Progress in Human Geography 33(5) (2009) pp.
685–692
Critical geography I: the question
of internationalism
Jim Glassman*
Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 217–1984 West Mall,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
Key words: critical geography, fieldwork, international research, Mumbai, positionality,
transnationalism.
I Positionality and possibility in
international research
On the last day of the 5th International
Conference on Critical Geography (ICCG),
held in Mumbai during December 2007, I
participated in a field trip that took us to a
village just outside the city, located in a large
area being turned by the Indian government
into a special export zone (SEZ). Villagers
were being forced to sell their land so that it
will be available for the more lucrative activ-
ities the government hopes to encourage
within the SEZ. On the bus during our two-
hour ride to the village, we were given
background information on the situation
by scholars from our host institution, the
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, who char-
acterized the villagers as ‘subsistence’ rice
producers.
This instance of ‘accumulation by dis-
possession’ (Harvey, 2003) was further
explained when we arrived at the village.
Several village spokesmen – all men, who
spoke in the center of the village, with our
group gathered around them on mats and
chairs, and other villagers sitting around
*Email: glassman@geog.ubc.ca
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

and behind us – told us that the village had
undergone land reform in the past and did
not today have inegalitarian landholdings.
Not surprisingly, they voiced a strong desire
to retain their existing agrarian livelihoods.
As various villagers graciously brought us
tea, we got an opportunity to ask questions.
I know little about this area, but from general
familiarity with labor issues in Thai rice-
growing villages I was curious about the or-
ganization of labor during the labor-intensive
periods of transplanting and harvest, since
this is an important indicator of the degree of
commercialization and monetization of pro-
duction. To my surprise – and dismay – one of
the academics who had been providing us
with valuable information during the trip and
translating the villagers’ talks for us cut off my
question with the polite reply that we would
now take a break for tea. When we returned
from the ‘break’, a few minutes later, my
question went untranslated and unanswered
(a witty conference participant told me the
correct answer was ‘seven’).
Perplexed, I turned to a graduate student
from the Tata Institute who was sitting
DOI: 10.1177/0309132508101602
686 Progress in Human Geography 33(5)
nearby and asked if she knew the answer to
this query. She conveyed my question to an
older woman from the village sitting behind
us and I thus ended up in an impromptu
‘interview’ with a ‘local informant’. What I
was told is that two men who had also been
sitting behind us were part of a seasonal
labor force hired in for harvest; they were
landless workers from a nearby village who
worked in various villages during peak labor
periods. In addition, I was told that rice is
grown primarily as a commercial crop, while
vegetables are grown for local consumption.
The rice is dried and milled in the village.
My ‘informant’ pointed to the building across
from us, saying something in the process
about ‘zamindar’ – the word for ‘landlord’,
one of the few Hindi terms I know. Indeed,
as it turns out, a local landlord not only owns
the mill but much of the land around the
village. In addition to this, I was told that
most families do not survive on agricultural
production alone and have younger mem-
bers who are working in Mumbai, remitting
money home.
In sum, I was confronted with two differ-
ing images of the village and its struggles.
Image One: a relatively unstratified village
of subsistence rice producers, unified in
their opposition to dispossession by the
state, is struggling to avoid being forced to
sell its land. Image Two: a somewhat strati-
fied village that is already engaged in sub-
stantial commercial production, with local
labor hired in for specific tasks, is struggling
to avoid being forced to sell – perhaps with
village leaders such as the biggest local land-
lord taking a lead in organizing opposition to
state policies.
I tell this story not to make a definitive
judgment about the veracity of one or an-
other story (while both have elements of
truth I consider Image Two more robust).
Instead, I want to use the story to highlight
some issues of positionality and possibility in
international critical geography.
Positionality enters into this story in nu-
merous ways. As ‘outsiders’, most of us who
visited the village were not ideally situated
to judge what was happening, and thus
had to rely on a combination of various ‘local
informants’ and interpreters. The inter-
preters were themselves ‘outsiders’ to the vil-
lage but ‘insiders’ vis-à-vis that monumental
construct called India. The villagers were of
course consummate ‘insiders’ to the village,
but different insiders told different stories,
based perhaps on differing interests and
identities. The translators had to determine
how to tell these stories, and two of them
effectively told me the stories in ways that
had differing implications, again perhaps
based on differing identities, interests, or
even senses of protocol and decorum. From
all this, I gave myself the task of piecing
together the best possible account of what
was happening in the struggle, influenced
ultimately by my own positionality – including
understandings developed from research
experience elsewhere.
