The Contradictions of the Capitalist Mode of Production and the Instituting of Unequitable Processes of Urban Mobility

As this exploration progresses through reflections that traverse the urban space, as a result of accumulation, but also by collective action, it is inevitable to activate some lines of thought about what underpins this social construct. The realm of production is one of these factors, since phase of circulation of goods -and of people- plays a central role in the processes of accumulation and reproduction of capital. Debating on the political economy helps to understand the logic of how inequalities in the spatial dimension materialize.

Rooted in the perspective of circulation, ^{Harvey (2005}) proposes some considerations that intertwine valuation, location, and accumulation in the availability of products in the market. In these terms, the transport sector becomes essential as an output port and as enabler of the expansion of the geographic market -while, without considering the speed, it is also decisive in increasing the turnover time of capital, dialectically encouraging spatial concentration in return.

Under the same Marxist perspective, ^{Lojkine (1997}) points out at barriers -especially related to financing, social division of labor, and property- that hamper any rational and socialized organization of urban planning within the capitalist agglomeration. Among them, the author highlights some -health services, educational activities, social assistance- that only intervene at the level of reproduction of labor force, in relation to the means of effective consumption, in a secondary position, while the material means of production remain as priority.

Both postulate the unequal geographical development as one of the most limiting spatial phenomena in urbanization, through which capital periodically (re)invents itself. As this concentration fosters growing underdevelopment in those regions most lacking in infrastructure, it potentiates the agglomeration of the metropolises that already densely concentrate the means of communication, enabling for the creation of an economy of false expenses. In other words, the incessant quest for reduction of costs and circulation times, at the other end, simultaneously, denounces the perversity of regional economies oriented to market conditions (^{Harvey, 2005}; ^{Lojkine, 1997}).

The brief delineation of some of the contradictions of the capitalist system in regard to the organization of urban space and its relation to the means of circulation is far from exhausting the debate about an unequal provision of mobility for citizens. In the current reflection, it is settled with the argument that the study of capital in abstract terms is not analytically useful, from a point of view that considers political action as based on concrete actors, acting within specific institutional, relational, and spatial spheres (^{Marques, 2005}). But, at the same time, it is valid to point out that the contribution of Marxist thought on the production of the capitalist city offers significant theoretical arguments to elucidate the hegemonic perspective that has been guiding the unequal supply of transportation systems.

From this perspective, ^{Barbosa (2016}) places mobility at the forefront as a strategic dimension in the phenomenon of a hierarchical reproduction of the urban context, called metropolization. It is in this process, of reconfiguration of production, and of space organization resulting from economic globalization and financial market restructuring, that metropolization establishes, on one hand, homogenization, while, on the other, it fragments the urban space by altering the hierarchy of places. In the wake of the affirmation of economic and political centralities, of consumption and regulation, in which market and state have played hegemonic roles in driving and carrying out the extension of the urban fabric, Barbosa (2016, p. 45) points out that the "differentiated geographical locations of fixed enterprises (industrial, financial, banking, technical, commercial and real estate) reveal strategic meanings for the urban reproduction of the market," and mobility, therefore, acquires special relevance.

According also to this author, the constitution of territorially expanded peripheries, observed in several Latin American metropolises, represent the most striking products of unequal urbanization of the territory (^{Barbosa, 2016}). In Brazil, the phenomenon of metropolization occurred due to the great contribution of industrialization, which dictated the rhythms of an accelerated urbanization and the concentration of urban wealth and population. Cities were also subject to investment of surplus liquidity and general expansion of profits of different kinds, reaffirming urbanization as a resource for an expanded reproduction of private wealth. Consequently, the concentrating and speculative action of capital imposed an occupation of neighborhoods and subdivisions of incomplete urbanity to a segment of the population, demarcating, together, processes of inequity regarding access to collective consumption services, most notably among them, transportation (Barbosa, 2016; ^{Marques, 2005}).

A third approach illustrates yet another facet of the imbrication between accumulation, urban agglomeration, and land rent, specifically, in the area of Brazilian public transport services, as previously pointed out. According to ^{Veloso (2015}), who specifically analyzes bus transportation in Brazil, it emerges to fill the vacuum left by state structure, as an alternative to provide greater dynamics and attending to the needs of transportation, which are practically merged with the national urbanization process itself.

