Misguided Rhetoric on Rent: A Comment on Ball and Clark

A Haila
Additional contact information
A Haila: Institute of Real Estate, Helsinki University of Technology, Otakaari 1, 02150 Espoo, Finland

Environment and Planning A, 1989, vol. 21, issue 11, 1525-1532

Abstract: Recently in this journal Ball and Clark have debated the theory of land rent. This comment is an attempt to show that the art of wording in that debate has been, above all, misleading. In the process of the controversy the original questions have been displaced by others, and discussion has been choked by ready answers quoted from classic authority. This comment is an attempt to penetrate behind the rhetorical veil and to reveal the important questions that deserve to be discussed in a sincere way. In order to make clear the main issue—the use and the relevance of the theory of land rent—the recent project of Ball is crystallized into a thesis: the received theory of rent should be rejected. Ball's attempts to justify this thesis are weighed, and it is concluded that Ball has not managed to justify the thesis. This means that the alleged alternative theory based on the criticism against the theory of land rent is rather a belief and an illusion than a properly justified stand. Therefore, apart from providing a short outline for an alternative approach, the main outcome of the comment is an invitation to further discussion.

Date: 1989
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a211525 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envira:v:21:y:1989:i:11:p:1525-1532

DOI: 10.1068/a211525

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning A
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().