REGIONAL STUDIES, 2017

VOL. 51, NO. 9, 1285–1296

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1329434

VIRTUAL ISSUE EDITORIAL

Doreen Massey (1944–2016): a geographer who really mattered

Richard Meegan

ABSTRACT
Doreen Massey (1944–2016): a geographer who really mattered. Regional Studies. In this virtual special issue we celebrate
Doreen Massey’s work, and specifically the influence of her meticulously crafted ‘relational approach’ to understanding
space and place on debates in regional studies. We bring together the four papers (three single-authored and one co-
authored) by Doreen that appeared in Regional Studies with a further six papers by other authors, which bear witness
to the influence of Doreen’s ‘relational’ thinking in understanding regions. The editorial places these papers in the
context not only of debates in regional studies but also in relation to the inspiring academic trajectory of Doreen’s
understanding of space, place and gender.
KEYWORDS
Doreen Massey; space and place; gender inequality; industrial restructuring; spatial divisions of labour; localities

摘要
多琳．梅西（1944年—2016年）：一位举足轻重的地理学者。Regional Studies. 在此一虚拟特刊中，我们颂扬多琳．
梅西的研究工作，特别是她在区域研究辩论中精心打造的理解空间与地方的 “关系性取径”。我们集结多琳在区域研
究期刊（Regional Studies）中发表的四篇文章（其中三篇为单一作者、一篇为共同着作），以及受到多琳提倡的理解
区域的 “关系性” 思考所影响的六篇其他作者的文章。本篇编委评论不仅将这些文章置放在区域研究辩论的脉络中，
同时也将它们置于多琳理解空间、地方与性别的具啓发性之学术轨迹之中。
关键词
多琳．梅西; 空间与地方; 性别不均; 产业再结构; 空间劳动分工; 所在地

RÉSUMÉ
Doreen Massey (1944–2016): géographe qui avait vraiment de l’importance. Regional Studies. Ce numéro spécial virtuel
cherche à célébrer le travail de Doreen Massey, et en particulier l’influence de son ‘approche relationnelle’
méticuleusement conçue pour comprendre les notions d’espace et de lieu au moment des débats sur les études
régionales. On rassemble les quatre articles par Doreen (dont trois comportant un seul auteur et un rédigé en
collaboration) qui ont paru dans Regional Studies conjointement avec six autres articles par d’autres auteurs, qui
témoignent de l’influence de la ‘pensée’ relationnelle de Doreen pour comprendre les régions. Cet éditorial replace les
articles dans le contexte non seulement des débats au sujet des études régionales mais aussi par rapport à la trajectoire
académique inspirante de la compréhension de Doreen quant aux notions d’espace, de lieu et de genre.
MOTS-CLÉS
Doreen Massey; espace et lieu; inégalité de genre; restructuration industrielle; divisions spatiales du travail; localités

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Doreen Massey (1944–2016): eine Geografin von echter Relevanz. Regional Studies. In dieser virtuellen Sonderausgabe
würdigen wir das Werk von Doreen Massey und insbesondere den Einfluss ihres akribisch formulierten ‘relationalen
Ansatzes’ zum Verständnis von Raum und Ort auf die Debatten in den Regionalwissenschaften. Hierfür wurden Masseys
vier Beiträge (drei als Einzelautorin und einer als Koautorin) zusammengestellt, die in Regional Studies erschienen,
begleitet von sechs weiteren Artikeln anderer Autoren, die vom Einfluss von Masseys ‘relationaler’ Denkweise auf das
Verständnis der Regionen zeugen. Im Leitartikel werden diese Beiträge nicht nur in den Kontext der Debatten der

CONTACT
r.a.meegan@liverpool.ac.uk
Department of Geography and Planning, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

© 2017 Regional Studies Association

1286 Richard Meegan

Regionalwissenschaft gestellt, sondern auch in einen Bezug zur inspirierenden akademischen Laufbahn des masseyschen
Verständnisses von Raum, Ort und Geschlecht gebracht.
SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER
Doreen Massey; Raum und Ort; Geschlechterungleichheit; Branchenumstrukturierung; räumliche Arbeitsteilung; Ortschaften

RESUMEN
Doreen Massey (1944–2016): una geógrafa con verdadera importancia. Regional Studies. En este número especial virtual
reconocemos el trabajo de Doreen Massey, y en concreto la influencia de su ‘enfoque relacional’ meticulosamente
elaborado para entender el espacio y el lugar en los debates sobre estudios regionales. Para ello recopilamos los cuatro
artículos (tres como autora individual y uno compartido) de Doreen que aparecieron en Regional Studies, acompañados
de otros seis artículos de otros autores, que dan fe de la influencia del pensamiento ‘relacional’ de Doreen en la
comprensión de las regiones. En el editorial se sitúan estos artículos no solo en el contexto de los debates sobre
estudios regionales sino también con relación a la interesante trayectoria académica de Doreen en cuanto a su manera
de entender el espacio, el lugar y el género.
PALABRAS CLAVES
Doreen Massey; espacio y lugar; desigualdades de género; reestructuración industrial; divisiones espaciales del trabajo; localidades

JEL R, R11, R50, R58

HISTORY Received 4 April 2017; in revised form 8 May 2017

Doreen Massey passed away on 11 March 2016. The mag-
nitude of the loss to geography and the social sciences has
been acknowledged in the many obituaries that followed
(e.g., Castree, 2016; Kitchin, 2016; Lee, 2016; Painter,
2016). She was an academic whose work was path breaking
within and beyond her treasured discipline of geography,
always concerned with demonstrating how and why
‘geography matters’ to understanding the operation of
social, economic and political relations. Her intellectual
trajectory traversed Marxian political economy (leavened
with a dose of Althusserian ‘overdetermination’), post-
structuralist geography and feminist theory (for reviews of
this journey, see Callard, 2011; and the contribution by
two of her postgraduate student protégés and now estab-
lished academics to their excellent edited collection of
essays celebrating her work and political engagement,
Featherstone & Painter, 2013). Her ideas were communi-
cated in what are essential papers, pioneering books and
Open University course texts.1 Her geographical areas of
research and political engagement extended beyond the
UK to South Africa and Latin America.
In this virtual special issue we celebrate Doreen’s work
and specifically the influence of her meticulously crafted
‘relational approach’ to understanding space and place on
debates in regional studies, revealed, not least, in the
pages of this journal. To this end, we bring together the
four papers (three single authored, one co-authored) by
Doreen that appeared in Regional Studies. The first three
were published while she was a researcher at the Centre
for Environmental Studies (CES), the research centre set
up by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1967 and
closed by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government
12 years later. The fourth paper, based on research
begun at the CES, appeared as she settled into her long-
standing academic post at the Open University, itself also
set up, with a fine degree of synchronicity, by Wilson’s
government.
We have also selected six papers from the journal –
there could have been many more – that bear witness to
the influence of Doreen’s ‘relational’ thinking in under-
standing regions. Five of these appeared in two special
issues that took stock of the state of play in regional studies:
‘Whither regional studies’ (Pike, 2007) and its follow-up
dedicated to ‘Regional world(s): advancing the geography
of regions’ (Jones & Paasi, 2013). The sixth paper, reflect-
ing the journal’s encouragement of policy debates, revisits
Doreen’s arguments for addressing spatial imbalance in
the UK economy.
URBAN MODELLING AND A RADICAL
TURN
Rereading the first of these papers, ‘The basic: service cat-
egorization in planning’, published in the journal in 1973
(Massey, 1973a), it is difficult at first to recognize it as
Doreen’s handiwork given her subsequent ‘radical turn’.
It is a painstaking critique of the use of the categorization
in planning theory and practice and the output of one of
CES’s early research foci on urban and regional modelling,
in which Doreen was first involved (see also, for example,
Cordey-Hayes & Massey et al., 1970; and Massey & Cor-
dey-Hayes, 1971). It was also testament to her sabbatical to
study for a master’s degree in mathematical economics and
regional science at the University of Pennsylvania, a venture
that she later looked back on, with characteristic candour,
as ‘a kind of “know your enemy” kind of thing’ (Feather-
stone, Bond, & Painter, 2013, p. 254).
In the paper, in typical forthright fashion, she painstak-
ingly demonstrates how the regional categorization of
industry into basic and service elements was still being
used in a range of different frameworks in which the criteria
for definition are sometimes confused. She highlights three
different sets of definitions on the basis of: the character of
products produced (tangible goods versus intangible

