8_Literature.indd 347Literature – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 345–353. In the international urban studies mainstream, there is a programmatic call for comparative urbanism recently propagated by prominent scholars including Jennifer Robinson, Ananya Roy or Colin McFarlane (earlier also articulated by Chris Pickvance, Anthony D. King and others). In spite of this urge, however, relatively litt le emphasis has been placed on the empir- ical contributions to international urban comparativity to date. As an ambitious att empt to fi ll this gap, this book – edited by Tiit Tammaru, Szymon Marcińczak, Maarten van Ham and Sako Musterd – systematically analyses socio-economic segregation in/across several European capital cities; Amsterdam, Athens, Budapest, London, Madrid, Oslo, Prague, Riga, Stockholm, Tallinn, Vienna, Vilnius, as well as in Milan (the only exception not being a political capital, in contrast to what the title of the volume suggests). The introductory chapter of the book, authored by Tiit Tammaru, Sako Musterd, Maarten van Ham and Szymon Marcińczak provides a comprehensive and undoubtedly valuable literature review, as well as a detailed overview of methodological considera- tions. First and most importantly, by the central no- tion ‘socio-economic segregation’ (hereinaft er SES), the editors and the authors of the book understand the ‘residential segregation of population groups based on occupation and income’ (p. 2.). Based on the literature review, four key structural factors have been identi- fi ed that are assumed to shape SES: globalisation, so- cio-economic inequalities, welfare regimes and hous- ing systems (along with two additional occupational ones). As the indicator of globalisation, global city status was taken into account, based on the widely used typology of Alpha, Beta and Gamma cities. The level of socio-economic inequalities was measured by the Gini index, using statistical data obtained from Eurostat. Welfare regimes were classifi ed along Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s three main categories (i.e. social democratic, corporatist and liberal), with the South European (or Mediterranean) regime considered within the corporatist type. Housing systems were categorised into Jim Kemeny’s typology of unitary and dual housing systems, with the South European system positioned in between the two. Finally, the two additional occupational factors were measured by the share of higher occupations (managers and professionals) on the one hand, and by the share of lower occupations (unskilled work- ers) on the other. Using a novel multi-factor approach based on these factors, a theoretical model was elabo- rated to predict and quantify the level of SES in the investigated cities. Values 1 to 3 have been att ached to each of the six factors, creating the following rank- ing of hypothetical SES in the case study cities (from the most to the least segregated ones, with the higher scores representing higher levels of SES): London (16 out of the maximum 18 points); Riga (15); Madrid and Vilnius (14); Milan and Tallinn (13); Amsterdam (12); Athens, Budapest, Oslo and Stockholm (11); and fi - nally Prague and Vienna (9). Case studies are then featured in Chapters 2 to 14, allowing readers for in-depth comparisons of the hypothetical and the actual levels of segregation in each city. Importantly, and in order to move beyond the above-mentioned strict structural factors, in the case studies particular att ention has been paid to the unique characteristics of the place (i.e. to the genius loci), creating a certain kind of sensitivity towards diff erent geographical contexts and specifi c historical pathways. Following a long tradition in segregation research, the authors’ analyses are primarily based on indices of dissimilarity (D) and segregation (IS), mostly using statistical data from years 2000 and 2010 (or other census years close to these). Concerning the geographical coverage of data collection, metropolitan regions were investigated in the case of Amsterdam, Tammaru, T. et al. (eds.): Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities. East Meets West. Routledge, London–New York, 2015. 