modern capitalism and centralised government were destroying not only the cultural diversity of the world, but also its environmental health, leading him to be labelled as “anti-urban” by critics. Crucially, his book Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth heralds the concept of the Anthropocene that has become so widely understood today - that mankind is now the primary influence on Earth’s climate and environment.

Therefore, Sauer’s proto-environmentalism not only demarcates him from his contemporaries, but draws attention to his ideas as highly pertinent to contemporary geographies.

Overall, I would argue that Sauer’s theory has become a touchstone to the field of cultural geography today.

His interrogation of environmental determinism created a necessary and nuanced understanding of social development. In particular, his environmentalist approach to social development resonates greatly with modern understandings of the power dynamic between mankind and the landscapes we create. Sauer’s deepening of the links between geography and other subjects such as anthropology, archaeology and sociology is illustrative of the multidisciplinary approach that we, as geographers, have a responsibility to maintain as we strive towards a reconstructivist analysis of our ever-evolving society.