It refers to the forces and relations of material
production that, in Marx’s classic writings,
provide the foundation (or ‘base’) for a legal,
political and cultural ‘superstructure’ (see
base and superstructure). This formulation
marked the site of a considerable debate
withinhistorical materialismover the rela-
tionship between infrastructure and super-
structure: some critics claimed that Marx saw
this in reductive terms (‘economic determin-
ism’), while most informed scholars provided
more nuanced readings of the ways in
which economic practices and structures are
implicated in the conduct of social and
political life. rl
inheritance systems In theory, inheritance
is the transmission of exclusive rights inprop-
ertyat death. Such transmission is part of the
wider devolution of rights between holders
and heirs, and usually between generations.
This process of devolution can also involve
transfers between the living for education,
marriage and property purchase, as well as
transfer of any residual at the holder’s death.
In societies where production is based on the
household and where property rights are
vested in the domestic group, the evolution
of such rights is of vital importance. In simple
hoe agricultural societies, such as found over
much of sub-Saharan Africa, inheritance be-
tween spouses is rare, with transfers tending to
be from males to males or from females to
females. In such settings, economic differenti-
ation is limited and access to land relatively
easy, with inheritance occurring within unili-
neal descent groups such as clans or lineage.
In plough-based agrarian systems, a diverging
or bisexual form of devolution is more com-
mon, and frequently involves children inherit-
ing from both parents and parents transferring
property to both daughters and sons – and not
necessarily at death. One such form ofpre-
morteminheritance is dowry given to daughters
at their marriage, which has been widespread
in Eurasia. At marriage, some kind of conjugal
fund is created and the property transmitted,
although not in equal proportions, to the
children. The different treatment of siblings
depending on birth order takes the form
of primogeniture (impartibility), multigeniture
(partibility) orultimogeniture(Borough English).
Systems of impartible inheritance in which the
eldest son was sole heir were common among
elite groups ineurope, where title and pos-
ition were linked to estate and income.
Younger sons might seek their fortune through
careers in the church or the army, to which
they had access as a result of the political
power embodied in the parental estate. In
European peasantries (seepeasant), the par-
ents might hand over the farm to a son or a
daughter on the occasion of his or her mar-
riage, reserving for themselves right to bed
and board, although frequently giving rise to
extended or stem family households. Such
arrangements might create familial tensions,
since an early transfer might weaken the au-
thority of the elderly, and a delayed transfer
might create hostility towards the elderly
among the young. In capitalistsocieties,
where the majority of the population has no
ownership of the means of production, inher-
itance is of far less significance. However, the
ability to transfer privilege as well as residen-
tial property is intrinsic to family life in all
economic systems. Most modern societies
place a progressive tax on inherited property,
which could be viewed as a means of equaliz-
ing advantage. Ways of avoiding tax on per-
sonal assets at death are found in the use of
trusts, life estates and charitable giving. In the
USA, where charitable gifts are tax-exempt,
private foundations gain enormous benefits,
and in the UK major contributions to national
collections of art, buildings or land result
from attempts to avoid death duties (Shoup,
1966). rmsSuggested reading
Goody (1962, 1978); Goody, Thirsk and
Thompson (1976); Shoup (1966); Smith (1984).inner city That region of the metropolitan
area consisting primarily of older residential
areas in close proximity to the downtown core.
By the late nineteenth century, inner-city neigh-
bourhoods were mainly blue-collar districts,
providing shelter for the families of working
men employed in the wholesaling, manufactur-
ing and transportation sectors that were located
in the ring of industrial uses adjacent to port
and railway terminals outside the central
business district. In the industrial city, then,
the inner city was the home of the working poor,
including immigrants, as famously described by
thechicago schoolbetween 1910 and 1970
(Wirth, 1928; Suttles, 1968). In such cities,
minimal land-use regulation introduced serious
traffic congestion and severe air, land and water
pollution, encouraging the withdrawal of the
middle class to tram/streetcar and commuter
suburbs. Separation bred a suspicion and even
fear of the inner city by the middle class, a
condition that survives in some nations to the
present.Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_I Final Proof page 383 31.3.2009 7:05pmINNER CITY