In many respects, these research chal-
lenges are quite conventional, and I can see
little to suggest in confronting them meth-
odologically but to muddle through, using the
best critical thinking skills one can muster.
But part of what is involved in such critical
reflection, I believe, is to continually engage
in conversations with a variety of others and
to juxtapose the pieces of information one
garners in the process, seeing what sort of
picture this yields. As such, I want to reflect
here on some specific dimensions of conver-
sations in critical international geography.
I do so through a specific lens – that of my
own experiences in doing research on devel-
opment issues in the Global South. This
can hardly provide an exhaustive sense of
what might be involved in international
critical geography, given the variegation and
importance of issues in the Global North,
and given that I can only survey Anglophone
geography. I also make the account briefer
than it might be by limiting my references
primarily to recent, book-length work. Hope-
fully, such an account is nonetheless usefully
indicative of possibilities for productive

hybridization in critical international geo-
graphical research.
II Geographies of critical geographies
As Eric Sheppard notes, critical geographies
have their own geographies of production
and circulation (Sheppard, 2006). Both the
possibilities and the perils of international
research seem to me to stem in part from
these varied geographies. There are sub-
stantive differences between the kinds of
international geographical research that
are undertaken and the positionality of the
researchers doing the work. I offer here a
non-exhaustive and suggestive character-
ization of different geographies of critical
international research, one that I believe
can help situate the possibilities for inter-
nationalism I will discuss below. I hasten to
add that this is not an attempt to identify
essences of researchers based on ‘origins’;
I would deny the existence of such essences
in any event. Moreover, all the scholars I
discuss produce work between and across
these categories (cf. Larner, 2008). What the
categories are designed to pick out, there-
fore, are not origins but patterns of location
and movement – where people get to in
conducting research and the possibilities of
hybridization they generate in the process.
1 Work by transplanted scholars from the
Global South
One of the most powerful ways in which
critical geographical scholarship has over-
come some of the limits to ‘outsider’ under-
standings of ‘foreign’ contexts is through
the work of scholars who have migrated
to the metropole, using their experiential
understandings of locations in the Global
South, along with their linguistic skills and
ability to read cultural nuances, to provide
‘insider’ accounts. Geography has benefited
tremendously in recent decades from an
influx of such scholars. I think here of the
works of people like Sharad Chari (2004),
Vinay Gidwani (2008), and Rich Nagar
(Sangtin Writers and Nagar, 2006) on India;
Jim Glassman: Critical geography 687
You-Tien Hsing (1998) on China; Abdi Samatar
(1989; 1999; Samatar and Samatar, 2002) on
Somalia and Botswana; and Gillian Hart
(2002) on South Africa.
The virtues of such ‘insider’ perspectives
are not, of course, unequivocal. For example,
as has been noted in any number of critical
commentaries on subaltern scholars in the
Global North, class, gender, and other pos-
itionings may render this scholarship as
‘partial’ as any other form – especially vis-à-
vis the interests of working classes, women,
and other less privileged groups in the South.
Nonetheless, the work of transplanted
scholars from the South has opened crucial
vistas, within Anglophone geography, on so-
ciospatial realities in other parts of the world.
2 Work by metropolitan scholars of the
Global South
A long-standing and enduring tradition within
critical geography is that of the scholar from
the metropole who travels abroad to critic-
ally interrogate the realties of phenomena
such as ‘development’ in the Global South.
Within Anglophone critical geography, this
tradition was animated several decades
ago by a large number of scholars from
European and North American institutions.
Newer generations of such scholars have
expanded the horizons of this kind of re-
search. Examples would include writings
by Angus Lindsay Wright and Wendy
Wolford (2003) on the Landless Move-
ment in Brazil; by Melissa Wright (2006)
on gender and labor in northern Mexico;
by Aaron Bobrow-Strain (2007) on land
struggles in southern Mexico; by Janet
Sturgeon (2005) on comparative develop-
ment and resource management among
upland border communities in China and
Thailand; and by Joel Wainwright (2008)
on colonial and postcolonial development
in Belize.
The potential strengths of such metro-
politan scholarship cannot be detached
from its basic enabling conditions in uneven
development and distribution of resources.