Paradoxically, despite its essential character, comparable to other health, security, and education services in the country, he affirms that "transportation is today a commodity in the classical sense of the term, in a much more naturalized way than the other services". And it differs from traditional urban services for its simultaneous existence as a productive process and commodity, coincident in their space-time nature -something that is "essential to the process, because it occurs and is constituted in a specific geographic path in the city space, generating a relationship of dependence between the functioning of the city and the production of goods" (^{Veloso, 2015}, p. 13-14).

The author advances in the characterization of the circulation system beyond the productive chain of goods. And, with a focus on passengers, he sheds light on the relationship between production and transportation through its function of mobilizing the labor force, transforming it, only then, into something truly interchangeable in the market. At the same time, it highlights the basic contradiction -also pointed out by ^{Lojkine (1997})- faced by transportation planning: the task of providing for the vast mobilization of labor power through the organization of the system, but which is often hindered by the logics of space occupation. According to ^{Vasconcellos (2001}), this is a contradiction that expresses the incompatible effects between segregation, isolation, decentralization, and inequity -trends that were activated by the capitalist-based development.

^{Marques (2005}) contributes conceptual clarifications in this sense through segregation. In social-spatial terms, he understands it involves at least three distinct processes. The first one, in its most complete and extreme version, implies separation and isolation. Based on the notion that large distances can cause isolation for low-income populations, since, for instance, transportation costs represent a substantial expense for families, he recommends that segregation, in this case, be addressed through gradients. However, he warns that this is a difficult idea to operationalize, since there are no measures or precise criteria in this regard, thus requiring an indirect treatment by means of two different understandings of segregation, related to inequality and apartness. A second sense of segregation refers to unequal access to public policies or living conditions in general. And in a third sense, segregation expresses separation in internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity in the distribution of groups in space (Marques, 2005).

Even proposed in different ways, just as Marques presents them, it is considered that separation and inequality of access are mutually constructed and reconstructed as inseparable and combined processes. In his work, which mainly addressed issues of poverty and inequality in the urban context in Brazil, this symbiosis becomes even more tangible, since the groups are not just separated from each other, because, as a consequence of such an organization, a differentiated access to available opportunities and services occurs. This is because the very scarcity of amenities greatly attracts groups of lower purchasing power to lower land value areas, contributing to increase social concentration and homogeneity. "Therefore, what dictates unequal access is not only separation, but also (and at the same time) it is inequality of access what dictates and reproduces separation" (Marques, 2005, p. 35).

In the case of greater São Paulo, for example. Some theories operate under a perspective of segregation supporting the notion of the existence of a concentric structuring of the social groups, the great exponent being the center-periphery model. In turn, ^{Villaça (2011}) proposes an organization based on sectors, as viewed from the perspective of a general area in the city, denouncing a certain ideology surrounding the radial scheme and which seeks to conceal the real processes behind unequal urban space. More recent approaches present a different pattern of segregation in São Paulo, linked to the arrival of security, urban violence, and real estate capital, with the promotion of new values and lifestyles.

The previous discussion is relevant for its contribution to the problem of inequality. Although it is agreed on that materially constructed elements - for this analysis, transportation systems in particular-are key factors in the spatial distribution of groups, we know that these are not the only ones. It should also be paid attention to "macrosocial processes associated with historical and economic dynamics and the action of various actors present in the urban context" (^{Marques, 2005}, p. 37).

Leaving for a moment the sphere of production, since society is far from being reduced to exchange relations, ^{Vasconcellos (2001}) also reminds us of the vital connection between conditions of reproduction and transportation -still based on Marxist categories. He determines the importance of other social relations, in addition to the activities associated to consumption, and which end there, for the reproduction of the world of labor, but especially those connected to family, religion, education, and leisure.

However, it emphasizes that the activities that people carry out correspond to manifest desires that refer to the reproduction process determined by social, political, and economic factors that vary in time and space according to other aspects such as social classes, regions, and countries -among others that will be included later. This statement informs the context in which urban mobility, as a socio-spatial practice, should be observed. In this area, the greater or lesser supply of transportation does not respond to any natural/biological desire on the part of people, but to the specific conditions of their environment (^{Vasconcellos, 2001}).

These expositions, so far, highlight the antagonisms set in motion by the capitalist system. However, for the present theoretical premise of discussing mobility as a right to the city for the various groups that comprise it, it is essential to go deeper in an explanation of the aspect of inequality, transposing it to other dimensions as well. To this end, it is necessary to define the notion of inequality -a concept held dear by sociology ever since its classic formulation- that we intend to address.