389 p. Literature – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 345–353.348 Athens, London, Madrid, Oslo, Stockholm and Tallinn, whereas in the case of Budapest, Milan, Prague, Riga, Vienna and Vilnius, analyses covered only the admin- istrative area of the cities. In the volume Western European cities are repre- sented by London, Amsterdam and Vienna. As a result of the analysis of occupational segregation in London (pp. 30–54.), David Manley, Ron Johnston, Kelvyn Jones and Dewi Owen found that there are still sharp divisions and a growing spatial distance between the top and bott om socio-economic groups in the city. In the case of income segregation in Amsterdam (pp. 55–79.), Sako Musterd and Wouter van Gent con- clude that the segregation of the top and the bott om groups decreased in the 2000s (as the only exception among all analysed cities), presumably owing to the long tradition of a fairly equal income distribution in the Netherlands. In contrast to Amsterdam, however, Vienna witnessed a signifi cant increase in the level of SES during the 2000s which might – according to Gerhard Hatz, Josef Kohlbacher and Ursula Reeger (pp. 80–109.) – be linked with new immigration. Aft er the Western European case studies, Northern European cities are represented by Stockholm and Oslo. Based on the investigation of segregation dy- namics in Stockholm (pp. 110–131.); Roger Andersson and Anneli Kährik argue that in spite of the long tra- dition of elaborating public policies aimed at creat- ing a social mix within neighbourhoods, the public sector started to cut back on housing subsidies dur- ing the 1990s, resulting in a relatively high level of segregation in the Swedish capital by the 2000s. As for Oslo, economic segregation was analysed by Terje Wessel (pp. 132–155.) who found that the particularly generous Norwegian welfare system is an important characteristic of the capital city above and beyond the strongly market-based housing system which allows the sustaining of rather high levels of equality. As the next group of cities, the Southern European macro-region is represented by Athens, Milan and Madrid. Concerning the patt erns of socio-econom- ic segregation in Athens (pp. 156–185.), Thomas Maloutas concluded that despite the otherwise high levels of social inequality not only moderate levels and stable patt erns of SES can be observed in Athens but even desegregation between certain occupational groups. As for socio-economic divisions in Milan (pp. 186–213.), Petros Petsimeris and Stefania Rimoldi trace back post-1990 SES to two processes; fi rst, the self-segregation of business owners into the most exclusive areas of the city, and second, the purchase of apartments by working-class households under specifi c right-to-buy schemes and a later selling of these properties to more affl uent social groups. In the case of the processes of social change and segrega- tion in Madrid (pp. 214–237.), Jesús Leal and Daniel Sorando primarily found professionalisation and the residential entrapment of lower socio-economic groups behind the dramatic growth in the levels of segregation in the Spanish capital. Concerning Eastern European cities featured in the book, a distinction is made between Visegrad cit- ies (represented by Budapest and Prague) and Baltic capitals (Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn). In the case of Budapest, being one of the most segregated capital cities in Eastern Europe, Zoltán Kovács and Balázs Szabó (pp. 238–260.) found that it is still only mod- erately segregated by Western standards; neverthe- less, in spite of the more even geographical distribu- tion of higher socio-economic groups (as a result of new housing developments), lower socio-economic groups became more segregated during the 2000s. Quite similar results have been revealed in the Prague case study (pp. 261–286.); Martin Ouředníček, Lucie Pospíšilová, Petra Špačková, Zuzana Kopecká and the recently passed away Jakub Novák concluded that the relatively low level of SES is mainly the consequence of the location of new forms of housing, as well as the infl ux of higher socio-economic groups into poorer (formerly working-class) neighbourhoods, oft en tak- ing place in inner city areas. As for residential segregation in Riga (pp. 287– 312.), a Baltic capital where Russian-speaking resi- dents constitute more than half of the population, Zaiga Krišjāne, Māris Bērzi š and Kalju Kratovitš convincingly argue that the ethnic dimension is still far more important than socio-economic patt erns. The analysis of social inequalities and SES in Vilnius – car- ried out by Vytautas Valatka, Donatas Burneika and Rūta Ubarevičienė (pp. 313–332.) – revealed that re- cent processes of gentrifi cation have led to an increase of mixed neighbourhoods in the inner city, similar to what happened in Budapest and Prague. As the last case study of the book, Tiit Tammaru, Anneli Kährik, Kadi Mägi, the late Jakub Novák and