REGIONAL STUDIES

services); locational characteristics (where the services sec-
tor is viewed as oriented to local population) and regional
economic function (where the basic sector is seen as the
income and growth-generating export sector dependent
on external forces). Focusing on the last two sets of defi-
nition, she highlights their main theoretical shortcomings
and the practical difficulties each raises when used in a
Lowry model of urban development. She shows how
decisions made to facilitate their practical application
have theoretical consequences and judges the appropriate-
ness of each for plan evaluation. It is a dense argument
but indicative of her intellectual approach writ large: expos-
ing concepts – in this case deployed in urban and regional
planning – to theoretical critique; and, at the same time,
drawing out the inextricable interrelationships between
theory and practice.
Her research interests were moving on rapidly and radi-
cally, however. In the same year that ‘The basic: service cat-
egorization in planning’ appeared, she published a critique
that challenged the very notion of a completely auton-
omous, ahistorical, ideology-free location theory, heralding
her radical turn and flagging up her lifelong dedication to
understanding space and place:
Spatial development can only be seen as part of the overall
development of capitalism. However, it is also true that
many of the emerging contradictions of the economic system
both take on a specifically spatial form, and are exacerbated by
the existence of the spatial dimension. To this extent, con-
sideration of ‘the spatial element’ is essential to all effective
economic analysis. But most of existing industrial location
theory is packed within an ideology which defines its object
and mode of analysis in a way that makes effective analysis
impossible.
(Massey, 1973b, pp. 38–39)
Doreen co-authored the second paper in this collection,
‘A strategy for urban regional research’, with Richard
Minns, Bill Morrison and Michael Whitbread, colleagues
at CES (Massey, Minns, Morrison, & Whitbread, 1976).
It argues the need for a fundamental rethinking of the
nature of, and approach to, urban and regional research.
Doreen and her co-authors take to task what they see as
the fragmentation of different disciplinary approaches –
with urban economics, in their view, focusing hitherto on
problem identification and economizing solutions, political
scientists focusing on priorities rather than research strat-
egy and urban sociologists largely viewing cities as alloca-
tive mechanisms. They argue that while human
geography had itself suffered from its compartmentaliza-
tion into economic, social and political geography, it still
offered a more eclectic disciplinary approach to a research
strategy – with space acting as a fundamental, unifying
theme for analysing the operation and effects of economic,
social and political processes.
The proposed research framework had four dimensions:
subject area, process, spatial level and theoretical basis. The
spatial level for research, they argue, should be concerned
with exploring the influence of space on the processes
Doreen Massey (1944–2016) 1287
being analysed – the driving force of Doreen’s work there-
after. Addressing space, they argue, should include research
on the spatial implications of non-spatial processes and the
example given is investigation of the regional implications
of industrial reorganization, research that was already
underway at CES.
UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT: INDUSTRIAL
RESTRUCTURING AND SPATIAL DIVISIONS
OF LABOUR
This research has subsequently been labelled the ‘structural’
or ‘(industrial) restructuring’ approach (e.g., Dicken &
Lloyd, 1990; Lovering, 1989) and was foundational in
Doreen’s enduring concern with understanding space and
spatial relationships. It sought to replace the inherently
ahistorical and static analyses of orthodox theories of indus-
trial location in particular, but also of regional theory more
generally, with an approach that was sensitive to change
and disequilibrium, and which emphasized the social con-
tent of what the orthodox theories had seen as purely spatial
processes and relationships.
Industrial restructuring, it argued, naturally has spatial
implications because it takes place over space – but space
is not passive in this relationship. Spatial factors (e.g., the
availability of labour of a particular type in a particular
place) can themselves encourage industrial restructuring
and influence the form it takes. ‘Spatial outcomes’ are not
simply the ‘outfall’ of restructuring, they are also an active
ingredient in succeeding rounds of industrial restructuring
(Massey, 1978a, 1978b; Massey & Meegan, 1978, 1979a,
1979b, 1982).
One of the papers from this research – ‘Industrial
restructuring versus the cities’ – explicitly challenged
some of the prevailing explanations for job loss in Britain’s
cities (Massey & Meegan, 1978) and Doreen developed
this argument in a landmark paper in Regional Studies,
the third paper in the collection: ‘In what sense a regional
problem?’ (Massey, 1979). Its classic status saw it
included, nearly three decades later, in the special issue
celebrating the 40th anniversary of Regional Studies
(Pike et al., 2007). In the paper, Doreen challenges the
orthodox view of the generation of regional inequality –
the ‘regional problem’ – by introducing the concept of
‘spatial divisions of labour’, linking the geography of
employment explicitly to production and demonstrating
how different spatial divisions of labour may generate
different forms of the ‘regional problem’. With hindsight,
our ‘Industrial restructuring versus the cities’ paper could
well have been subtitled, in the same vein, ‘In what sense
an urban problem?’
Reflecting on the two papers in her retrospective collec-
tion of essays, Space, Place and Gender, Doreen notes how
both argue that spatial form
is to be explained not by ‘spatial’ factors but by, for instance,
what is going on in the economy. The spatial is, in that very
material sense, socially constructed; and an understanding of
the spatial must entail an analysis of the economy and society
REGIONAL STUDIES
1288 Richard Meegan
more generally. In that sense there is no hermetically sealed
discipline of geography.
(Massey, 1994a, p. 22)
‘In what sense a regional problem?’ was an early presen-
tation of her notion of ‘spatial divisions of labour’ (see
also Massey, 1978b). She highlights the increasing impor-
tance of the ‘spatial structures of production’ of leading
firms and sectors in which relations of ownership and
control are being stretched out over space and conception
(research and development – R&D) geographically separ-
ated from production. These and other spatial structures
of production combine to form an overall ‘spatial division
of labour’ shaping uneven development. ‘Spatial divisions
of labour’ are constructed and reconstructed over time
with rounds or waves of investment (encompassing chan-
ging technology and labour process change) in the econ-
omic landscape layered on top of, and interacting with,
previous rounds. Rounds of investment incorporate the
social relations – of ownership, control, function and sta-
tus – of production embodied in ‘spatial structures of pro-
duction’. Not only may aggregate investment be
distributed unevenly over space but also the various own-
ership, control and production tasks associated with it. It
is a geography of power relationships and, explicitly, of
class relations. Often misinterpreted as a geological
metaphor of the layering of strata, the notion of the his-
torical layering of rounds of investment spatially is more
accurately a metaphor of interaction and articulation.
The historical layering of investment rounds not only
creates new economic structures and geographies of
production but also has the potential for transforming
the social composition of affected localities (with, for
example, increased female labour force participation in
particular areas being accompanied by a restructuring of
gender relations within both the local labour market and
households).
Doreen takes this argument further in the fourth
paper in this collection, ‘Industrial restructuring as class
restructuring: production decentralization and local
uniqueness’ (Massey, 1983). Industrial restructuring,
she argues, needs to be seen as a process of class restruc-
turing, reshaping the social structure and social relations,
and potentially transforming the basis for political action.
She demonstrates this argument by contrasting the
differential operation and impact of the decentralization
of employment ‘for women’ in two different types of
area: old industrial areas dominated by coalmining (in
central Scotland, North East England and south
Wales) and areas dominated by agriculture and tourism
(Cornwall). She shows how ostensibly the same process
operated very differently and had very different impacts
on social relations in the two areas as a result of their
different positioning in the evolving spatial division of
labour and the related class structures and social
characteristics.
The paper offers a preview of material to be elaborated
in a then-forthcoming book, cited in the paper as Industrial
Location and the Economy: Considerations on Space and Class.
REGIONAL STUDIES
This was to become the more appropriately titled Spatial
Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of
Production, published a year later (Massey, 1984).
In their book on research design and methodology in
economic geography – avowedly inspired by our earlier edi-
ted collection on the topic (Massey & Meegan, 1985) –
Trevor Barnes, Jamie Peck, Eric Sheppard and Adam
Tickell claimed that publication of Spatial Divisions of
Labour ‘transformed the field … and triggered one of the
sharpest paradigmatic shifts in contemporary economic
geography’ (Barnes, Peck, Sheppard, & Tickell, 2007,
p. 2). Regional Studies also recognized its classic status in
its 50th anniversary volume by including a review by
Michael Dunford (Dunford, 2017).
Reflecting on the book, in the second edition, Doreen
acknowledged her arguments:
concerned, above all, the way in we conceptualise economic
and, to some extent more general social space, about how
to understand the differences and structures of inequality
within it, and about how we might begin to think of the
economic identities of unique places
and that:
some of its ways of arguing foreshadowed issues only now
emerging more broadly onto the agenda of intellectual
debate … issues which go way beyond the discipline of
geography to engage with currents of argument – about spa-
tiality, location and place, about uniqueness, contingency and
modes of thinking – now preoccupying a wide range of
human sciences.
(Massey, 1995a, p. xii)
She unquestionably went on to make a remarkable contri-
bution to those very currents of argument.
THEORIZING SPACE, PLACE AND GENDER
Thinking relationally
In conversation with a group of fellow human geographers,
Doreen acknowledged that Spatial Divisions of Labour was
an expression of thinking relationally – in the case of the
book, specifically in spatializing the relations of capitalist
production (Massey, Bond, & Featherstone, 2009,
p. 405). As she argued in Space, Place and Gender:
The geography of social structure is a geography of class
relations, not just a map of social classes; just as the geography
of the economy should be a map of economic relations stretched
over space, and not just, for instance, a map of different types
of jobs. Most generally, ‘the spatial’ is constituted by the
interlocking of ‘stretched-out’ social relations.
(Massey, 1994a, p. 22; original emphasis)
Broadening outwards from the formulation of class relations
in the research on industrial restructuring and ‘spatial div-
isions of labour’, she went on to produce a peerless body of
work on conceptualizing space, place and gender.

