Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
and Knudsen, 2006), but changes occurring through self-transformation or develop-
ment will have to be included as well (Foster and Metcalfe, 2001).
2.
The principle of self-organization, i.e. the emergence of patterns through interaction
between entities that cannot be reduced to properties of those entities, holds much
potential for explaining evolutionary processes not only in social and cultural but
also in biological systems (Depew and Weber, 1995, 1996; Foster, 1997, 2000, 2001;
Kauf man, 1993). However, it is unclear whether the principle of self-organization
can be accommodated within the framework of generalized Darwinism, although
a synthesis of the two frameworks appears possible and even necessary (Depew
and Weber, 1995, 1996; Foster and Metcalfe, 2001; Hodgson and Knudsen, 2006;
Kauf man, 1993; Metcalfe, 2005). Self-organization can explain how order may
emerge from interacting agents 'but itself it explains neither (a) the characteristics
of the agents that interact to create the emergent order, (b) how the emergent order
reacts to competing social orders, nor (c) more generally how an emergent order
adapts and survives in the broader social and natural environment' (Hodgson and
Knudsen, 2006; p. 9). The principles of self-organization and selection appear thus
complementary rather than contradictory.
3.
Within the evolutionary framework more squarely, it is still unclear whether i rms
are the most appropriate unit of selection within the economy. 1 Further, we do not
really know the characteristics of those units that are most critical in terms of selec-
tion, nor how the pressure of selection shifts as i rms and industries mature.
4.
Additional work is also required to understand the interaction between individual
units in populations of interest and the 'environment' that they shape and within
which they evolve. For example, what evolutionary processes give rise to path
dependence, why do some emergent properties of systems get 'locked-in' for shorter
or longer periods, and through precisely what mechanisms is such stability main-
tained and how is it overturned?
3. Generalized Darwinism and evolutionary economic geography
While economic geographers frequently employ evolutionary concepts and metaphors such
as routines, path-dependence, lock-in, and co-evolution in a descriptive manner (Barnes,
1997), recent work attempts to ground an evolutionary economic geography on more solid
theoretical foundations (Essletzbichler and Rigby, 2007; Frenken, 2006; Frenken and
Boschma, 2007; Martin and Sunley, 2006, 2007). In this section of the chapter we outline
the conceptual foundations of an evolutionary approach to regional uneven development.
Our aim is to reveal the utility of the core principles of generalized Darwinism within the
domain of economic geography. We do not insist that evolutionary arguments in general
and those based on an abstract model of generalized Darwinism are necessarily the most
useful for the study of regional economic dynamics, merely that they provide a dif erent
perspective that of ers novel insights. We do believe that an evolutionary framework has
considerably more to of er than a few descriptive metaphors. In the limited space avail-
able, we cannot hope to provide a fully l edged evolutionary model of economic dynamics
in space. Rather, we seek to provide a general introduction to the role of variety, selection
and continuity in shaping economic dynamics, the way that these processes are inl uenced
by space, and in turn inl uence the evolution of regional economies.
The basic concepts of an evolutionary understanding of economic change were
Search WWH ::




Custom Search