Spatial Inequality: Linking Sociology’s Cross-national, Subnational, and Urban Traditions

• In Event: Microsociologies, Mezosociologies, and Macrosociologies: Scale, Level, Integration

Abstract

Although inequality straddles spatial scales, sociology is characterized by scalar traditions compartmentalized from one another in their geography of focus: cross-national/national, subnational, and city-centered. There has been little attempt to draw sociological research on inequality formulated at different spatial scales into collective dialogue. This paper takes on this task. We scrutinize the geography of poverty and inequality in a new way, from an integrative lens that links scalar traditions. Our paper provides the scaffolding for the cross-scale study of poverty and other economic well-being. We address several questions. To what extent do commonalities exist across cross-national/national, subnational (meso-level), and city-centered traditions? Do they result in a distinct disciplinary approach to poverty and other economic well-being? To what degree is there a trans-scale relevance of theory and concepts? What would an integrative approach to theorizing differences in poverty across scales look like? We identify commonalities across traditions while being cognizant of differences. We find that, though focusing on different scales, sociologists explore the geography of inequality in similar ways, face similar challenges, and theorize the economy, state, and social group arrangements as key causal forces. Sociology’s traditions tend to cohere in a distinct approach to geographic inequality. Here we point to epistemological commonalities and theory, concepts, and socio-spatial processes that operate trans-scale. Finally, questioning what an integrative approach to theorizing poverty would look like, we provide a general answer and a partial illustration. We link scalar traditions and vertical and horizontal processes, to explain why localities vary in poverty, dramatically so in the U.S. Overall, we are not arguing that transferability of theory across scales is always advisable—but rather that it should be entertained more broadly. Advancing sociology’s scalar traditions individually, the study of inequality overall, and population well-being is compromised when segmented literature impedes cross-fertilization and synergy.

Authors

• Linda Lobao, The Ohio State University

• Gregory Hooks, McMaster University