Spatializing gender relations
A committed feminist, she was dedicated to understanding
how space and place connected with gender, and how gen-
der relations were constructed geographically. Her research
on industrial restructuring and ‘spatial divisions of labour’
had already showed how gender relations vary over space
in her ‘industrial restructuring as class restructuring’ paper
in this journal and in Spatial Divisions of Labour (Massey,
1983, 1984). Her essay with Linda McDowell explored
historical variations in the reconstruction of gender
relations in four different parts of the UK (McDowell &
Massey, 1984) and with colleagues at the Open University
she explored the construction of gender relations in the
expanding high-technology industries in ‘Silicon Fen’
around Cambridge (Massey, 1995b, 1999a; Massey, Quin-
tas, & Wield, 1992). Gender, for Doreen:
is not somehow a ‘local’ concern (and therefore, for reasons
themselves associated with gender, to be seen of lesser impor-
tance) but that, along with other axes of the constructed div-
isions in the societies we currently inhabit, it takes its place in
principle alongside other divisions, such as class, whose rela-
tive significance in practice needs to be evaluated in each par-
ticular context.
(Massey, 1994c, p. 182)
Space and place
Doreen’s relational approach to understanding space and
place was structured around a set of interrelated concepts.
A crucial one is that of ‘a global sense of place’ (Massey,
1991a, 1991b):
one way of thinking about place is as particular moments in
… intersecting social relations, nets of which have over time
been constructed, laid down, interacted with one another,
decayed and renewed. Some of these relations will be, as it
were, contained within the place; others will stretch beyond
it, tying any particular locality into wider relations and pro-
cesses in which other places are implicated too. … The global
is in the local in the very process of the formation of the local.
(Massey, 1994b, p. 120)
Another equally powerful and related concept is that of
‘power geometry and a progressive sense of place’ (Massey,
1993a, 1999b, 2002a):
thinking of places in this way implies that they are not so much
bounded areas as open and porous networks of social relations.
It implies that their ‘identities’ are constructed through the
specificity of their interaction with other places rather than
by counterposition to them … [and] those identities will be
multiple (since the various social groups in a place will be dif-
ferently located in relation to the overall complexity of social
relations and since their reading of those relations and what
they make of them will also be distinct. And this in turn
implies that what is to be the dominant image of any place
will be a matter of contestation and will change over time.
(Massey, 1994b, p. 121)
Doreen Massey (1944–2016) 1289
For Doreen, space is far from being inert and static but is
open to progressive politics and can change how it is ima-
gined and produced. As political testament to this argu-
ment, ‘power geometry’ was adopted as one of the ‘five
motors of the revolution’ by the Venezuelan government
under Hugo Chavez (Massey, 2008, 2009; Menéndez,
2013). Doreen was unwavering in her conviction that a
relational understanding of space calls for a ‘politics of
responsibility’ that recognizes the bonds of mutual interde-
pendence between people across space and between places.
When she was awarded the Anders Retzius Gold Medal by
the Swedish Society for Anthology and Geography in
2003, she tellingly chose as the theme for the Vega Sym-
posium that accompanied the award ‘The political challenge
of relational space’, emphasizing the necessity to think pol-
itically in a relational approach to understanding society
and space (Clark, 2004; Massey, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c).
Underpinning all her meditations on space and place is
the notion of ‘space–time’ – of space not being secondary to
time or representing stasis but inextricably interwoven
dynamically with time (Massey, 1992, 2001). In her book
For Space, she proposes three key maxims for understand-
ing space: first, as the product of interrelations, themselves
constituted through interaction; secondly, as a sphere of
multiplicity in which distinct trajectories and heterogeneity
co-exist; and thirdly, as always in the process of being made
(Massey, 2005). Space, in this understanding, is ‘an open
and ongoing production’ (p. 55).
UNDERSTANDING REGIONS: IN WHAT
SENSE RELATIONAL? IN WHAT SENSE
TERRITORIAL?
Doreen’s ‘relational approach’ involved Rethinking the
Region, the title of the thought-provoking book she co-
authored with colleagues at the Open University (Allen
et al., 1998). Regions, the book argues, are not hom-
ogenous and undifferentiated with fixed boundaries but
need to be understood as open and relational constructions,
discontinuous over space and through time. The empirical
focus of the book is the South East of England in the 1980s
and 1990s, and the book challenges the portrayal of it as an
archetypal ‘growth region’ – ‘in what sense a “regional suc-
cess”?’ It paints instead a picture of a permeable ‘discon-
tinuous region’ shaped by the spatial articulation of the
social and economic relationships engendered by ‘neo-lib-
eral’ growth.
John Agnew’s paper, ‘Arguing with regions’, included
in this collection is an important reminder of the long
and controversial history surrounding ‘understanding
regions’ in the social sciences (Agnew, 2013). He shows
how regions have long been used as classificatory devices
across the social sciences and offers a fourfold categoriz-
ation of the different meanings given to regions in empiri-
cal research: ‘macro-regions’ in ‘total history’; functional
regions for examining specific phenomena; geographical
areas of similarity; and regions for exploring sub-national
regional identities. He also identifies a set of (seven) philo-
sophical and theoretical arguments surrounding the
REGIONAL STUDIES
1290 Richard Meegan
understanding of regions. Given the variety of regional
classifications and the contentious nature of disputes over
the substance and philosophy of regions, he argues that it
is not possible to allow for a single conception of regions
that can fit all arguments and calls for a plurality of ‘regional
logics’, with ‘the problem at hand’ determining which
to use.
One of the key philosophical and theoretical ‘arguments
with regions’ that he identifies is that between territorial or
relational approaches – an argument in which Doreen’s
relational thinking has been enormously influential. The
following four papers have been chosen to illustrate this
‘relational–territorial’ argument.
In ‘Beyond the territorial fix: regional assemblages,
politics and power’, John Allen and Alan Cochrane develop
the argument of Rethinking the Region, the book they co-
authored with Doreen, to argue that regions need to be
viewed as a series of open and discontinuous spaces con-
nected by the networked social relationships that variously
stretch across them (Allen & Cochrane, 2007). Retaining
the book’s empirical focus on the South East of England,
they argue that the region has been made and is being
remade by political processes that both stretch beyond,
and impact unevenly on, it in a way that contests the fixity
of its boundaries. The governance of these political pro-
cesses is orchestrated by a ‘regional assemblage’ of national
and ‘local’ institutional agencies, partnerships, businesses
and interest groupings. This assemblage, they argue,
mobilizes through networks rather than conventional hier-
archical arrangements and its authority extends beyond the
territory of the region that it ‘speaks to’, rendering the
region territorially discontinuous.
Gordon Macleod and Martin Jones in ‘Territorial, sca-
lar, networked, connected: in what sense a “regional
world”?’ are sympathetic to the relational/network–topolo-
gical approach to understanding regions. This is because of
its challenge to what they see as the fundamentally territo-
rially based ‘new regionalism’ (Macleod & Jones, 2007).
They recognize the regional development role of Allen
and Cochrane’s assemblage of affiliations and networks
stretching across and beyond regional boundaries and
agree that globalization and state restructuring have each
made regions more open and permeable to influences
from outside them. At the same time, they are also con-
cerned not to downplay territoriality, noting how political
actors also articulate their political projects through discur-
sively defined and administered territories. They strongly
endorse Kevin Morgan’s argument, in his excellent paper
in the same issue of the journal, that the stark binary oppo-
sition between territorial and relational approaches cannot
be sustained and that there needs to be recognition that
political space:
is bounded and porous: bounded because politicians are held
to account through the territorially defined ballot box, a pro-
saic but important reason why one should not be so dismis-
sive of territorial politics; porous because people have
multiple identities and they are becoming ever more mobile,
REGIONAL STUDIES
spawning communities of relational connectivity that trans-
cend territorial boundaries.
(Morgan, 2007, p. 1248, original emphasis)
They also agree with the idea of the social production of
regions inherent in the ‘relational/network–topological
approach’ but, on balance, argue, more provocatively
that it is not as effective as a scalar structuration
approach in uncovering asymmetrical power geometries.
In agreement with those arguing from a relational view-
point, they argue that the degree to which regionalist
politics assumes a progressive or reactionary form is
wholly contingent and that political power is always
provisional.
Krisztina Varró and Arnoud Lagendijk in ‘Conceptua-
lizing the region – in what sense relational?’ make an
insightful intervention in the debate on relational and ter-
ritorial regional perspectives (Varró & Lagendijk, 2013).
They distinguish between what they call ‘radical’ and ‘mod-
erate’ positions on relationality: with Allen and Cochrane’s
paper in this collection representative of the former and
Macleod and Jones’s paper representative of the latter.
‘Radicals’, they argue, stress the primacy of relationality
while ‘moderates’ argue for some recognition of the exist-
ence and persistence of regional differences and of the real-
politik of politically defined territories, a combination of
relational and territorial perspectives. They trace the roots
of the two positions to different philosophical assumptions:
with ‘radicals’, drawing on post-structuralist actor–net-
work-theory and discourse theories, understanding rela-
tionality as a fundamental condition of being of any
object, and moderates interpreting relationality in terms
of actually existing relations and empirical connectedness.
This distinction leads to misunderstanding and division.
Examining what ‘radicals’ have argued, however, suggests
that they do not, in the event, fully adopt a post-structur-
alist ontology and propose a way to understand how terri-
torial uniqueness and particularity is constructed. They are
not in the strict sense ‘non-territorial’ and have more in
common with the ‘moderates’’ position than is sometimes
recognized in the debate. The way forward, they argue, is
to think of regions – and all spaces including the national
– being constituted ‘relationally through agonistic struggles’
(p. 27).
As Andrew Jonas argues in his excellent overview of the
tension between territorial and relational approaches to
regions and regionalism, reconciliation between the two
is essential:
regional analysis must at the very least take into account how
some regional economic and political interests continue to be
expressed in a territorial fashion. … Far from reflecting
residual or antediluvian political identities, new (and old)
regions offer all sorts of opportunities and possibilities not
only for the creation of new political identities but also for
new and alternative regional economic discourses to be forged
against mainstream ideas about globalization, state restruc-
turing and competition. In this respect, the analysis of regions

