Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
is implied by the concept of path dependence. They take issue with Paul David's (2005)
recent talk of 'path dependent equilibrium economics' on the grounds that the notion of
equilibrium is antithetical to that of evolution. The issue is not resolved, in their view,
by David's interpretation of path dependence as the historically contingent selection of,
and eventual lock-in to, one of a number of possible multiple equilibria outcomes or
states. They argue that the case of a technology, industry or regional economy becoming
locked into one of a number of possible multiple equilibrium states may be the exception
rather than the rule, and that we therefore need a more open notion of path dependence
that allows for more or less continuous adaptation and mutation of technologies, indus-
tries and regional economies (see also Martin, 2010b). Such adaptation and mutation
is almost certain to be path dependent in nature, and suggests that development paths
need not ever reach any kind of equilibrium, that such paths can atrophy and decline
over time as a result of endogenous processes (and not because of 'external shocks', as
assumed by David-type path dependence models), and that new paths can emerge out of
existing ones.
Compared to the use of the generalised Darwinian and path dependence approaches,
much less attention has been directed to constructing an evolutionary economic geog-
raphy based on complexity theory. According to Foster (2005), evolutionary biology,
with its focus on selection mechanisms is limited in its applicability to socioeconomic
contexts. For this reason he advocates the exploration of a more morphogenetic perspec-
tive that draws on complexity-theoretic notions. Although this approach has it roots in
a more fundamental physical level of enquiry, namely non-equilibrium thermodynamics,
Foster argues that it of ers a more useful analytical representation of structuration for
those interested in detecting evolutionary change in time series data. As such, Foster
contends, the complexity approach is not used as a metaphor or analogy - as is the case
with the generalised Darwinian perspective - because structuration processes are present
at all levels of scientii c enquiry, including the socioeconomic.
In Chapter 4, Martin and Sunley take up this line of enquiry to explore the idea of the
economic landscape as a complex adaptive system. They identify several key notions of
complexity theory and what is being called the new 'complexity economics' (as cham-
pioned recently by Beinhocker, 2006,
see also Rosser, 2009), and examine whether and
in what ways these ideas can be used to help inform an evolutionary perspective for
understanding the uneven development and transformation of the economic landscape.
Complexity theory deals with open systems subject to constant interaction with their
environments, that are dynamic, typically 'far-from-equilibrium', yet which display inter-
nal order and the emergence of structure (self-organisation). As Martin and Sunley point
out, these notions resonate closely with questions about how the spatial structure of an
economy emerges and changes; about how regional and urban economies rise and fall in
relative prosperity; about why some regional and urban economies appear more adapt-
able and resilient than others over time to shifts in technology, markets, policy regimes
and the like; about why certain industries and technologies develop in particular geo-
graphical areas but not others; and about how the various spatial networks of economic
relationships and l ows form and evolve. In this sense they argue that complexity think-
ing could make a valuable contribution to the construction of an evolutionary economic
geography. But they also express reservations over the increasingly dominant modelling
paradigm associated with complexity analysis in economics, including the functional
