Spatial inequality is a term used to refer to differences in the availability of resources or services in various geographic regions. Spatial inequality is not something new or artificially created, as well as it is unlikely to stop in the future. It is a natural phenomenon as some regions are more fertile or inhabitable than the others. Since the beginning of mankind till nowadays, water, food, and shelter have still remained the basic necessities of humans. People have always looked for places to settle down that can help them satisfy these requirements. In ancient times, rivers and forests were the greatest attractions to build human settlements nearby. However, in present times, people prefer to live in those regions, which offer better living and work-related conditions (Combes, Mayer, & Thisse, 2008). This paper argues that spatial inequality is a prospective process.
As the human population had increased, and resources had become constrained in various parts of the world, people started moving to other areas, which had sufficient resources so that to satisfy their needs. However, this process has not stopped, and human migration is still on a rise as resources, which were once found in abundance, become inadequate or inaccessible as times goes by (Bratt, 2010).
As a matter of fact, spatial separation in terms of structural design is a key part of suburbs. The question remains the same. Will spatial separation continue to be a part of structural development? There is a simple answer to such a question as stated by Blumer (1958) in his article that inequality of spatial structuralism will be there until resources are equally provided to every class in society. Many theorists have actually come up with their respective findings regarding the presence of spatial inequality in the future. A collective theme of all these researches focuses on the impossibility of removing spatial inequality because it is a cycle, which is interlinked with the concepts, such as health, education, and income (Spence, Annez, & Buckley, 2009).
As mentioned above, spatial inequality is characterised by resources provided to a land or a community, which indicates that they (resources) may or may not be provided to other communities depending on the societal power of economic control. Since, there is no country in the world that has actually catered for needs of all the social classes. Therefore, it can be stated that spatial inequality is an on-going issue (Blumer, 1958).
Talking about the standards and frameworks that can be introduced within spatial inequality, being a subcategory of sociological work, there seems to be an ignorance related to the subject of equal allocation of resources. Different investigations including the research done by Powell & Graham (2002) noted that there was no planning of equal education, health, and other services in any society of the world, which was an evident announcement of making spatial inequality a subject matter of future research.
Herein, it can be said that sociologists have used spatial inequality as a way of explaining the behaviour of unequal standards of various groups in societies because it is now a part of individual’s life as a member of society (Lobao, Hooks, & Tickamyer, 2007).
Aforementioned discussion proves that spatial inequality may be considered as an accepted construct in the structural development, but within the context of sociology, it is one of the causes of unequal allocation of resources. Moreover, it should be noted that control of resources has remained an issue between groups for which wars and battles were waged in the past. This inequality has also caused revolutions like the French Revolution. The industrial revolution minimised spatial inequality and provided equal benefits and opportunities for everyone (Lobao, Hooks, & Tickamyer, 2007). However, such an allocation of resources was not thoroughly followed as a tradition for structural design.
References
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3-7. Web.
Bratt, R.G. (2010). Housing and family well-being. Housing Studies, 17(1), 13-26. Web.
Combes, P.P., Mayer, T., & Thisse, J.F. (2008). Economic Geography: The Integration of Regions and Nations. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. Web.
Lobao, L.M., Hooks, G., & Tickamyer, A.R. (2007). The sociology of spatial inequality. New York: State University of New York Press. Web.
Powell, J.A. & Graham, K.M. (2002). Urban fragmentation as a barrier to equal opportunities. In Piche, D.M., Taylor, W.L. & Reed, R.A. (Eds.) Rights at risk: Equality in an age. (pp. 79-97). Washington: Citizens Commission on Civil Rights. Web.
Spence, M., Annez, P.C., & Buckley, R.M. (2009). Urbanization and growth. Washington: Commission on Growth and Development. Web.