offers scope for intellectual resiliency in the case of uncertain
global economic and political times. Progress on the region-
alism question will require further examples both of relational
thinking about territorial politics and of territorial thinking
about relational processes.
(Jonas, 2012, p. 270)
This call appears to have been heeded, as exemplified by
Cochrane’s reflections on the notion of regional assem-
blages – fittingly in an edited collection of essays celebrat-
ing Doreen’s work (Cochrane, 2013). Echoing Varró and
Lagendijk, he recognizes that territories can still be usefully
identified, albeit with fuzzy boundaries, but the need
remains to understand their political construction:
It is still possible (and indeed often helpful) to work with a
territorial understanding, of regional spaces. ‘Relational’
thinking does not mean the end of territory, but rather
reinforces the need to identify how territories are made up,
constructed or assembled. In other words, they cannot be
taken for granted; nor can it be assumed that just because
the name remains the same, the ‘region’ is the same. But it
is nevertheless still possible to identify regions, just as they
may be the focus of policy discussion or even political (and
sometimes popular) identity. They may have fuzzy edges
and they may be defined through the wider sets of connec-
tions that come together in them, but still recognisable.
What matters, however, is always to recognise and acknowl-
edge that they are actively constructed – they are always in the
process of becoming, and it is this that needs to be the focus
of attention.
Like other territorial formations, this means that the con-
struction of regions is fundamentally a political process. Of
course, this does not mean that regions may be produced
simply by some feat of political imagination (or, indeed,
simply by the stroke of a civil servant’s pen) … it is necessary
to acknowledge the extent to which the construction of ident-
ifiable regions (and regions with which people identify) relies
on the existence of particular forms of economic and social
relations (even if they are in contention and even if they can-
not be fully contained within the borders by which they
appear to be defined).
(pp. 95–96)
Doreen, herself, has also acknowledged that, from a
relational viewpoint, there is no conflict between relation-
ality and territoriality. She cites the ‘trading’ agreement
between London, in the shape of the Greater London
Authority (GLA) and its assembly, and Caracas, Vene-
zuela. The agreement included the exchange of cheap oil
from Venezuela for the authority’s public administration
and planning expertise and
was a politics of relations (the nature of the ‘trade’ relations
…), but this relationality was constituted through an expli-
citly territorial politics – a politics of place. From a relational
point of view, moreover, the very identities of places (terri-
tories) are relationally constructed. … Territories are consti-
tuted and are to be conceptualized relationally. Thus,
Doreen Massey (1944–2016) 1291
interdependence and identity, difference and connectedness,
uneven development and the character of place, are in each
pairing two sides of the same coin. They exist in constant ten-
sion with each other, each contributing to the formation, and
the explanation, of the other.
(Massey, 2011, pp. 3–4, original emphasis)
In this particular example of the ‘politics of relations’, the
role of ‘agonistic’ territorially based politics was powerfully
underlined – the agreement was introduced by an elected
left-wing mayor (Ken Livingstone) and cancelled, two
years later, by his right-wing successor (Boris Johnson).
English ‘regions’ in local enterprise partnership
(LEP) land
Allen and Cochrane accept that regional assemblages are
always provisional, and this has been starkly confirmed by
a change of central government and the dismantling of
the regional economic development architecture through
which the regional assemblage they describe operated.
The regional plans and strategies that they discuss in
their paper have been revoked and, with the notable excep-
tion of London, all the ‘regional’ institutions – including
notably the South East England Development Agency –
that provided the foundations of the regional assemblage
they describe have been abolished.
Mark Goodwin has raised concerns in this journal about
the implications of this loss of regional policies and insti-
tutions for the governance of a sustainable development
strategy in what he sees as the relationally and territorially
constructed South West of England (Goodwin, 2013).
The same concerns apply to the governance of sub-national
economic development. We are left, in England at least,
with the fragmented geography of local enterprise partner-
ship (LEP) land. Territorially defined locally, albeit with
markedly permeable boundaries, the LEP areas remain
orchestrated, through funding regimes, nationally.
Regionally based assemblages have been disrupted and it
remains to be seen whether and how new ones are formed. In
the fuzzily bounded South East region of Allen and
Cochrane’s paper, there are now eight LEP areas, including
London, overlapping with LEP areas in the former govern-
ment office regions (GORs) of the East Midlands (two) and
the East of England (one). It is not clear, however, whether
these LEPs together form a regional assemblage or even
have a regional imaginary – unlike, for example, the region-
ally focused voluntary local government partnership of the
South East England councils.
The Milton Keynes Partnership and Milton Keynes
Economy and Learning Partnerships that Allen and
Cochrane discuss in their paper have been closed, with
Milton Keynes Council now left with the Milton Keynes
Development Partnership, a wholly owned independent
legal entity with ‘putting Milton Keynes in control of its
own growth’ as its strap line. It is revealing that Milton
Keynes Council is now a member of an LEP, the South
East Midlands, that along with 11 other ‘Midlands’
LEPs is part of what appears to be a nascent assemblage
that is operating to form a fuzzily bounded ‘Midlands
REGIONAL STUDIES
1292 Richard Meegan
Engine’. The latter appears to be a political counterweight
to the equally nascent regional assemblage forming around