688 Progress in Human Geography 33(5)
The possibilities within the North for ex-
tended training – in disciplinary knowledge
and theory, languages, research techniques,
and the like – create the conditions under
which such scholars can engage in ongoing
research on areas of interest within the
South. As Benedict Anderson once noted
in referring to an earlier generation of
colonial scholars, a lifetime of work in such
contexts can bequeath considerable depth
of understanding, of a sort not so readily
available to researchers working under
greater economic and temporal constraints
(Anderson, 1978). But, as Anderson also
noted, such perspectives may bring with
them a host of colonial presuppositions,
anchored in the positions and interests of
the researchers. This is, in my view, no less
a problem to be confronted by avowedly cri-
tical contemporary researchers than by the
colonial scholars of the past.
3 Work by return trip scholars from the
Global South
For Anderson, one of the most interesting
and fecund forms of international scholarship
historically has been that which is under-
taken by ‘lonely bi-lingual intelligentsias’
from the Global South, who train in the
schools of the metropolitan powers and re-
turn to the South fired with colonial ideas
that they subsequently turn against the
colonizers. This was, for Anderson, a crucial
origin of anti-colonial nationalism (Anderson,
1998; 2005; 2006).
I, too, find this type of scholarship es-
pecially interesting for the possibilities it
generates, and not only because of the ways
return trip scholars are positioned to re-
import ideas from the North into the South,
but because of the ways they are able to
further interrogate these ideas from the
North in an ongoing confrontation with
the daily nuances of social realities in the
South. Here, too, critical geography has
benefited from a growing presence of such
return trip scholars. Henry Wai-chung Yeung,
for example, though raised in Hong Kong
and now resident in Singapore, was in a
sense repatriated from his PhD studies with
Peter Dicken at Manchester to the networks
of ‘overseas Chinese capital’ which he now
studies (Yeung, 2006; 2007). A number of
other scholars of East Asia, two of whom I
will discuss below, are among the many who
are also contributing to the vibrancy of this
kind of project.
Locations such as the National University
of Singapore, where Yeung works, are un-
usual in the resources they have to commit
to research. Indeed, it is precisely because
Singapore has ‘graduated’ from the South
during Yeung’s lifetime that it can now more
readily play the very visible role it has come
to play in critical Anglophone geographic
research (see, for example, Sidaway, 2002;
Kong and Yeoh, 2003; Bunnell, 2004).
Academic locations in the South are typic-
ally less financially favored, and this – along
with differing academic incentive structures
in universities of the South – makes it far less
likely that researchers there will regularly
produce work that is read and recognized
in the North. This, however, is to the detri-
ment of international critical geography, and
commends efforts by more institutionally
and economically privileged scholars to con-
tinue engaging with return trip scholars.
4 Work by scholars of ‘globalization’ and
imperialism
As a final category, I suggest that it is worth
noting the work of scholars who move ana-
lytically across borders from North to South
and South to North, tracking phenomena
such as ‘globalization’ and the resurgence
of US imperialism. This category cross-cuts
the others and includes most of the work of
the scholars already noted above, but also
includes recent work by geographers such
as Derek Gregory (2004), David Harvey
(2003; 2005), Michael Watts (Retort,
2005), John Agnew (2005), and Richard
Peet (2007), as well as important work on
historical aspects of ‘globalization’ by
scholars such as Judith Carney (2001) and

Neil Smith (2003). Aside from the fact that
ongoing ‘globalization’ of capital makes such
research imperative, phenomena such as
increasing migration from South to North
have also increased the salience of critical
geographies that interrogate movement
along transnational chains, rather than
just within locations in the South (see, for
example, Pratt, 2004; Cravey, 2007; Kelly
and Olds, 2007). When such research is well
done, it produces ‘grounded’ geographies
of globalization (see Nagar et al., 2002).
Doing it well is the challenge, and for this the
positionality of researchers and their ability
to build and participate in various dialogues
seems to me crucial.
III Conversations in international and
transnational geography
How are some of the possibilities implied
by these differing geographies of critical
geography manifest in the conversations
taking place in Anglophone international
critical geography at present? I address this
issue with some observations from a number
of conferences, including the 2007 Mumbai
ICCG, as well as a brief notice of some
recent collaborative research ventures.
