~ Pergamon Letter to the Editor To reply or not to reply: our dilemma about Pugh Land Use Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 169-170, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0264-8377/97 $17.00 + 0.00 In his article, 'Methodology, political economy and economics in land studies for developing countries', published in this journal last year, Pugh (1996) seeks to undertake a general critique of what he rather grandiosely describes as 'Cambridge studies', and specifically to review our edited volume, Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis (Jones and Ward, 1994a). Ordinarily we would welcome the opportunity to engage in academic debate on land use and housing issues, and one would be gratified (and probably flattered) that one's writing merited such attention. However, that was not our reaction on this occasion: quite the opposite. We have already engaged in an extensive published debate with Pugh about these matters, and we are reluctant to follow Pugh's cue and rehearse the same arguments, this time in a different journal. Moreover, the exchange is becoming tedious (to us at least), and there is nothing new or innovative in the materials adduced in Pugh's latest critique of our work. The only satisfac- tion to be obtained would be the oppor- tunity to set the record straight in this journal, but this would have two adverse effects. First, it would open us to the same criticism we direct at Pugh; namely double publishing similar material in two different journals. Second, it might encourage Pugh to extend the debate still further, and frankly we do not think that we could bear the tedium. After some considera- tion, therefore, we have chosen not to reply at length, but to offer a brief comment and to invite the reader to follow the debate in its published form elsewhere. Where to go for the latter? First, please refer to our debate with several World Bank analysts and associates in Habitat International in 1994-95, which developed from our article 'The World Bank's "New" Urban Management Programme: paradigm shift or policy continuity' (Jones and Ward, 1994b). In that article we review the important leadership role that the World Bank has provided in setting the agenda for housing and land market analysis and policy, and evaluate specifically the latest paradigm which advocates scaled- down state intervention and a strength- ening of land markets, and the 'New' Urban Management Programme (NUMP). This article resulted in a sequence of set-piece responses in the same journal (see Cohen and Leitman, 1995; Lee, 1995; Wegelin, 1995), and a reply and elaboration of our concerns about the NUMP (Jones and Ward, 1995), So far, over 55 pages of published text and not so much of a mention by Pugh in his Land Use Policy piece. Second, enter Pugh stage right. Having missed out on the originating debate, Pugh casts himself as apologist/ advocate of the World Bank and without refering to this debate embarks upon a review of 'Cambridge studies, 1989-95' in Environment and Planning A (Pugh, 1997) which, although not published until early 1997 was written in 1995, prompting our reply in the same journal issue 'Hell hath no fury as an academic scorned: a reply to Pugh (with apologies to Congreve and to women)' (Ward and Jones, 1997). That exchange focuses upon what we do and do not say about the World Bank; about the theoretical and empirical validity of our methodology; and about our knowledge (or lack of it according to Pugh) of land economy theory. Another 20 plus pages of published debate. Then, although thankfully this time we are spared others are not, Pugh engages in a debate with several development specialists in a special issue of Cities (Pugh, 1995a,b) which deals inter alia with the World Bank's role in strategic policy review and formulation, urbanization processes and to Pugh's adherence to what he calls a 'New Political Economy' paradigm which is described as a 'silly concept' by one of his detractors (Gaile, 1995, p. 406). Another 40 published pages, and most of us assumed that the corre- spondence would close. Unfortunately not so, for Pugh now returns his attention upon 'Cambridge studies', this time in Land Use Policy, where he restates his misgivings about our 'political economy' approach; our alleged lack of knowledge of the classics of land economy; and our misrepresentation of the World Bank's Urban Management Programme--all without reference to the debate between us which is about to appear in Environment and Planning A. The only new element in his piece in Land Use Policy is the inclusion of a review of our anthology of Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis. Even here, however, we have a firm sense of d~jg~ vu, for the critique he offers develops a book review he provided to the Charter Surveyor's Monthly. With the exception of that rather carping review, the volume has received uniformly high praise [see, no less, Land Use Policy" 12 (2), 183-184 which describes it as 'a fine book, one which can actually be read with pleasure...We are promised a debate about basic approaches to market analysis and we get it...makes for fascinating reading...nowhere else will you find as much description of the current frontiers of this body of knowl- edge...For the researcher of land or housing markets, there can be no better start to a new project...']. Other reviews are also glowing, describing the book as 'a milestone in transdisciplinary urban studies' (Urban Studies); 'inspire(s) creative techniques, pushing the boundaries of our current knowledge and improving conventional analytical skills' (Journal of the American Planning Association ); 'demonstrate(s) that a focus on methodology does not have to be deadly boring..." (Habitat Inter- national); and 'We could all learn from 169