the city-region-focused ‘Northern Powerhouse’. Whether
these assemblages are able to construct new relationally
defined ‘regions’ in the absence of the now defunct territo-
rially defined regional levels of government remains an
open question.
‘LOCALITIES’ REVISITED
Doreen’s work on ‘spatial divisions of labour’ inspired a
number of research programmes that came to be labelled
‘locality research’. One, funded by the UK’s Economic
and Social Research Council (ESRC), the ‘Changing
Urban and Regional System in the UK’ (CURS) (for a
summary, see Cooke, 1986, 1989a) – was structured
around a set of linked projects (in one of which, for my
sins, I was involved) investigating the impact of economic
structuring on a range of localities and exploring the
responses of these localities to this restructuring. It pro-
voked considerable academic controversy with the debate
revolving around contentious issues surrounding the status
of theoretical and empirical research (an alleged retreat
from theory into empiricism), questions of scale and the
understanding of the ‘local’, and the ability to identify
autonomous local or ‘locality’ effects. While much heat
was generated in the locality debate there was also some
light with it, arguably acting as a stimulus for the develop-
ment of relational thinking about space and place (for over-
views of the debate, from different perspectives, see, for
example, Duncan & Savage, 1991; Cooke, 1989b, 1989c,
2009; Johnston & Sidaway, 2004, pp. 233–237; and
Peet, 1998, pp. 147–193).
Although not directly involved in any of the locality
studies, Doreen made one of the most telling interventions
in the ensuing debate in her paper, ‘The political place of
locality studies’ (Massey, 1991c). She challenged the argu-
ment that theory is unable to address the unique and
specific and highlighted the mistaken conflation of the
local with the concrete, which was simply confusing geo-
graphical scale with abstraction. The local is just as concrete
an entity for study as the global (Massey, 1991b, 1993b).
Studying localities does not amount to fetishizing them:
But, whatever else they are, localities are constructions out of
the intersections and interactions of concrete social relations
and social processes in a situation of copresence. Whether
that copresence matters, and whether it leads to new emergent
powers, is an open question which will not have an empirically
generalisable answer. Moreover, the particular social relations
and social processes used to define a locality will reflect the
research issue (which in turn means that any locality so defined
will not be the relevant spatial area for the investigation of all
and every social process deemed in some way to have a local
level of variation or operation). But all this does mean that
localities are not simply spatial areas you can easily draw a
line around. They will be defined in terms of the sets of social
relations or processes in question. Crucially, too, they are about
interaction. Such interaction, moreover, is likely to include
REGIONAL STUDIES
conflict. Localities will ‘contain’ (indeed in part will be consti-
tuted by) difference’ and conflict. They may also include inter-
action between social phenomena which may not be ‘related’ in
any immediate way in terms of social relations aspatially. It
may be only the fact of copresence which makes them have
quite direct impacts upon each other. Moreover, the constella-
tions of interactions will vary over time in their geographical
form. … And the definition of any particular locality will
therefore reflect the question at issue.
(Massey, 1991c, p. 277)
The argument that locality definition needs to reflect the
question being asked resonates strongly with the conclusion
of John Agnew’s ‘Arguing with regions’ paper. It also finds
support in Jones and Michael Woods paper in this collec-
tion, ‘New localities’ (Jones & Woods, 2013). After a
balanced review of the locality debate, they note how
‘locality research’ and the focus on ‘locality’ was supplanted
by the ‘new regionalism’ as ‘the spatial metaphor for doing
economic and political geography’, with research on
‘regional worlds’, ‘new industrial spaces’, ‘multilevel govern-
ance’ and ‘clusters’ taking prominence.
This ‘new regionalism’ and its understanding of ‘socio-
spatial relations’, they argue, has itself been challenged in
turn, by the relational approach to understanding space
and place in which they position Doreen’s work centre
stage.2 They go on to argue for a ‘return to locality’, illus-
trating their argument with reference to the use of a ‘new
locality’ research framework in their research on devolution
in Wales (with the findings of this research subsequently
reported more fully in Jones, Orford, & Macfarlane, 2015).
They claim their research framework gets around the ter-
ritorial–relational dichotomy by viewing localities as multifa-
ceted and multidimensional, changing in form as they are
viewed from different analytical angles defined by a combi-
nation of ‘material’ and ‘imagined coherence’. ‘Material
coherence’ refers to the institutional structures that are con-
figured around, bind and allow for collective action. ‘Ima-
gined coherence’ refers to the sense of identity that
residents have for both place and each other that also permits
collective action. Identifying localities that are coherent
needs careful research steered by the research questions
being asked, which will influence the shape, extent and
orientation of the localities finally identified. The research
needs to be able to identify networks and relations across
scales and spaces to uncover the forces and actors construct-
ing localities, whilst recognizing that boundaries will be per-
meable, albeit around identifiable cores, and indefinite.
Locality research rides again.
At this point, it is perhaps fitting to quote John Urry,
who sadly passed away just a week after Doreen – March
2016 was a truly cruel month. In his summary of the pol-
itical lessons from the CURS localities projects, he reflected
on David Harvey’s notions of the development of cross-
class alliances acting as ‘collective entrepreneurs to pursue
civic “boosterism” to sustain accumulation’. He concludes:
The danger is that in late-twentieth century Britain there are
inhospitable ‘conditions’, combined with insufficient

