ABSTRACT
In an early study of urban land rent that was still strongly influenced by structuralism (and even Althusser), Lipietz (1974) identified a particular spatial regime, the Economic and Social Division of Space. This enquiry examined the mechanisms by which space was reproduced or transformed as a result of private initiatives by property developers. He presented the role of land prices and urban planning institutions, stressing (especially in Lipietz, 1975) two modes of régulation in the production of urban space. These were competitive and monopolistic régulation, depending on whether the developer or public agency was subject to, or in charge of, organising modifications of the division of space caused by these initiatives. This terminology was adopted once several modes of régulation had been identified in a report (CEPREMAP-CORDES, 1977). In turn, examination of land prices, their active role and divergence from the Marxist ‘theory of value’, underlined the difference between an ‘esoteric’ level (structures) and an ‘exoteric’ level (behaviour) (Lipietz, 1983, 1984b).
