Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
development that strive for generalisations that go beyond the unique. This would make
empirical studies in evolutionary economic geography 'more comparable, transparent
and cumulative', without denying the importance of qualitative studies (see Markusen,
1999). Having said that, we are in need of more sophisticated methodologies that can
cope with the explicit dynamic nature of evolutionary processes in economic geography
(Boschma and Martin, 2007). Many approaches are being pursued to this end, ranging
from case-study research and network analysis, to duration models, simulation methods
and the use of spatial econometrics, depending on the research questions and the data
available (Frenken, 2007). This methodological openness or pluralism may be consid-
ered a strength of evolutionary economic geography, as compared to neoclassical- and
institutional-based approaches (Boschma and Frenken, 2006).
6. Structural change, agglomeration externalities and regional branching
Schumpeter once stated that economic growth is not just about quantitative change,
but also about qualitative change. Long-term economic growth depends on the ability
of countries to create new variety through entrepreneurship and innovation, in order
to of set decline in other parts of the economy. Schumpeter conceived this process of
'creative destruction' as the driving force of economic development. Since the reap-
praisal of Schumpeter's work in the late 1970s, economic geographers have applied these
Schumpeterian ideas on structural change and industrial dynamics to regional develop-
ment in a variety of contexts (e.g. Hall and Preston, 1988; Lambooy, 1984; Marshall,
1987; Norton, 1979; Norton and Rees, 1979; van Duijn and Lambooy, 1982). In the
1980s, there was an almost general consensus among economic geographers that 'new
industries' do not emerge in 'old regions'. Empirical studies showed that new industries
l ourished in new growth regions like the Sunbelt states in the US, the south east in the
UK and Bavaria in Germany, while old and declining sectors were mainly located in
what were once the leading regions in the US (like the Rustbelt) and Europe (like the
North in the UK, and the Ruhr area in Germany). Conventional approaches took a
deterministic view on this, claiming that new sectors had dif erent locational demands,
like quality of life and low (labour) costs, as compared to old sectors. Other approaches
took a more evolutionary perspective, emphasising that it is unpredictable where new
growth industries will emerge and change the economic landscape, because of chance
events in combination with increasing returns (Boschma and Lambooy, 1999; Storper
and Walker, 1989).
The spatial evolution of the economic system at the macro level may be addressed in
a framework of structural change, in which catching-up and falling-behind of regions is
analysed not only in terms of the rise and fall of sectors but also in terms of the rise and
decline of (infrastructure) networks. In this respect, the economic development of cities
and regions can be analysed as an aggregate of sectoral change, and from their (chang-
ing) position in global networks of trade and knowledge. With respect to sectors, cities
and regions that are capable of generating sectors at the start of a product life-cycle
will experience growth, while cities and regions that are locked into mature stages of
life-cycles will experience relative decline. There is no automatic economic or political
mechanism that assures cities or regions will successfully renew themselves in this respect
(Boschma and Frenken, 2006). With respect to networks, the growth of cities and regions
also depends on a city's or region's inclusion in global networks of trade and commerce