Kadri Leetmaa investigated socio-economic segregation in Tallinn (pp. 333–357.). Authors concluded that although the Estonian capital was also characterised by mixed neighbourhoods in 2000, the residential relocation of higher socio-economic groups signifi cantly in- creased SES during the 2000s, transforming many ear- lier mixed neighbourhoods into more homogenous ones. On an overall level, Tallinn witnessed the larg- est growth in socio-economic segregation among the case study cities in the period of the 2000s, becoming the most segregated Eastern European city within the pool of research cities. In Chapter 15, the main conclusions of the book are drawn by Szymon Marcińczak, Sako Musterd, Maarten van Ham and Tiit Tammaru (pp. 358–382.). In contrast to the theoretical ranking of the cities’ expect- ed levels of SES (based on the multi-factor approach elaborated in the introductory chapter of the book), the case studies revealed a markedly diff erent ranking based on real data (again, from the most to the least segregated cities): Madrid and Milan; Tallinn; London; 349Literature – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 345–353. Stockholm; Vienna; Athens; Amsterdam; Budapest; Riga; Vilnius; Prague; and Oslo. Finally, as the main conclusion of the book, even though European cit- ies are still less segregated compared to those in the Americas, Africa or parts of Eastern Asia, almost all of the cities involved in the study were found to be more segregated than initially hypothesised (with the only exception of Amsterdam). The spatial gap between the poor and the rich has been widening since the early 2000s; these changes are mostly driven by globalisation and the recent neoliberalisation of European cities, both in the case of welfare states and former socialist countries. Moreover, as an alarming signal for policy-makers, the trend of rising inequali- ties and residential segregation does not appear to be changing anytime soon. Márton Berki The title Geographies of Knowledge and Power was published by Springer in July 2015. This is the sev- enth volume of the series "Knowledge and Space", launched in 2008 and dedicated to topics dealing with the production, application, spatial distribution and diff usion of knowledge. Chief editor in charge of the series is Peter Meusburger from Heidelberg University, whose work was this time supported by fellow editors Derek Gregory (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) and Laura Suarsana (Heidelberg University). The release is an outcome of the 7th Interdisciplinary Symposium on Knowledge and Space, held at Heidelberg between 17 and 20 of June 2009. Both the symposium and the book were supported by the Klaus Tschira Foundation. The book focuses on the complex relations be- tween knowledge, power and geographic space, and involves contributions from seventeen scholars with diff erent fi elds of inquiry therewith to investigate the issue at stake from multiple viewpoints. The large majority of the authors represent the fi eld of human geography, as do all three editors, whilst others come from various fi elds such as anthropology, scientifi c theology, Assyriology and communication science. Like many contemporary releases in human ge- ography, the book largely builds on the theoretical fi ndings of Michel Foucault. The approach of this title is mostly based on the French philosopher’s dual concept of “power-knowledge” (pouvoir-savoir), by which he referred to the interconnectedness and mu- tual dependence of political rule and scientifi c knowl- edge in reinforcing and legitimating each other. The introductory chapter (Chapter 1), in which the three editors lay the ground for the key notions of the book, is already set by a quote from Foucault, suggesting that “Knowledge and power are integrated with one an- other, and there is no point in dreaming of a time when knowledge will cease to depend on power” (Foucault, M. 1980: 52. 1.). A basic argument of the book is that “power and knowledge depend on each other and incorporate each other; both have enabling and innovative eff ects. Knowledge con- solidates power, and power att racts and sometimes legiti- mates knowledge” (3.). Though this issue has already been discussed by several authors throughout the last decades, the category of space, which is, accord- ing to Foucault, “fundamental in any exercise of power” (Foucault, M. 1984: 252. 4.), has remained relatively Meusburger, P., Gregory, D., Suarsana, L. (eds.:) Geographies of Knowledge and Power. Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, 347 p.