Social inequality is understood generically as the existence of different social characteristics among social groups established on the basis of some continuous or dichotomous/categorial cleavage. [...] The construction of the groups to be compared starts from the existence of some theoretical or socially recognized cleavage, and the choice of the "unequal" dimension to be studied is something that is considered to vary among these groups (^{Marques, 2005}, p. 41).

The polarization between capital and labor, characteristic of the capitalist mode of production, which, already from its foundations institutes a class structure, highlights the social issue, associating it typically with income and the redistributive aspect. However, this is not the only axis present in the relations of domination. According to ^{Fraser (2002}), other axes of subordination are added to the issues addressed by the traditional distributive theory, including sexual difference, race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. The debate raised by the author signals the emergence of a new grammar of political claims in a context of globalization that tends to replace redistribution with recognition.

This constitutes a clear advance over restrictive fordist paradigms that marginalized such contestation. Moreover, social justice is no longer restricted to questions of distribution, but it now also encompasses issues of representation, identity, and difference. This, too, is a positive advance over narrow economistic paradigms that had difficulty conceptualizing flaws that were rooted, not in political economy, but in institutionalized value hierarchies (^{Fraser, 2002}, p. 9).

In this sense, we are facing a scenario in which inequality -based exclusively on economic status- is increased by difference and heterogeneity.

The aim of this paper, therefore, is to expand the approaches to inequality that have been restricted to perspective of income, and which are usually detrimental for those who experience unequal access to the urban environment due only to cost or time indicators. This purpose aligns with the possibility of a paradigm shift in the field of public policies on mobility, which begins to understand movement as an attribute of cities, where the main objective is not the movement of people (or goods) from one point to another in commercially biased way, but to guarantee balanced access to goods and services for all citizens.

Mobility and Asymmetries: Inequality from the Subjects’ Perspective

Reviewing ^{Vasconcellos' (2001}) argument with the affirmation that the mobility supply -as well as its available possibilities- is a by-product of the specific conditions of the environment, it is it stated once again that the aim of this article is anchored in the construction of public policies intent on addressing this environment of imposed inequalities, focusing especially on the groups most deprived of mobility, as a way to propose an urban environment that includes multiplicities and a profusion of accesses.

This perspective coincides with the adoption of social exclusion³ as an approach to unequal dimensions of mobility. According to ^{Lucas (2012}) studies with this approach have contributed in identifying the internal relationships between key areas of social policy and transportation disadvantages. It must be noted that the interest focuses less on supply per se and more on the consequences of the system in terms of its (in)ability to provide access to the main opportunities for life improvement. Thus, there is a shift from the traditional vision based on the provision of transportation systems to a social policy with a closer look at subjects and their needs, committed to issues of equal opportunities of access to services and to equity outcomes rather than gains in efficiency.

Mobility considered from the perspective of inequalities/disadvantages allows the agents involved in the design of policies to identify that: 1 - it is a multidimensional problem, that is, it can be situated both from within the circumstances of the individual affected as well as by the processes, institutions and structures of society in broader terms; 2 - it is relational, that is, inequality is configured in comparison with the rest of the populations’ other relationships and activities; and 3 - it has a dynamic nature, that is, it changes according to time and space, as well as during the lifetime of the subject or group affected. In these terms, it is a concept that empowers not only the experience of inequality, but also influences the economic and social implications associated with these conditions (^{Lucas, 2012}).

It is also crucial for this field of study to understand that the concept of social exclusion highlights different interactions between causal factors on the part of the individual (age, disability, gender, race), in the local structure (unavailability, inadequacy or failure of public transport service) and in the national and/or global economy (labor market restructuring, cultural influences, migration and institutional frameworks). It thus represents a fruitful alternative for a unique way of conducting mobility policies, as it establishes a relation between this set of aspects and the values, processes, and actions widely used by decision makers and which have systematically excluded certain subjects, groups, or communities from the benefits of their political decisions and practices (^{Lucas, 2012}).

Based primarily on the experience of leading nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom -first nation to introduce the topic in the political agenda (2003) and to raise a growing interest on the part of scholars and policy makers interested in the effects of inequality in relation with transportation systems-, ^{Lucas (2012}) points out that the topic has been gaining widespread prevalence in the academic literature as a global theoretical concept to describe the consequences of mobility inequities. However, from a general perspective, by reviewing a series of innovative empirical studies where different methodologies have been applied to different realities and groups, it is demonstrated that there is a low rate of adoption of the measures among local transport authorities. This fact can be attributed, according to the author, both to the lack of articulation between the structures involved, and to the inadequacy of the public subsidy to transport services, in particular under the new social orientation. Moreover, it reinforces the need to develop inclusive mobility models in the global south, where the majority of the population must endure notoriously precarious transport services and be subject to restrictions as a direct consequence of the lack of access.