‘resources’, which will mean that it will be well-nigh imposs-
ible to devise locally specific policies, at least partly under the
sway of local authorities, to be able to prevent many localities
getting seriously ‘left behind’.
(Urry, 1990, p. 204)
Writing in the wake of the referendum vote on European
Union membership and debates over its social and econ-
omic geography in which ‘left behind’ localities feature
strongly, the prescience of this conclusion is affirmed.
The need for political and policy intervention to change
those ‘conditions’ and secure adequate ‘resources’ to redress
this relational and territorial uneven development is also
surely reinforced.
POLITICS AND POLICY: THE SPATIAL
REBALANCING OF THE UK ECONOMY
Doreen’s geography was always political as well as social
and economic. As she argued in her response to the debate
provoked by her Progress in Human Geography annual
lecture at the annual conference of the Royal Geographical
Society–Institute of British Geographers in 2000 –
‘Geography on the agenda’ – most of her theoretical argu-
ments were developed in political activity and in relation to
political issues (Massey, 2002b).
The monograph on Decentring the Nation, which
Doreen co-authored with Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift, is
a classic statement of the political and policy implications
of understanding regions relationally (Amin, Massey, &
Thrift, 2003). It was a return to the ‘regional problem’ in
the UK that Doreen had questioned in her paper in
Regional Studies 24 years earlier. The ‘regional problem’,
it argues, is the product of the history of uneven interregio-
nal relations and the extreme, undemocratic spatial concen-
tration of power in London and the South East of England.
Addressing this unequal relational space, the authors argue,
needs political commitment to decentring the economy
with the concerted regional dispersal of economic activity,
government, public sector bodies and projects:
in this age of geographical connectivity and flow we have to
move away from a narrowly territorial view of the nation
and its regions. Thinking the national space ‘relationally’
means it is impossible to accept simple notions of regional
economies, to accept tempting theories of local clustering,
or to work with inward-looking imaginaries of regional iden-
tity. The world is not like that. Thinking space relationally
also makes it impossible seriously to pretend that the fate
of regions, or their relative ‘performance’, is somehow auton-
omous to each. The regions of the country are deeply inter-
connected. We need to think in terms of interregional
relations … these interregional relations are economic, cultural,
social and political and any serious attempt to address the
gross geographical inequalities in this county has to work
with these instances of power. Critically we need to rework
the relational geography of politics.
(Amin et al., 2003, p. 39, original emphasis)
Doreen Massey (1944–2016) 1293
She returns to this argument forcefully in her book on
London, World City (Massey, 2007). For Doreen, the
economic success of London is reinforced by elements of
national policy effectively functioning as an unacknow-
ledged regional policy favouring it at the expense of other
regions and cities. The relational space, she argues, is one
in which the virtuous cycle of growth in London and the
South East is intrinsically interrelated with decline in the
rest of the country. London’s own problems of congestion,
stretched public sector provision and levels of poverty are
linked to its role in the national political economy and
could, she argues, be alleviated with a more even regional
spread of economic activity.
The need for political and economic rebalancing is
endorsed in the final paper in this collection, ‘Spatially
rebalancing the UK economy: towards a new policy
model?’ (Martin, Pike, Tyler, & Gardiner, 2016). It recog-
nizes that 90 years of regional policy – the effectiveness of
which Doreen had questioned in ‘In what sense a regional
problem?’ 37 years previously – have failed adequately to
resolve regional uneven development and underlines the
part played in this by the centralization of the national pol-
itical economy. Echoing Decentring the Nation, it calls for a
far-reaching decentralization of economic, financial and
political power to regions and city-regions in the context
of an overall federal territorial structure covering all the
country. The building blocks of this programme include
institutionalizing spatial economic balance as a policy
objective, decentring and devolving governance in England
(mirroring that already in process in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland), fiscal devolution, decentralizing the
financial system and the establishment of a national –
and regionally organized – investment bank.
Doreen would, without doubt, fully support the propo-
sal, but I suggest she would also insist that it be delivered in
an overarching political programme predicated on challen-
ging ‘neoliberal economic’ thinking, as she argues, with
Michael Rustin and the late Stuart Hall, in After Neoliber-
alism: The Kilburn Manifesto (Hall, Massey, & Rustin,
2013; Peck, Massey, Gibson, & Lawson, 2014) and in
essays in Soundings, the journal they founded (Massey,
2013; Massey & Rustin, 2014a, 2014b). Named after the
place where she lived, and that she used so convincingly
to illustrate her notion of a ‘global sense of place’, it is a
manifesto for political change rather than a set of worked
out policy proposals, but it does argue strongly for the
need to regulate the – London-based – financial sector
and refers favourably to the national programme for infra-
structure renewal proposed by the Green New Deal Group
(Larry Elliott et al., 2013).
Whether there is the political will on the part of central
government for any such fundamental spatial rebalancing
of the UK economy appears questionable at present.
THE PERSON
Doreen was slight and fragile physically – she had to cope
with calcium deficiency in her bones throughout her life –
but unquestionably a giant in intellect and persona. She was
REGIONAL STUDIES
1294 Richard Meegan
a kind, thoughtful, warm and generous person who left a
lasting impression on all the people whose lives she
touched, as the plethora of fond tributes and reminiscences
on social media following her death so richly testified.
She was self-effacing and never let all the academic adu-
lation she so justly received go to her head, even though this
was remarkable, including five prestigious academic
awards; six honorary doctorates; Fellowships of the British
Academy, the Royal Society of Arts and the Academy of
Social Sciences; and an Honorary Fellowship at her alma
mater, St Hugh’s College, University of Oxford. One
award she characteristically declined was that of an OBE.
All very impressive for a child from a working-class family
living in Wythenshawe, a large municipal housing estate in
south Manchester. She was very mindful of the opportu-
nities that state schooling had offered her and the medical
support she had received from the National Health Service
and was a resolute supporter of the welfare state.
Her self-deprecating sense of humour was a joy to
experience, as others would testify who had the privilege
and pleasure to work with her, to be taught by her or simply
to be in her company. Our time together at CES was very
special. It was an intellectually challenging and sometimes
stressful environment, but she made the working experi-
ence thoroughly enjoyable. She was always careful not to
take life too seriously. The tales are many. I recall, for
example, that at the time of the publication of Anatomy of
Job Loss, there was a popular film, Gregory’s Girl, doing
the rounds which involved a pupil wandering aimlessly
around school premises dressed in a penguin costume.
Given that one of the figures in the book listed a biscuit
of that name in a rather dull history of computerized biscuit
production, Doreen suggested that the biscuit should be
recognized with an entry in the book’s index – ‘see Gre-
gory’s Girl’. To our long lasting regret, we decided against
it at the very last minute before sending off the manuscript.
Doreen spoke at innumerable academic conferences
and seminars, but was also firmly committed to getting
her voice heard outside academe, devoting considerable
time to talks at conferences held, for example, by organiz-
ations like Progressive London and speaking at the, post-
crash, Occupy UK encampment by St Paul’s Cathedral.
Her academic work was always, self-confessedly, inspired
and informed by her politics and political activity. She
served on the Greater London Enterprise Board, helping,
amongst other things, to develop the London Industrial
Strategy and Financial Plan, to promote the notion of
‘restructuring for labour’ and to embed consideration of
the gender dimension of the council’s policies in its pol-
icy-making. She also served for a time on the Labour
Party’s Home Policy sub-committee, working on urban
and regional policy. She was delighted to accept invitations
to engage in political work in South Africa, Nicaragua and
Venezuela.
She lived for over four decades in a small flat in a mod-
est terraced house in north-west London, a part of London
for which she had a profound attachment and which she
used so effectively to illustrate her thoughts on the meaning
of place. The flat was the meeting place for many a political
REGIONAL STUDIES
discussion with friends and fellow political activists. If it is
possible to imagine in Kilburn ‘salons’ on the lines of those
in France during the Enlightenment, then that small flat in
Ariel Road would certainly fit the bill.
With two of this network of friends and academic col-
leagues, Stuart Hall and Michael Rustin, she set up Sound-
ings, a journal aiming ‘to provide direction and depth to
political, cultural and economic debate in Britain’. Its first
issue set the journal’s tone and indicated the breadth of
its coverage with poetry alongside essays, for example, on
the political dilemmas facing New Labour and the Conser-
vative Party, communitarianism critiques, gene biotechnol-
ogy, cars and mountain bikes, and understanding the local
(the last by Doreen, of course). Twenty-two years after its
foundation in 1995, it is still going strong, albeit now hav-
ing to contend with the loss of two of its guiding lights.
She enjoyed walking and bird watching and was a
devoted supporter of Liverpool Football Club. She was
also a devotee of modern art and this interest involved a
notable collaboration with the Icelandic–Danish Olafur
Eliasson, who she met, somewhat appropriately, at a lecture
on walking. In his celebration of Doreen’s life and ideas on
his website,3 Olafur acknowledges that she ‘has changed
my way of seeing my work in the world and the world in
my work’. The website also has a video excerpt of a talk
Doreen gave on ‘Time, space and responsibility’ at the
Institut für Raumexperimente in Berlin four years ago. It
shows Doreen drawing figures on a flip-chart, which
demonstrates she was more Lowry than Hockney, but
also, importantly, it provides an opportunity to see her in
action and to listen once again to that unmistakeable
voice. Another opportunity to hear her voice is provided
by the ‘Social Sciences Bites’ podcast in which she effort-
lessly and lucidly communicates her inimitable understand-
ing of space.4
The virtual special issue celebrating Doreen Massey’s
work can be accessed at http://bit.ly/doreen_massey.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
NOTES
1. Indeed, as someone who has had the rather daunting
privilege of being a member of a team involved in the pro-
duction of an Open University course text, I have to say
that consideration of issues of space and place is inbuilt
in the university’s model of distance learning.
2. The article does ascribe masculinity to Doreen in refer-
ence to ‘his’ (1994) collection of essays (p. 33). I would have
liked to have been present when Doreen read this. She
would most probably have let out her trademark laugh
and expressed sympathy for the luckless proof-reader.
3. See www.olafureliasson.net/.
4. See http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/02/
podcastdoreen-massey-on-space/.

