【正文】 public policy. Yet a lacuna of American urban scholarship in general, and the Chicago School in particular, was the lack of specificity in identifying the webs of interconnections between urban life and wider macrolevel processes. Early urban sociologists, in short, were primarily concerned with the internal anization and dynamics of cities, while ignoring the larger macrostructures that linked urban change to extralocal processes. In the early 1970s, several Marxist social scientists including Manuel Castells(1977), David Harvey (1973), and Henri Lefebvre (1991), among other scholars began to revise Karl Marx’s ideas to explain uneven metropolitan development,urban industrial decline, and other urban trends. Castells proposed that urban scholars focus on the collective consumption characteristic of urbanized nations and way in which political and economic conflicts within cities generate urban social movements for change. David Harvey, in contrast, argued that the central issue in making sense of cities was not collective consumption but the more basic Marxist concern with capital accumulation. Influenced by Lefebvre,Harvey (1973) argued that investment in land and real estate is an important means of accumulating wealth and a crucial activity that pushes the growth of cities in specific ways. Processes as diverse as urban disinvestment and decay,suburbanization, deindustrialization, urban renewal, and gentrification are part and parcel of the continuous reshaping of the built environment to create a more efficient arena for profit making. According to Harvey (1989), powerful real estate actors invest, disinvest, and reshape landuses in a process of “creative destruction” that is continually accelerating, destroying munities and producing intense social conflicts and struggles over meanings and uses of urban space. Despite their different emphases, the work of Marxists helped focus scholarly attention on the capitalist system of forprofit production generally,and class struggle and capital accumulation specifically, as analytical starting points for understanding the nature of urban redevelopment and disinvestement(for overviews, see Jaret, 1983。 Sawyers, 1984). By the late 1970s and continuing into 1980s, a new critical approach to the study of cities and urban redevelopment had developed. Usually called the“critical politicaleconomy” or “sociospatial approach,” this perspective emphasized several major dimensions of cities: (1) the importance of class and racial domination (and, more recently, gender) in shaping urban development。 (3) the role of growthassisted government actors in city development。 (5) attention to the global context of urban development (for overviews see Feagin, 1998。 Feagin, 1988。 Savage amp。 Smith, 1995). Gottdiener (1994) and Hutchison (2021) prefer the term “sociospatial” perspective to describe the critical political economy paradigm, a term that accents the society/space synergy, and emphasizes that cities are multifaceted expressions of local actions and macrostructural processes. They also use the term to distance themselves from older Marxist approaches of Gordon (1984), Dear and Scott (1981), and Storper and Walker (1983) and highlight the diversity of theory and method within the broad paradigm. Molotch (1999, 1976) and Logan and Molotch(1987) prefer the term urban political economy and have developed their own“growth machine” theory to explain urban redevelopment. Other critical scholars have embraced a more eclec