‘Left behind places’ has become the leitmotif of geographical inequalities since the 2008 crisis. Yet, the term’s origins, definition and implications are poorly specified and risk obscuring the differentiated problems and pathways of different kinds of areas. This paper explicates the geographical etymology and spatial imaginary of ‘left behind places’. It argues that the appellation and its spatial expression have modified how geographical inequalities are understood and addressed by recovering a more relational understanding of multiple ‘left behind’ conditions, widening the analytical frame beyond only economic concerns, and opening up interpretations of the ‘development’ of ‘left behind places’ and their predicaments and prospects. While renewing interest in fundamental urban and regional concerns, what needs to endure from the ascendance of the ‘left behind places’ label is the terminology and spatial imaginary of reducing geographical inequalities and enhancing social and spatial justice.
Pike et al. (Thu,) studied this question.