One of the panels at the Mumbai ICCG,
entitled ‘Unbuilding the Empire?’, featured
an interesting range of works on different
aspects of imperialism, including a paper by
Matt Coleman and Mary Thomas (2007),
analyzing the debilitating effects of Bush-
bashing on the US Left – a paper the au-
thors also presented to good effect at the
14th Annual Mini Conference on Critical
Geography at the University of Kentucky
two months earlier. While the Mumbai
panel was composed entirely of metropol-
itan scholars (which was not the case with
all the ICCG panels), the conversation after-
wards was interesting for the exchanges
between these scholars and various par-
ticipants from India, who raised questions
about the reasons for the weakness of the
US Left. What was particularly notable
in this, for me, was that, when discussion
Jim Glassman: Critical geography 689
turned to the absence of any alternatives to
the two major US parties, the South Asian
interlocutors rightly noted that the presence
of relatively powerful Left parties in India
has not prevented the country from having
numerous problems like those in the United
States, nor has the Indian Left always been a
beacon of progressive politics.
This clarifies the desirability of encour-
aging a break with the ‘colonial’ scholarly
division of labor, in which studies of the
North are largely consigned to scholars from
the North. The perspectives on the Left
in India these South Asian scholars brought
with them to discussion of the United
States cast the weakness of the US Left in
a revealing light: the problem in the US may
not merely be the absence of a strong, deeply
institutionalized Left party. More scholarship
on the North by scholars from the South –
who can bring their understandings of the
South to bear on its Other – can only benefit
our understanding of phenomena such as US
politics and US empire.
Such traffic in internationalized under-
standings need not be only one way, as can
be illustrated by an indirect exchange at the
2006 meetings of the East Asian Regional
Conference on Alternative Geography
(EARCAG), the East Asian branch of the
International Critical Geography Group
(ICGG), held in Taipei, Taiwan (the last
EARCAG meeting was held in Seoul in
December 2008). The conference keynote
speakers included David Harvey and Eric
Sheppard, but the most noteworthy dif-
ference in perspective between keynote
speakers, I think, came from the arguments
presented by Taiwanese scholar Kuan-Hsing
Chen (2006) and US geographer Richard
Walker (2006). While Chen announced
a healthy postcolonial skepticism of the
ability of East Asian scholars to use the
tools of metropolitan scholars in analyzing
East Asian realities, Walker argued that
China studies need an infusion of critical
perspective on the development of cap-
italism in China, informed in his case by an
690 Progress in Human Geography 33(5)
understanding of the development of cap-
italism in California.
If one can avoid the compulsion to decide
which of these perspectives is ‘right’, the
tensions between them are potentially
creative. While it is clearly the case that
categories of analysis from the experiences
of scholars in the North cannot be imported
wholesale into other contexts without
producing (imperially useful) confusion, it
is also clear that an appropriately nuanced
adaptation of such categories may yield
powerful insights. In a context like that of
contemporary China, where party leaders
and class elites still claim to be promoting
‘socialism with special Chinese charac-
teristics’, an analysis like Walker’s – which
pointed to similarities and differences
between forms of capitalist development in
Europe and North America and those now
under way in China – has the potential to
sharpen critical geographical analysis, and
perhaps all the more so if it is put to good
critical use by scholars from the South.
The interrogation of Chinese capitalism
raises the issue of ‘varieties of capitalism’, a
topic that was addressed in different forms
at another recent international geography
conference, the Second Global Economic
Geography Conference (SGCEG) in Beijing,
during 2007. The conference was itself a
major transnational undertaking, involving
collaboration between scholars like Henry
Yeung, and Weidong Liu and Mary L. Ma
at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I can-
not survey the range of interesting topics
addressed at the SGCEG, but I refer to it to
note a particular challenge for international
critical geography.
The power of industrial capitalist trans-
formation in China has been such that it has
attracted considerable attention from a range
of economic geographers, helping to ter-
ritorially de-center Anglophone geography.
I see this as to the good, but we should note
that, while both the Global North and East
Asia received considerable attention at this
conference, there was very little focus on
places such as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin
America, or South and Southeast Asia.
This is of course, in part, a function of the
location of the conference, but it also points
to the fact that if Anglophone economic
geography is indeed becoming more ‘global’,
it nonetheless still confronts consider-
able challenges of uneven development.
I am struck here especially by the not-yet-
realized possibilities for studying phenom-
ena like the ‘rise of China’ in connection to
patterns of uneven development in other
parts of the South, such as Southeast Asia
and sub-Saharan Africa (see, for example,
Carmody, 2008).
The conferences noted here, of course,
do not exhaust the conference spaces in
which productive international critical geog-
raphy has been conducted in recent years.