Under this logic, through the notions of “Inclusive Mobility” and “Socially Equitable Mobility”, ^{Falavigna et al. (2017a}; ^2017b) present a convincing case that converges with the described scenario, and studies and indicators contextualized to surrounding countries, that may contribute to the field.

According to the authors, the incorporation, in developing countries, of a way of thinking that mainly involves the planning and decision-making processes, is intrinsically related to the activities of international agencies and their influence on the definition of transport projects and financing in this context, of which the World Bank is a clear example. As early as 1986, the publication "Urban Transport: Sector Policy Paper" already questioned the value of capital-intensive projects for the poorer segments, pointing out the losses in the cost-benefit ratio in countries with less resources. However, its strategy discouraged subsidization and focused on efficient administration, and recommended stimulation of competition between private agents and minimal state regulation. In later documents, the agency launched a broader approach, aiming this time at the integration of economic, social, and environmental aspects in a sustainable transport policy. It wasn’t until 2002, that it explicitly links urban and transport strategies and poverty, looking to minimize the disproportionately bad conditions to which the most vulnerable have been subjected to. Finally, in 2008, it declares that transport contributes to the development of cities and countries (^{Falavigna et al., 2017a}).

If, on the one hand, the evolution of the contents tending towards sustainable development suggests a shift away from an explicitly neoliberal agenda, as verified, for instance, in the 1986 document; on the other hand, the logic of competition itself, arising from the same bias, generates adherence to the model, as a way of attracting investment. For some authors (^{Acselrad, 2013}; ^{Martens, 2006}), the new paradigm of urban mobility, constantly linked to the sustainability agenda, has been following the path of two of its pillars -the persistence of the rhetoric of economic development, but including the perspective of environmental preservation - while neglecting a third -that of social justice. Something that reveals that a passive reading of these new approaches -as Falavigna et al. do by disregarding the conflicts inherent to production and placing inclusion as "a condition for cities to become more competitive and have better economic development" (2017a, p. 221) - could omit one interpretation of mobility from the perspective of right to the city and that would constitute a privileged arena for capital, leaving the collective interests in second place.

^{Lucas (2012}), in contrast, argues that in light of the current global crisis, the multidisciplinary field of social research advances. Researchers from geography, urban studies, and other fields are fundamentally questioning the neoliberal agenda, as well as the theories and concepts that support it. According to the author, issues related to social, spatial, and environmental justice have been progressively gaining strength in the debates, calling for a reformulation of the research agendas, from entirely new, radical, and transformative perspectives, capable of subverting a logic for social development from a bygone era.

To this end, she recommends the use of new interdisciplinary theories and methodologically innovative approaches to support a way of planning that can go beyond the ineffective "trickle-down"⁴ models applied until now and is aimed at cities that are more socially just. In other words, the double face of mobility -so intrextricably linked to the determinants of cost and the externalities of the urban system as a whole and which, at the same time, presents itself to us as the way to visibilize those subjects that are hidden in an environment imbricated with dimensions of inequality- demands careful observation of how the impacts of these systems are distributed in society and, in particular, how they affect the chances of accessibility of people.

Social Justice as Analysis Key: The Construction of a Two-dimensional Conception Through Accessibility

In line with the perspective of considering unique research paths exposed in the previous section, ^{Harvey (1980}) provides some contributions. He suggests breaking up with existing trends, where a successful result, and the prevention of its implications has at its origin an interdisciplinary investigation of the social process and aspects of the urban system’s spatial form. Thus, one must above all be aware of the mechanisms that construct inequalities since, according to the author, it is through the detection and control of these instruments that such an objective can be achieved. (Harvey, 1980).

Consequently, summing up the perspectives presented, social justice reveals itself as an interesting reading key to highlight the problems in the field of urban mobility. ^{Pereira et al. (2016}) refer that this is not exactly a new perspective. They argue that, at least since the 1960s, there is work addressing inequality, transportation, and distributive justice. The usual approaches, however, are essentially descriptive, with little if any theoretical reflection on justice -making it difficult to advance responses in a systematic way. Nevertheless, before moving ahead in examining some principles that may support the notion of a socially just distribution of the ways and possibilities of access to the city, which may challenge the distinctions of social, economic, and cultural rights, it is important to offer some interpretations of a third concept not yet explored, but recurrent in this type of literature: accessibility.

