Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
most countries, however, market centres were only one absent feature among a
large number of structural problems.
The significance of growth poles
Two main points thus came into vogue, underlying the whole development
literature during the 1960s and which still play an important role today. First, the
growth impulse is concentrated in single places and single sectors or industries;
and secondly, there is a diffusion process taking the growth out to all other
places. In relation to the economic theories, as developed through Friedmann's
and Perroux's models, and to the use made of them by planners, the whole
concept may be seen as an extension of neo-classical thinking. Development
starting in one place moves out to other places, involving the two basic mobile
factors (labour and capital) moving to correct imbalances which occur through
the original impulse of development (Richardson 1973). Growth pole theory
admits that the complete lack of friction on factor movements between regions is
not a realistic construction, and that there are difficulties, which may be overcome
through the creation of transport infrastructure and new centres in a spatial
pattern away from the main centre.
It is possible to regard the poles idea as relating to Keynesian thinking, with the
central aim being the stimulation of demand in regions of stagnation or decline
(Chisholm 1990). This, however, overlooks the central thinking by Perroux and
his followers, of establishing infrastructural conditions that put the peripheral
region more on a par with the centre, and setting up major industries which will
have strong linkages to other industries of the region. The productive economy,
rather than consumer demand, is the focus.
However, Perroux's ideas are somewhat more complex than portrayed through
the growth pole planning literature. As will be referred to later in this work, the
essential idea by Perroux is not that the poles represent a good way to do
regional planning, but that growth always occurs through a polarized process.
Because of this, it is not balanced, but highly unbalanced, which is what provides
its dynamic strength. As Higgins & Savoie comment (1988:13), “In Perroux's
highly dynamic economy, regional balance never occurs and should not occur”.
Thus regional balance, aimed at through growth pole theory as it evolved, should
not be the aim of regional policy, and strong differences in per capita income,
economic structure and growth should be expected.
For Perroux, dominant firms, sectors and individuals are bound to arise, and
others will be dependent. To seek to counter this will be inefficient and will
hinder development. This runs against the usual use made of his ideas, in
creating balancing poles within poorer regions. Not that Perroux made much
contribution to the study of geographical space, for most of his work was located
in a multidimensional economic or power space. This might or might not be
translated into what he termed “banal” (geographic) space. Another point is his
emphasis on the firm, the
firme motrice,
usually translated as the propulsive
