The central claim presented in this book is that cities are causally linked not only to development, but also to its uneveness. In today's urban studies, however, growth and exploitation are not linked to each other at all, just as if they were not structurally and necessarily connected in a capitalist world. By and large, cities have been divorced from the study of the asymmetrical relationships that constitute the capitalist division of labour at regional or global scales, with the result that their generative power seems to have nothing to do with the “bad” innovation that produces ever new methods and means of exploitation and oppression. The devices that are used for the appropriation of the fruits of other people's labour, for subjugation, warfare and environmental destruction seem to be orphaned; evil seems to come from nowhere. I have already quoted Jane Jacobs’ (1970: 121) dictum that poverty has no causes, only prosperity, and that this comes exclusively from cities. In Jacobs, this coming “from cities” assumes two meanings: while the first is more descriptive topographical (cities as the places where economic development takes place; see Figure 1.1), the second is plainly analytical: cities generate economic development due to their very specific characteristics. Deeply committed to the latter perspective, Jacobs equates poverty with the lack of city-centred benefits, indeed with “citylessness”. Without cities, she claims, “we’d all be poor … All through organized human history, if you wanted prosperity, you’ve had to have cities” (Jacobs 1997). A similar association of poverty with “citylessness” – i.e. with the countryside, rurality and agriculture – can be found in the arguments of Martin Ravallion (2007: 15), former director of the World Bank's research department. Opposing the notion of an “urbanization of poverty”, which contends that poverty is becoming an urban problem rather than a primarily rural one, he rhetorically asked: “Are poor people gravitating to towns and cities?” His provocative-sounding, but serious answer: “Yes, but maybe not quickly enough”.