‘Left behind’ places versus peripheralized spaces: Integrating absolute, relative, and relational understandings of spatial inequality in the 21st century

While present debates focus on ‘left behind’ places’ inequalities relative to ‘superstar’ regions, I contend that ‘left behind’ places are best understood within the relations of capitalism and power. I hence advocate reviving uneven development and peripheralization theories in contemporary regional inequality research, and develop an analytical framework for doing so which integrates absolute, relative, and relational ontologies of space. The framework advances five ontological shifts. First, it re-frames ‘left behind-ness’ as a dynamic process rather than a static condition. Second, a relational perspective depicts peripheralized spaces as abundant social-ecological-economic communities rather than places narrowly defined by capital’s scarcity. Third, it suggests that ‘left behind’ places are just as much geographies of relational dispossession as they are geographies of relative disadvantage. Fourth, it explains regional inequality as a problem caused by capital and power flows , rather than uneven distribution of capital’s stocks . Finally, and substantially, it positions capitalism as a root driver of regional inequality, rather than a potential solution to it. The essay elaborates these points, starting with a review of current themes in the regional inequality debate. I conclude with a brief note on how policy praxis might integrate absolute, relative and, relational understandings of regional inequality in the 21st century.