REFERENCES
Agnew, J. A. (2013). Arguing with regions. Regional Studies, 47(1),
6–17. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.676738
Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional
assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1161–
1175. doi:10.1080/00343400701543348
Allen, J., Massey, D. B., & Cochrane, A. (with Charlesworth, J.,
Court, G., Henry, N., & Sarre, P.). (1998). Re-thinking the
region. New York: Routledge.
Amin, A., Massey, D., & Thrift, N. (2003). Decentring the nation: A
radical approach to regional inequality. London: Catalyst.
Barnes, T., Peck, J., Sheppard, E., & Tickell, A. (2007). Methods
matter: Transformations in economic geography. In A. Tickell,
E. Sheppard, J. Peck, & T. Barnes (Eds.), Politics and practice
in economic geography (pp. 1–24). London: Sage.
Callard, F. (2011). Doreen Massey. In P. Hubbard, R. Kitchin, &
G. Valentine (Eds.), Key thinkers on space and place (2nd ed.,
pp. 299–306). London: Sage.
Castree, N. (2016). A tribute to Doreen Massey (3 January 1944–
11 March 2016). Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 585–
592. doi:10.1177/0309132516643606
Clark, E. (2004). Preface to the Vega Symposium. Geografiska
Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 86(1), 1. doi:10.1111/j.
0435-3684.2004.00148.x
Cochrane, A. (2013). Spatial divisions and regional assemblages. In
D. Featherstone & J. Painter (Eds.), Spatial politics: Essays for
Doreen Massey (pp. 87–98). Chichester: Wiley.
Cooke, P. (1986). The changing urban and regional system in the
United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 20, 243–251. doi:10.1080/
09595238600185221
Cooke, P. (Ed.). (1989a). Localities; The changing face of urban Britain.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Cooke, P. (1989b). Locality theory and the poverty of ‘spatial vari-
ation’ (A response to Duncan and Savage). Antipode, 21, 261–
273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1989.tb00191.x
Cooke, P. (1989c). The contested terrain of locality studies. Tijdschrift
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 80(1), 14–29. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9663.1989.tb00753.x
Cooke, P. (2009). Locality debates. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.),
The international encyclopaedia of human geography (pp. 256–262).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Cordey-Hayes, M., & Massey, D. B. (Eds.), and Barras, R.,
Broadbent, T. A., Robinson, K. I., & Willis, J. (1970). An oper-
ational urban development model of Cheshire (Centre for
Environmental Studies Working Paper Number 64).
Environmental and Planning 3, 115–233.
Dicken, P.E., & Lloyd, P. (1990). Location in space: Theoretical perspec-
tives in economic geography (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Duncan, S., & Savage, M. (1991). New perspectives on the locality
debate. Environment and Planning A, 23, 155–164. doi:10.
1068/a230155
Dunford, M. (2017). 50th Anniversary Book Review Collection:
Doreen Massey, Spatial divisions of labor: Social structures and
the geography of production (2nd ed.). Regional Studies. doi:10.
1080/00343404.2017.1278972
Featherstone, D., Bond, S., & Painter, J. (2013). ‘Stories so far’: A
conversation with Doreen Massey. In D. Featherstone &
J. Painter (Eds.), Spatial politics: Essays for Doreen Massey
(pp. 253–266). Chichester: Wiley.
Featherstone, D., & Painter, J. (2013). Introduction: ‘There is no
point of departure’: The many trajectories of Doreen Massey.
In D. Featherstone & J. Painter (Eds.), Spatial politics: Essays
for Doreen Massey (pp. 1–18). Chichester: Wiley.
Goodwin, M. (2013). Regions, territories and relationally: Exploring
the regional dimensions of political practice. Regional Studies,
47(8), 1181–1190. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.697138
Doreen Massey (1944–2016) 1295
Green New Deal Group (Elliott, L., Hines, C., Juniper, T., Leggett,
J., Lucas, C., Murphy, R., Parsons, S., Pettifor, A., Potts, R.,
Secrett, C. and Simms, A.). (2013). A national plan for the UK:
From austerity to the age of the green new deal. London: New
Weather Institute. Retrieved from www.newweather.org
Hall, S., Massey, D., & Rustin, M. (2013). After neoliberalism? The
Kilburn Manifesto. London: Soundings.
Johnston, R. J., & Sidaway, J. D. (2004). Geography and geographers:
Anglo-American human geography since 1945 (6th ed.). London:
Hodder Arnold.
Jonas, A. E. G. (2012). Region and place: Regionalism in question.
Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 262–272. doi:10.1177/
0309133311417943
Jones, M., Orford, S., & Macfarlane, V. (2015). People, places and
policy: Knowing contemporary Wales through new localities.
London: Routledge.
Jones, M., & Paasi, A. (2013). Guest Editorial: Regional world(s):
Advancing the geography of regions. Regional Studies, 47(1),
1–5. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.746437
Jones, M., & Woods, M. (2013). New localities. Regional Studies,
47(1), 29–42. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.709612
Kitchin, R. (2016). Geographers matter! Doreen Massey (1944–
2016). Social and Cultural Geography, 17(8), 813–817. doi:10.
1080/14649365.2016.1192673
Lee, R. (2016). Doreen Massey: 3 January 1944–11 March 2016.
Geographical Journal, 182(3), 311–312. doi:10.1111/geoj.12183
Lovering, J. (1989). The restructuring debate. In R. Peet & N. Thrift
(Eds.), New models in geography: The political economy perspective,
Volume one (pp. 198–223). London: Unwin Hyman.
Macleod, G., & Jones, M. (2007). Territorial, scalar, networked, con-
nected: In what sense a ‘regional world’? Regional Studies, 41(9),
1177–1191. doi:10.1080/00343400701646182
Martin, R., Pike, A., Tyler, P., & Gardiner, B. (2016) Spatially
rebalancing the UK economy: Towards a new policy model?
Regional Studies, 50(2), 342–357. doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.
1118450
Massey, D. (1973a). The basic: Service categorization in planning.
Regional Studies, 7(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/09595237300185011
Massey, D. (1973b). Towards a critique of industrial location theory.
Antipode, 5(3), 33–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1973.tb00569.x
Massey, D. (1978a). Capital and locational change: The UK electrical
engineering and electronics industries. Review of Radical Political
Economics, 10(3), 39–54. doi:10.1177/048661347801000305
Massey, D. (1978b). Regionalism: A survey of some current issues.
Capital and Class, 2(3), 106–125. doi:10.1177/030981687800
600105
Massey, D. (1979). In what sense a regional problem? Regional
Studies, 13(2), 233–243. doi:10.1080/09595237900185191
Massey, D. (1983). Industrial restructuring as class restructuring:
Production decentralization and local uniqueness. Regional
Studies, 17(2), 73–89. doi:10.1080/09595238300185081
Massey, D. (1984). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the
geography of production. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Massey, D. (1991a). A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 35(6),
