Restructuring of Sydney's Central Industrial Area: Process and Local Impacts

Since World War II Sydneys central industrial area has lost more than 80 per cent of its manufacturing workforce and no longer the dominant centre of manufacturing in Sydney, is now just one of a number of important centres. Unlike inner cities of the United Kingdom and United States, de-industrialisation in Sydney's central city has not caused a trapped population of displaced workers The first aim of this paper is to outline the restructuring of the central industrial area Two major periods of restructuring can be distinguished Up to the early I9 70s change in the industrial area was driven by intra- metropolitan forces. Since then international forces, and related major infrastructure developments, have substantially accelerated job bss. The second aim is to document the impacts which restructuring has had on the inner city workforce Jobs lost up to the early 1970s did not disadvantage inner city workers because employers as well as workers were moving to the suburbs Since then inner city workers in traditional blue collar occupations have been more strongly affected by de-industrialisation than the city as whole but the numbers involved have been too small to have been of much political interest Social problems in the inner city resulting from restructuring in the industrial area have been masked by strong gentrification.     

The Conceptual Basis of Counterurbanisation: Critique and Development

The concept of counterurbanisation has evoked criticisms. Some are technical, to do with terminology and analytical design. More serious criticisms stem from disquiet with the theoretical foundations. It is this issue that the present paper aims to address. We begin by discussing some problem areas related to techniques and concepts and lead on to an argument that the weakness in counterurban research arises from its preoccupation with population trends and with patterns rather than processes. The paper conclude that alternative approaches are needed which treat counterurbanisation as an element of regional restructuring rather than as an end in itself.     

STALINISM IN RETROSPECT: HANNAH ARENDT

Established writers whose reputation is affixed to a particular line of argument are typically ill disposed to change their minds in public. Some authors sincerely believe that the historical record vindicates them. Others are determined that the historical record will vindicate them. Still others ignore the historical record. Among students of totalitarianism, no one had more at stake reputationally than Hannah Arendt. It is not just that The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) established her as the premier thinker on its topic. It is also that totalitarianism, as she understood it, ribbons through all of her subsequent books, from the discussion of “the social” in The Human Condition (1958) to the analysis of thinking in the posthumously published The Life of the Mind (1978). How ready was she to adapt or to change entirely arguments she had first formulated as early as the mid‐to‐late 1940s? “Stalinism in Retrospect,” her contribution to Columbia University's Seminar on Communism series, offers a rare opportunity to answer, at least partially, this question. Arendt's foil was the publication of recent books on Stalin and the Stalin era by three Russian witnesses: Nadezhda Mandelstam, Roy Medvedev, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. According to Arendt, the books meshed with her own theoretical conception of Bolshevism while changing the “whole taste” of the period: they contained new insights into the nature of totalitarian criminality and evil. “Stalinism in Retrospect” documents Arendt's arguments and challenges to them by a number of the seminar's participants. Of particular note is the exchange between her and Zbigniew Brzezinski, an expert on the Soviet Union, a major interpreter of totalitarianism in his own right, and soon to be President Carter's National Security Advisor (January 1977–January 1981). Notes by the editor, Peter Baehr, offer a critical context for understanding Arendt's argument.