A Critical Note on Ball's Reformulation of the Role of Urban Land Rent

Abstract

Ball has recently attempted to reformulate the role of land rent in urban contexts. His reformulation is criticized for containing inconsistent reasoning and a faulty conception of land rent. More specifically, the critique focuses on: (1) his argument against the use of land-rent theories—originally developed for agricultural contexts—in urban settings; (2) his limitation of the rent concept to actual payments to separate landowners; and (3) his use of the term ‘building rent’ in arguing that land rent plays an insignificant role in urban contexts. Major weaknesses are identified in these three substantial parts of Ball's reformulation.