24–29.
Massey, D. (1991b). ‘A global sense of place’. Unit 23, Block 6 of
The Making of the Regions, D103 Society and Social Science:
A Foundation Course, Milton Keynes, The Open University,
11–51.
Massey, D. (1991c). The political place of locality studies. Environment
and Planning A, 23(2), 267–281. doi:10.1068/a230267
Massey, D. (1992). Politics and space/time. New Left Review, 196,
65–84.
Massey, D. (1993a). Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place.
In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, & L. Tickner
(Eds.), Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change (pp. 59–
69). London: Routledge.
REGIONAL STUDIES
1296 Richard Meegan
Massey, D. (1993b). Questions of locality. Geography, 78(2), 142–
149.
Massey, D. (1994a). Introduction to Part I: Space and social relations.
In Space, place, and gender (pp. 19–24). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Massey, D. (1994b). Introduction to Part II: Place and identity. In
Space, place, and gender (pp. 117–124). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Massey, D. (1994c). Introduction to Part III: Space, place and gen-
der. In Space, place, and gender (pp. 177–184). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Massey, D. (1995a). Reflections on debates over a decade. In D.
Massey (Ed.), Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the
geography of production (2nd ed., pp. 296–354). Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Massey, D. (1995b). Masculinity, dualisms and high technology.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20, 487–499.
doi:10.2307/622978
Massey, D. (1999a). Geography, gender and high technology. In J.
Bryson, N. Henry, D. Keeble, & R. Martin (Eds.), The economic
geography reader: Producing and consuming global capitalism (pp.
399–404). Chichester: Wiley.
Massey, D. (1999b). Power-geometries and the politics of space–time.
Heidelberg: Department of Geography, University of
Heidelberg.
Massey, D. (2001). Talking of space–time. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 26, 257–261. doi:10.1111/1475-5661.
00019
Massey, D. (2002a). Don’t let’s counterpose place and space.
Development, 45(2), 24–25. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.
1110312
Massey, D. (2002b). Geography, policy and politics: A response to
Dorling and Shaw. Progress in Human Geography, 26(5), 645–
646. doi:10.1177/030913250202600507
Massey, D. (2004a). The responsibilities of place. Local Economy,
19(2), 97–101. doi:10.1080/0269094042000205070
Massey, D. (2004b). The political challenge of relational space:
Introduction to the Vega Symposium. Geografiska Annaler,
Series B: Human Geography, 86(1), 1–78. doi:10.1111/j.0435-
3684.2004.00149.x
Massey, D. (2004c). Geographies of responsibility. Geografiska
Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 86(1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/
j.0435-3684.2004.00150.x
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
Massey, D. (2007). World city. Cambridge: Polity.
Massey, D. (2008). When theory meets politics. Antipode, 40(3),
492–497. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00619.x
Massey, D. (2009). Concepts of space and power in theory and in pol-
itical practice. Doc. Anàl. Geogr., 55, 15–26.
Massey, D. (2011). A counterhegemonic relationality of place. In E.
McCann & K. Ward (Eds.), Mobile urbanism: Cities and policy-
making in the global Age (pp. 1–14). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Massey, D. (2013). Vocabularies of the economy. Soundings, 54, 9–
22. doi:10.3898/136266213807299023
Massey, D., & Human Geography Research Group; eds. Bond, S., &
Featherstone, D. (2009). The possibilities of a politics of place
beyond place? A conversation with Doreen Massey. Scottish
REGIONAL STUDIES
Geographical Journal, 125(3–4), 401–420. doi:10.1080/
14702540903364443
Massey, D., & Meegan, R. A. (Eds.). (1985). Politics and method:
Contrasting studies in industrial geography. London: Methuen.
Massey, D., Minns, R., Morrison, W. I., & Whitbread, M. (1976). A
strategy for urban regional research. Regional Studies, 10(4), 381–
387. doi:10.1080/09595237600185411
Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies:
Science parks in society, science, and space. London: Routledge.
Massey, D., & Rustin, M. (2014a). Whose economy? Reframing the
debate. Soundings, 57, 170–191. doi:10.3898/13626621481
3474507
Massey, D., & Rustin, M. (2014b). Rethinking the neoliberal world
order. Soundings, 58, 116–135.
Massey, D. B., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1971). The use of models in
structure planning. Town Planning Review, 42(1), 28–44.
doi:10.3828/tpr.42.1.l19q6n7411qq1251
Massey, D. B., & Meegan, R. A. (1978). Industrial restructuring ver-
sus the cities. Urban Studies, 15(3), 273–288. doi:10.1080/
713702404
Massey, D. B., & Meegan, R. A. (1979a). The geography of indus-
trial reorganisation; the spatial effects of the restructuring of the
electrical engineering sector under the industrial reorganisation
corporation. Progress in Planning, 10(3), 155–237. doi:10.1016/
0305-9006(79)90004-7
Massey, D. B., & Meegan, R. A. (1979b). Labour productivity and
regional employment change. Area, 11(2), 137–145.
Massey, D. B., & Meegan, R. A. (1982). The anatomy of job loss: The
how, why and where of employment decline. London: Methuen.
McDowell, L., & Massey, D. (1984). A woman’s place? In D.
Massey & J. Allen (Eds.), Geography matters! A reader (pp.
128–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Menéndez, R. (2013). The socialist transformation of Venezuela: The
geographical dimensions of political strategy. In D. Featherstone
& J. Painter (Eds.), Spatial politics: Essays for Doreen Massey (pp.
224–234). Chichester: Wiley.
Morgan, K. (2007). The polycentric state: New spaces of empower-
ment and engagement? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1237–1251.
doi:10.1080/00343400701543363
Painter, J. (2016). Doreen Massey (1944–2016): An appreciation.
Soundings, 63(Summer), 38–44. doi:10.3898/136266216819377
020
Peck, J., Massey, D., Gibson, K., & Lawson, V. (2014). Symposium:
The Kilburn Manifesto: After neoliberalism? Environment and
Planning A, 46, 2033–2049. doi:10.1068/a4601rs
Peet, R. (1998). Modern geographical thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pike, A. (2007). Editorial: Whither regional studies? Regional Studies,
41(9), 1145–1148.
Pike, A., Bristow, G., Coombes, M., Fan, C., Gillespie, A., Harris,
R., … Wren, C. (2007). Editorial: Regional Studies: 40 years
and more … . Regional Studies, 41(Suppl.), S1–S8. doi:10.1080/
00343400701232363
Urry, J. (1990). Conclusion: Places and politics. In M. Harloe, C.
Pickvance, & J. Urry (Eds.), Place, policy and politics: Do localities
matter? (pp. 187–204). London: Unwin Hyman.
Varró, K., & Lagendijk, A. (2013). Conceptualizing the region – In
what sense relational? Regional Studies, 47(1), 18–28. doi:10.
1080/00343404.2011.602334
Copyright of Regional Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.