^{Vasconcellos (2001}) understands accessibility as an expansion of the traditional notion of the ability to move, to a mobility that allows satisfying needs, i.e., that makes it possible to reach desired destinations. It is a key definition for the analysis of mobility policies in relation to individuals and allows, firstly, to evaluate how their appropriation of city spaces, and secondly, to verify how social, political, and economic differences between classes and groups may influence specific conditions of displacement, pointing, consequently, to the discussion on equity and welfare in contemporary societies (Vasconcellos, 2001).

^{Lemos (2004}), in turn, reports that for transportation engineering, the nature of accessibility involves the potential of opportunity for interaction, made available by the transportation system and land use, as an aid that allows different people, from different realities and characteristics, to carry out their activities. However, he adds, through the multidisciplinary approach, its significance brings to the fore the existing dichotomy between access and barriers, expanding its possibility of interference in the urban environment and in the relations in space. That is, it can express integration, separation, security, leisure, communication, economic and urban centrality, or even be interpreted as a mechanism to define social classes, an expansion vector, and an instrument for growth or stagnation. (Lemos, 2004).

Although the previous contributions place accessibility as a central variable in mobility planning, with a complex content and raising contradictions, they are comprehensive explanations that, still, fall short of shedding any light for analysis or lay out any measures able to alter an unequal scenario.

^{Pereira et al. (2016}), invest in specific research on transportation-related fairness and equity issues and propose, in turn, some complements. Accessibility, for them, stands out as the most promising approach among the three most commonly observed emphases in the literature that studies how transportation inequalities can lead to social constraints and compromise the well-being of individuals.

In this sense, they indicate flaws evinced by the other two key aspects evaluated in the inequality and transportation/mobility relationship. According to the authors, focusing on resource-based disparities can be misleading and partial, since the subjects’ needs, preferences, and abilities are heterogeneous. They indicate that the promotion of certain transportation nodes, for instance, may not result in equity, in the absence of controlled fares or adaptations for people with reduced mobility. They also argue that analyses based on travel behavior inequalities, including differences in trip frequency, travel distances, and travel time, are questionable, since it is not always possible to determine to what extent inequalities are due to private and voluntary choices and preferences, or to restrictions and constraints that are beyond individual control. They also warn that, although this last aspect implies a differentiation that is difficult to calculate using only the data, it is crucial information that has been determinant for the allocation of public investment and subsidies. Thus, they recommend that the observation of differences in accessibility levels be considered as an alternative.

From a justice perspective, accessibility can usefully be conceptualised as the ease with which persons can reach places and opportunities from agiven location and be understood as the outcome of the interplay of characteristics of individuals, the transport system, and land use (Kwan, 1998; Neutens et al., 2010, in ^{Pereira et al., 2016}, p. 8.)

Substantially, some authors in this specific field confirm the need for accessibility, and acknowledge that it is not enough to expand freedom of choice for the people and promote equal opportunities in employment, health, education. Their observations are nevertheless justified since the main objective of mobility policies is precisely to provide access. Even so, whatever circumstances it is adopted in, the guiding ethical perspectives should be clearly laid out, as different justice theories provide different responses to how policies should address accessibility inequalities (^{Pereira et al., 2016}). This provides evidence of the need to identify the moral principles that will guide and justify the distribution, and how shall the benefits and burdens be distributed in a socially just way.

^{Pereira et al. (2016}) argue, based on different theoretical sources, that justice can be understood as a moral ideal related to:

“1) how benefits and burdens are distributed in society (distributive justice); (2) the fairness of processes and procedures of decision and distribution (procedural justice); and (3) the rights and entitlements which should be recognised and enforced.” (^{Pereira et al., 2016}, p. 2)

Equity, according to the authors, is also another concept that can be understood in different ways, including as a certain demand for impartiality, proportionality between costs/efforts in the individual retribution, treating people according to their differences, and the consideration of specific circumstances when facing ethical judgments. Besides, equity is often used in academic literature referring to a broad notion of justice, without a clear distinction between both terms. The authors add that not all inequality is unjust, as some scholars point out, since justice is sometimes recognized by a treatment that differs according to the differences, capable even of limiting certain individual freedoms. They add, finally, that there should be awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality, since the former implies a moral principle, while the latter should only be interpreted as a descriptive term to indicate full equality or sameness. (^{Pereira et al., 2016}).

