Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Spatial development
For geographers, a question with regard to development must always be whether
they hold some special key that could be used to plan development formally and
which would help regions. Spatial planning reached its apogee in the 1960s, as
an interpretation of Perroux's work, and this approach was found to be wanting
both in theory and practice (Ch. 2). In effect, it was a misinterpretation which was
made, and Perroux's central point was missed. This had been that polarization,
concentration on single points, is a universally observable phenomenon, and a
beneficial one, although not a planning doctrine. Rather than encase
development in a spatial straitjacket, the need for geographers and others was,
and remains, to understand the polarization process in space, and perhaps to be
able to anticipate it.
In other words, there are spatial patterns, and they are worth observing and
taking into account. But to set up spatial patterns as a separate exercise, and
plant economic activities within them, is fraught with dangers because of the
complexity of spatial phenomena, and the results show that such an approach is
unworkable. Instead, there is value in observing, at various scales, the spatial
patterns and their dynamic; at the international level, the spread of the
development idea amongst the East Asian countries is one large-scale pattern. At
a national level, there are the patterns observable over time and space in any
country, made up of a multiple overlay of past geographies, to be set beside
current economic activities. At the urban and regional level, there are the
relations between urban industrial and service concentrations, and the activities
in the surrounding countryside.
Key factors in development
Many writers have made their primary focus the identification of the key factor,
the basic cause that has permitted some countries to progress more than others.
This topic has not attempted to join in the debate, but it is worth noting where we
stand following the discussion in previous chapters. Classical economics
considered only three factors in production: land, labour and capital. This was
simple enough and made simpler by considering the factors in a more or less
standardized fashion. In the eighteenth century Adam Smith, and following him,
Ricardo in the nineteenth century, had considered agriculture, or land, to be of
fundamental importance for the increase of wealth (Chisholm 1980, 1982). Later
in the century, more attention was given to the factor of capital, seen by both
Marx and by the writers who supported capitalism as the key; labour was also
acknowledged to be important. However, this was usually undifferentiated
labour, taking no cognizance of special skills or abilities (i.e. the quality of
labour).
In the present century, writers such as Schumpeter (1939) have called
attention to the role of technological innovation. Those regions and industries
