Suchergebnisse

"Economic geographers have always argued that space is key to understanding the economy, that the processes of economic growth and development do not occur uniformly across geographic space, but rather differ in degree and form as between different nations, regions, cities and localities, with major implications for the geographies of wealth and welfare. This was true in the industrial phase of global capitalism, and is no less true in the contemporary era of post-industrial, knowledge-driven global capitalism. Indeed, the marked changes occurring in the structure and operation of the economy, in the sources of wealth creation, in the organisation of the firm, in the nature of work, in the boundaries between market and state, and in the regulation of the socio-economy, have stimulated an unprecedented wave of theoretical, conceptual and empirical enquiry by economic geographers. Even economists, who traditionally have viewed the economy in non-spatial terms, as existing on the head of the proverbial pin, are increasingly recognising the importance of space, place and location to understanding economic growth, technological innovation, competitiveness and globalisation. This collection of previously published work, though containing but a fraction of the huge explosion in research and publication that has occurred over the past two decades, seeks to convey a sense of this exciting phase in the intellectual development of the discipline and its importance in grasping the spatialities of contemporary economic life."--Provided by publisher

AbstractMy aim in this contribution is to respond to the three preceding critiques of my Roepke Lecture on 'Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock‐in to Evolution'. Each critique raises some pertinent and challenging issues: specifically that Marxist regional political economy is a more powerful perspective with which to 'take history seriously'; that I should have given due recognition to the idea of 'punctuated evolution'; and that my attempt to revise and extend the concept of path dependence has ontological problems. I welcome these commentaries, as they contribute to the very debate that my Roepke Lecture was intended to initiate. But I argue that these critiques are themselves contestable, and that none of them undermines the main thrust of that lecture. My aim in the latter was to suggest that we need to widen and revise the concept of path dependence if it is to function as a an evolutionary concept, to set it free from the overly restrictive and conservative interpretation (of 'lock‐in') that it has all too often been given in economic‐geographic applications. I defend that aim here.RésuméCette contribution répond aux trois critiques présentées précédemment sur ma 'Roepke Lecture' intitulée 'Rethinking regional path dependence: Beyond lock‐in to evolution'. Chacune soulève des questions pertinentes et passionnantes, à savoir: l'économie politique régionale marxiste offre une perspective plus efficace pour 'prendre l'histoire au sérieux'; j'aurais dû donner une place à la notion d''évolution ponctuelle'; ma tentative de réexamen et d'extension du concept de sentier de dépendance présente des problèmes ontologiques. Ces commentaires sont bienvenus car ils nourrissent le débat que cette intervention cherchait à susciter. Toutefois, selon moi, ces critiques sont elles‐mêmes contestables et aucune ne compromet les idées‐forces de mon propos. Le but de celui‐ci était de proposer d'élargir et de corriger le concept de sentier de dépendance pour qu'il puisse opérer en tant que concept évolutionniste et pour qu'il s'affranchisse de l'interprétation conventionnelle et trop restrictive (de 'blocage') qui lui a trop souvent été attribuée dans les applications de géographie économique. C'est cet objectif qui est défendu ici.

AbstractRecently, there has been increasing interest in whether and to what extent the spatial agglomeration or concentration of economic activity and employment in particular regions may actually benefit national growth. The implication is that policies that seek to reduce regional economic inequality may in fact be nationally inefficient: in other words, that a policy 'trade‐off' may exist between the pursuit of national growth and the reduction of regional economic disparities. This view has been particularly associated with the so‐called 'new economic geography' models, and seems to be circulating in official policy circles. This paper suggests that neither the theoretical argument nor the empirical evidence for a national efficiency‐regional equity trade‐off are yet convincing, and that until much more research has been undertaken on both fronts policy‐makers should exercise caution in appealing to this supposed trade‐off notion to justify particular policy choices.

Seit 1960 hat sich die Erwerbslosenzahl im Vereinigten Königreich jedes Jahrzehnt verdoppelt. Es wird gezeigt, daß sich regionale Tendenzen der Erwerbslosigkeit in diesem Zeitraum als außerordentlich gleichartig erweisen, und Unterschiede in regionaler Erwerbslosigkeit als außerordentlich hartnäckig. Dieses Fortbestehen, bzw. die Stabilität der Struktur der regionalen Erwerbslosigkeit wird als Gleichgewichtsphänomen aufgefaßt. Der ungewöhnliche Konjunkturrückgang Anfang der neunziger Jahre hat dieses stabile Muster regionaler Ungleichheiten durcheinander gebracht. Es ist noch nicht geklärt, ob dieser Wandel eine vorübergehende Erschütterung darstellt oder ob eine Umstellung auf eine neue Gleichgewichtsgeographie der Erwerbslosigkeit zu erwarten ist. (IAB2)