We have argued the following four propositions thus far: 1 the key mechanism to be explained if spatial transformations are to be

understood is the way in which accumulation imperatives affect the geographical reorganization of the division of labour;

2 the conditions which are necessary if accumulation, and hence develop­ ment, are to continue, are substantially modified by the capacity of capital and labour to further their interests and their share of the product through struggles in the sphere of production;

3 these conditions are further modified when, after the main focus of struggle shifts from the sphere of circulation towards the sphere of reproduction, the capacity of labour to defend its territory against the mobility of capital is enhanced through state development planning;

4 the importance of struggles involving planning is that they may express the heterogeneity of local civil society and the local class relations which give specificity to the local state. In so doing they create tensions and contradictions within the state as a whole because of its prevailing disposition to secure wage-labour for capital by legally constituting homogeneous subjects. These tensions may be expressed in non-class struggles between people and planners.