I could mention, as well, the Norwegian
regional meeting of the ICGG, the Nordisk
Symposium for Kritisk Samfundsgeografi,
last held in 2005, and Antipode’s 1st Summer
Institute for Geographies of Justice, held
at the University of Georgia during 2007
(the second summer institute will be held in
Manchester-Leeds during 2009).
Beyond conferences, let me note two
recent international collaborations that point
to possibilities for internationalism within
critical geography. One is a project I have
been involved in with return trip scholars
Bae-Gyoon Park of the Department of
Geographic Education at Seoul National
University (SNU), and Young-Jin Choi, a
SNU PhD student. Park, Choi, and I have
compared and contrasted social movement
internationalism in South Korea and Thailand,
two contexts where such internationalism
has been deeply limited by specific forms of
nationalism (Glassman et al., 2008). While
we recognize the crucial contextual and local
differences between these phenomena, we
also argue that there are enough similarities
that a comparative and ‘combined’ reading of
‘failed internationalism’ in South Korea and
Thailand is very helpful for understanding and
engaging with current events in both places.

An even more ambitious and powerful
collaboration – one that is in many ways
more transnational than international – has
been launched by Richa Nagar in her work
with the Sangtin collective in Northern India
(Sangtin Writers and Nagar, 2006). Nagar
has acted in some ways as both a transplant
and a return trip scholar, returning regu-
larly to India from her position in the Depart-
ment of Women’s Studies at the University
of Minnesota to work with a group of local
NGO activists that address a range of issues
surrounding gender and development.
I cannot do justice to their work in a short
review, but suffice it to say that by voicing
the aspirations of NGO workers, rather than
just NGO leaders, it has presented a chal-
lenge to hierarchical NGO structures in India
at the same time as it interrogates challenges
in gendered processes of social transfor-
mation. As a result of this, it has received de-
served attention in places ranging from the
Indian press and NGO circles to conferences
and conclaves of public intellectuals in North
America.
IV A pitch for ‘getting there’
I do not intend this review of some recent
work in Anglophone international critical
geography to be merely laudatory. I have
tried to highlight many of the limits and
challenges, and to these I should add the
point that a more robust international critical
geography needs to work at being post-
Anglophone, even though for many of us
English will inevitably continue to be our
language of scholarly work. The ICGG has
made noteworthy efforts in this regard,
through measures such as encouraging re-
gional meetings and facilitating translation at
all gatherings. Yet exchanges will obviously
be limited to the extent that each of our lan-
guage skills are limited – an inevitability but
nonetheless one to continue addressing.
I began with a story from the Mumbai
ICCG and can return there to conclude.
Although much international collaboration
today is (effectively) done via internet
Jim Glassman: Critical geography 691
and email, I want to suggest that constructing
a robust internationalism may necessarily
involve physically crossing borders to get
to the places we wish to study and to the
people with whom we wish to engage. I do
not suppose that I could have begun piecing
together a view of the land struggle in the
greater Mumbai SEZ without having been
taken there on an ICCG field trip. Moreover,
getting there was not a guarantee of what
I would take away in the way of understand-
ing. A fortuitous set of events that gained
me an impromptu ‘local informant’ turned
out to be especially crucial. Getting there
was not sufficient, but it was necessary.
And, of course, some effort at further im-
mersion in this particular issue might force
me to alter the views of it I have provisionally
adopted at present.
Producing traveling geographies, I am
suggesting, continues to be a central mandate
for critical international geographers. There
are of course other mandates – and I will
address some of them in the next report.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Joel Wainwright and
Noel Castree for helpful comments and sug-
gestions on an earlier draft of this article.
Remaining errors are the sole responsibility
of the author.
References
Agnew, J. 2005: Hegemony: the new shape of global
power. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Anderson, B. 1978: Studies of the Thai state: the
state of Thai studies. In Ayal, E., editor, The study
of Thailand: analyses of knowledge, approaches and
prospects in anthropology, art history, economics,
history, and political science, Athens, OH: Ohio
University Center for International Studies, South-
east Asia Studies Program, 193–247.
— 1998: The spectre of comparisons: nationalism,
Southeast Asia, and the world. London: Verso.
— 2005: Under three flags: anarchism and the anti-
colonial imagination. London: Verso.