As noted above, it is important to define the principles and moral standards that the different approaches that have been devoting special attention to distributive issues identify with an adequate model of distribution, whether of opportunities, primary goods, resources, or capabilities. In this sense, ^{Pereira et al. (2016}) provide a brief overview and systematization of some theoretical currents highlighting what they intend to distribute, what guides their distribution, what is their standard of justice and main authors. Among the schools that influence distributive theories, they describe utilitarianism, anchored in increasing well-being; liberalism, in which the center of the liberal ideal rests on the ideas of liberty and autonomy and right; intuitionism, which, unlike these, advocates for a pluralistic, non-universal approach; Rawlsian egalitarianism, comprising two global principles, the first one referring to individual freedoms and rights; the second to a just distribution of basic goods, both marked by the principle of difference favoring the least privileged groups; and finally, the capabilities approach, as a critical strand of the Rawlsian scheme, which suggests that the difference principle should be shifted from primary goods to human capabilities.

There is, therefore, no dominant definition of social justice and, in general, theoretical currents do not integrate spatial conditions, let alone address the distribution or mitigation of other possible subordinates besides income. ^{Harvey (1980}) assesses that a distinction is implicit in this type of approach that considers the force of law based on the affirmation of ethical and absolute principles -a dualism between fact and value, in line with the distinction between methodology and philosophy. On the one hand there is observation, on the other, the values over which moral qualifications are established, generating a reading that affects the understanding of the fact that "concepts of social justice and morality relate to, and stem from, human practice rather than with arguments about the eternal truths to be ascribed to these concepts" (Harvey, 1980, p. 6). Another aspect belonging to the distributive nature that Harvey rejects refers to analyzing the question of distribution separately from production, since for the author they are related to each other, and the equity of one is connected to the efficiency of the other.

Thus, ^{Harvey (1980}) argues that social justice is extremely limited and still insufficient as normative concept in the incorporation of spatial allocation, reduced to a set of principles to resolve conflicting rights arising from the need for cooperation in the pursuit of individual development.

“The principle of Social Justice [...] applies to the division of benefits and the allocation of burdens arising out of the process of undertaking joint work. The principle also relates to the social and institutional arrangements associated with the activity of productino and distribution.” (^{Harvey, 1980}, p. 82).

And it can cover, among others, conflicts from the perspective of power, influence, aspirations of social status, of the institutions intended to regulate and control the activities. To this end, it diverges from the usual mode of analysis and proposes the possibility of an approach associated with a theory of territorial allocation where the principles of social justice are applied to geographical situations, taking into consideration the needs of the population, a spatial organization that provides benefits that, consequently, meet these needs with aggregated results in other territories and, open to deviations in the investment schemes conditioned mostly to the overcoming of specific difficulties in the environment, always under the prerogative of working for the common good.

From another perspective, ^{Fraser (2002}) contributes the point that to the traditional distributive theory’s area of interest, other additional levels of subordination should be added. The author emphasizes a new reflexive consciousness in subjects, consequence of ongoing changes, which manifest an emphasis on identity and difference. She thus posits the imperative of a new understanding of social justice that encompasses a two-dimensional conception of justice, aggregating both the traditional concerns of distributive theory and those recently highlighted by philosophies of recognition.

The overlapping perspectives of ^{Harvey (1980}) and ^{Fraser (2002}) align with the premise of the mobility paradigm established in this paper, of its identification as a social-spatial practice that extrapolates the limits of displacement infrastructures and production structures, and encompasses the subjects’ social, cultural, and subjective dimensions.

It is also important to add a couple of final considerations on how the literature that is addressing issues on distribution with an focus on equity is taking on the traditional theories of justice. ^{Pereira et al. (2016}) consider that this field would benefit from a combined ethical perspective between the Rawlsian approach and the one that considers human capabilities. According to them, accessibility in these cases can be understood in a twofold way, either from a bias that emphasizes opportunities, considering resources; or, on the other hand, from a multidimensional understanding that recognizes the needs and limitations of subjects in making their mobility choices. According to this logic, the observation of accessibility levels can be justified simply as a way to guarantee a minimum level of access to main destinations, as a key basic capacity that allows people to conduct their essential activities.

Moreover, this description is compatible with what ^{Harvey (1980}) suggests in terms of incorporating the spatial condition in the analyses of justice. Accessibility will therefore draw, precisely that spatial dimension from the moral concerns on equity in accessibility -neglected until now by political philosophers. Although this avenue is not sufficient to promote equity of opportunity, it has instrumental importance for the development of new capabilities and freedom of choice that enable people to achieve things they have reason to value (^{Pereira et al., 2016}).