Urban Governance and “A Third World Proletariat”: Some Methodological Considerations

Lloyd has attempted to construct a framework for social class analysis with regard to the context of the Third World cities. To do this, he, in A Third World Proletariat (1982), seeks to combine two major traditions, Weberism and Marxism. This paper argued that the combination of the two traditions acts as a source of the following theoretical and methodological inconsistencies. First, while Lloyd along with Marx considers working class as a fixed identity in the First World cities, Weberian tradition considers it as a contingent identity. Second, while he, was influenced by Marx, argues that class stratification shapes racial and ethical stratification and relationship, Weberian tradition adheres mutual relations among different fields of society. Third, while he explains relations between economic classes and political regulation of State from Marxist point of view, he neglects to explain relations between social status and political regulation of State, which is important within Weberian tradition. Forth, Class stratification, for him, is an ‘urban’ phenomenon and racial and ethical stratification belong to ‘the rural’, while, from Weberian point of view, racial and ethical stratification are key elements of ‘the urban’. Fifth, Lloyd’s framework seems unacceptably simplistic to combine Weber’s methodological individualism with Marx's ontological holism.