Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Thus the process of structural change is very much conditioned by existing related activi-
ties in a territory, providing support for spatial path dependence. Nef ke and Svensson
Henning (2009) found evidence that unrelated sectors are more likely to exit the region
than related sectors, while sectors that are related to other sectors in the regional port-
folio are more likely to enter the region, as compared to unrelated sectors. So, regions
might change their industrial proi le over time, but they tend to do so in a slow manner,
and when they diversify, this is rooted in their existing industrial proi le (Nef ke, 2009).
However, this is not to say that every country or region has the same probability to
diversify successfully into related activities. Hausmann and Klinger (2007) found in their
study that rich countries that are specialised in the more dense parts of the product space,
have far greater opportunities to sustain economic growth, as compared to poorer coun-
tries that are positioned in the less dense parts. In conclusion, the historical trajectories
of regions shape the rise and fall of sectors, but are also in turn shaped and transformed
by this process of creative destruction.
More research is needed, but these outcomes suggest that the long-term development
of regions depends on their ability to develop new sectors or new market niches that have
their roots in the current regional knowledge base. It means that regional economies
should branch out in new directions rather than start from scratch when they diversify.
Frenken and Boschma (2007) and Boschma and Frenken (2009b) have suggested that
branching occurs at the regional level because it becomes manifest through knowledge
transfer mechanisms such as spinof activity, i rm diversii cation, labor mobility and
networking, all of which tend to be geographically bounded. This opens up a whole new
research agenda.
7. Postscript: looking ahead
Our aim in this introductory chapter has been to establish the case for, and to map out
the scope of, an evolutionary perspective in economic geography. We would not be so
bold as to claim that this handbook of ers a dei nitive and fully articulated theoretical
and methodological framework for an 'evolutionary economic geography'. After all,
even evolutionary economics, which has been developing in its modern guise for some
three decades or more, has yet to achieve a 'stable shared meaning' (Klaes, 2004).
Nevertheless, it should be clear from our foregoing discussion and survey that the body
of literature exploring, embodying and employing evolutionary metaphors, ideas and
concepts in the analysis of the spatial economy has begun to grow apace, and that some
of the main outlines of what is arguably a new paradigm in economic geography are
already taking shape. The contributions to this topic provide the i rst major collective
statement on the nature and possible future direction of this new paradigm.
The construction of a coherent evolutionary economic geography is very much a 'work
in progress'. Like all new paradigms in their early stages of development, the focus has
been on what we might call 'abduction', that is the creative transfer of metaphors from
one scientii c discourse to another, in the case of evolutionary economic geography the
key metaphors from evolutionary sciences - such as variety, selection, adaptation, and
self-organisation. Used judicially, metaphors can have highly novel and creative ef ects:
they can suggest entirely new ways of approaching the study of a phenomenon, and may
point to all sorts of processes and ef ects not previously considered. The application and
use of evolutionary metaphors in economic geography is having precisely these impacts.
