Economic Geography

Back to the future: key challenges for research and policy
What then does this review of economic geographers’ work on Asian capitalism and
their leading business actors (TNCs) mean for future economic-geographical
research? To begin, we still know far too little about the dynamic transformations
of regional economies outside North America and Western Europe. Most
economic-geographical perspectives developed since the quantitative revolution in
the 1960s have been situated in advanced industrialized economies, when at the
same time other social science disciplines have been producing theories based on
empirically-grounded research conducted in the developing world (Yeung and
Lin 2003). This continual ‘missing the boat’ is perhaps one of economic geogra-
phy’s greatest contradictions. As an academic discipline that should be much more
attuned to geographical differences, differentiation, and heterogeneity, economic
geography has failed to deliver its verdict on a wide range of critically important
research issues (e.g. the rise of China and India as economic superpowers). In the
context of this short chapter, I can only outline five of them in order to drive
urgent future research and policy agendas.
First, there is an urgent need to develop new theories that emanate from
grounded research in economies outside North America and Western Europe. 
As a mix blend of hybrid capitalisms, the nature and dynamics of capitalist trans-
formation occurring in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia need to
be much better theorized. Economic geographers should continue to be inter-
ested in firm-level analysis and pay more analytical attention to how business
firms – indigenous and foreign – in these developing economies serve as key capi-
talist agents in bringing about technological change, economic spin-offs, and
employment opportunities. The theoretical challenge to economic geographers
is not so much about applying our existing analytical frameworks to these ‘new’
empirical problems, but rather about how we might develop genuinely grounded
theories that in due course can help us ‘theorize back’ to economic-geographical
problems found in advanced industrialized economies.
Globalizing Asian capitalisms
151

---

Second, there is now a much greater demand for comparative research that
draws upon rich empirical insights into different forms of capitalist imperatives.
In appreciating the manifold complexity of globalization tendencies, economic
geographers can play an active role in the forefront of globalization research by
examining how these global forces are impinging on different geographical realities
at the same time (cf. Dicken 2004). This deep-seated concern for geographical
differences and differentiation can only be accomplished in research terms
through sustained comparative analysis. Whether we are concerned with industrial
location, resource extraction, or business headquarters, we can always build in
comparative analysis of how the same economic phenomenon works out differently
in different geographical settings. In doing so, we can also develop better-grounded
theories that account for these geographical differences.
Third, this chapter has clearly shown that economic geography might not seem
to have a lot to offer on the globalization of Asian capitalism, a research topic that
takes up some significant research efforts among political economists, sociologists
and development scholars. While we may not feel comfortable to build alliances
with conventional neoclassical economics (Amin and Thrift 2000), we should be
prepared to establish more ‘joint ventures’ with such friendly disciplines as economic
sociology, international political economy, comparative management, and so on
that are analytically concerned with integral relations between economy and 
society. In building alliances with these interested disciplines, we should take care
in maintaining the intellectual integrity of economic-geographical research. Too
often an economic-geographical study may be accused for being sociological,
political, or economic. In participating in multi-disciplinary initiatives, economic
geographers must bring to the research table some useful analytical tools that 
are uniquely geographical, e.g. space, place, and scale. Without losing sight of 
our disciplinary identity, we do have something insightful to say about economic
processes and institutions in the global economy.
Fourth and on the policy front, we can offer some useful suggestions for policy
formulation in the context of reshaping Asian capitalism. Precisely because we
focus on dynamics of change and adjustment, economic geography has much to
inform the ongoing process of economic reform. Our appreciation of the complex
interconnections of economic processes across different spatial scales allows us to
offer policy suggestions that focus not just on national problems, but also on how
economic issues are deeply spatial in their manifestation. While Asian business
systems might be changing in the context of contemporary economic globaliza-
tion, we can offer suggestions on economic policies that help to retain some cultur-
ally specific practices. Arguing against a wholesale adoption of ‘global’ standards
of economic governance, we can make policy suggestions on economic reform
that are much more attuned to local specificity and differentiation. One good
example is the imposition of standard international accounting practice on Asian
firms irrespective of their nature and organization. While greater transparency is
generally good for global investors, it is important to understand the competi-
tive dynamics of certain industries in Asia that might have a strong strategic
outlook. This practice for greater transparency should be seen as an ideal state to
152
Henry Wai-Chung Yeung

---

Globalizing Asian capitalisms
153
be achieved gradually rather than an immediate task about sorting out the messy
reality of Asian business.
Lastly, there are many useful policy implications for the future of globalizing
Asian firms that economic geographers might offer. In particular, the unique
trajectory to globalization charted by these Asian firms shows that there are
indeed many ways to globalize (see Mathews 2002). There is no single market
that automatically balances and arbitrages the demand and supply of globalization
opportunities. In enhancing their firm-specific competitive strengths, many Asian
firms do not necessarily need to rely on market-based mechanisms. Instead, the
road to global competition and success is highly uneven and sometimes utterly
unfair. This calls for selective and strategic intervention in the globalization 
trajectories of Asian firms by other capitalist institutions such as the state and 
non-state actors. This policy implication may not make sense in the context of 
the ‘Washington consensus’. But in this world of neoliberal globalization, we can
be sure that the condition of perfect market competition will never be satisfied and
thus each firm and each economy needs to find its own way to economic prosperity
and development. Ultimately, this process of economic development is necessarily
different and uneven geographically.