— 2006: Imagined communities: reflections on the origin
and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Bobrow-Strain, A. 2007: Intimate enemies: landowners,
power, and violence in Chiapas. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
692 Progress in Human Geography 33(5)
Bunnell, T. 2004: Malaysia, modernity, and the Multi-
media Super Corridor: a critical geography of intel-
ligent landscapes. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Carmody, P. 2008: Exploring Africa’s economic
recovery. Geography Compass 2, 79–107.
Carney, J. 2001: Black rice: the African origins of rice
cultivation in the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chari, S. 2004: Fraternal capital: peasant-workers, self-
made men, and globalization in provincial India. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chen, K.-H. 2006: De-imperializing East Asian Geo-
politics. Keynote speech at the 4th Meeting of East
Asian Regional Conferences in Alternative Geog-
raphy, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 25 June.
Coleman, M. and Thomas, M. 2007: The Per-
formativity of Bush’s Mug. Paper presented at the
14th Annual Mini Conference on Critical Geography,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, 6 October,
and at the 5th International Conference on Critical
Geography, Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai, 4 December.
Cravey, A. 2007: ‘El Otro Lado’ and transnational
ethnographies. In Tickell, A., Sheppard, E., Peck,
J. and Barnes, T., editors, Politics and practice in
economic geography, London: Sage, 245–54.
Gidwani, V. 2008: Capital interrupted: agrarian devel-
opment and the politics of work in India. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Glassman, J., Park, B.-G. and Choi, Y.-J. 2008:
Failed internationalism and social movement dec-
line: the cases of South Korea and Thailand. Critical
Asian Studies 40, 339–72.
Gregory, D. 2004: The colonial present: Afghanistan,
Palestine, Iraq. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hart, G. 2002: Disabling globalization: places of power in
post-apartheid South Africa. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Harvey, D. 2003: The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
— 2005: A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hsing, Y.-T. 1998: Making capitalism in China: the
Taiwan connection. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kelly, P. and Olds, K. 2007: Researching transnational
networks. In Tickell, A., Sheppard, E., Peck, J. and
Barnes, T., editors, Politics and practice in economic
geography, London: Sage, 255–66.
Kong, L. and Yeoh, B.S.A. 2003: The politics of
landscapes in Singapore: constructions of ‘nation’.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Larner, W. 2008: ‘Expatriate experts: New Zealand’s
diaspora strategy’. In Hanson, H.K. and Salskov-
Iverson, D., editors, Critical perspectives on private
authority in global politics, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 128–46.
Nagar, R., Lawson, V., McDowell, L. and Hanson, S.
2002: Locating globalization: feminist (re)readings
of the subjects and spaces of globalization. Economic
Geography 78, 257–84.
Peet, R. 2007: Geography of power: making global
economic policy. London: Zed Books.
Pratt, G. 2004: Working feminism. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Retort 2005: Afflicted powers: capital and spectacle in a
new age of war. London: Verso.
Samatar, A. 1989: The state and rural transformation
in Northern Somalia, 1884–1986. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
— 1999: An African miracle: state and class leadership and
colonial legacy in Botswana development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Samatar, A. and Samatar, I., editors 2002: African
state: reconsiderations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sangtin Writers and Nagar, R. 2006: Playing with
fire: feminist thought and activism through seven lives
in India. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Sheppard, E. 2006: Quandaries of critical geography.
Antipode Lecture, Royal Geographical Society/
Institute of British Geographers meeting, London,
30 August.
Sidaway, J. 2002: Imagined regional communities:
integration and sovereignty in the global south. London:
Routledge.
Smith, N. 2003: American empire: Roosevelt’s geographer
and the prelude to globalization. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Sturgeon, J. 2005: Border landscapes: the politics of
Akha land use in China and Thailand. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.
Wainwright, J. 2008: Decolonizing development:
colonial power and the Maya. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Walker, R. 2006: Capitalism: the spectre haunting
China studies. Keynote speech at the 4th Meeting
of East Asian Regional Conferences in Alternative
Geography, National Taiwan University, Taipei,
26 June.
Wright, A.L. and Wolford, W. 2003: To inherit the
earth: the landless movement and the struggle for a new
Brazil. San Francisco, CA: Food First.
Wright, M. 2006: Disposable women and other myths of
global capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Yeung, H.W.-C. 2006: Chinese capitalism in a global
era: towards a hybrid capitalism. London: Routledge.
— 2007: Researching hybridity through ‘Chinese’
business networks. In Tickell, A., Sheppard, E.,
Peck, J. and Barnes, T., editors, Politics and practice
in economic geography, London: Sage, 279–89.