Economic Geography

Research agenda
It seems reasonable to argue for a return to a close interest in the role of the large
multi-regional firms in the creation and maintenance of regional economic
systems. It is a challenge that needs to be met. Any research agenda is inevitably
personal but three themes seem particularly important if we are to increase our
understanding of corporate dynamics, job opportunities and regional economic
change.
Although unfashionable, it now seems vital that we revisit some of the older
questions using our greater conceptual awareness and new methodological tools.
This seems particularly important as many of the illustrations we are able to give
of particular important processes at work are now 20 or 30 years old. Are the
patterns we analysed then still in existence today? Are they explained by the same
factors? A high priority should be placed on studies that replicate those completed
some years ago. This will, of course, contribute to a further development of
knowledge which as was noted earlier is particularly lacking in economic geography
204
H. Doug Watts

---

where we seem to be tempted to move on to new problems rather than explore
older ones in greater depth.
We should also pick up on unresolved questions from the past. One example will
illustrate this point. Studies of branch plant location indicated a marked distance
decay effect whereby most firms established new branch plants a short distance
from their existing operations and few firms established branch plants a long
distance from their established operations. Why does this distance decay effect
occur? Why does it vary between different origin regions? Although there have
been speculations as to why this occurs, it does seem a careful and rigorous analy-
sis is still required. Further, levels of explanation in multiple regression analyses
of branch plant movements have tended to be low suggesting there is much more
to learn in this field. This area too is of major significance because ‘mobile’ jobs
remain very attractive to policymakers whose place marketing is used to lure into
their regions greenfield investments by major firms.
Although we have a good basic knowledge of plant openings and closing 
by large firms (although as noted above these are capable of refinement) much
less is known about the activity renewal at specific sites which a firm retains. 
The rapidly growing interest in ‘repeat investment’ deserves very strong encour-
agement. As Phelps and Fuller (2000: 225) observe ‘questions regarding . . .
(intracorporate) . . . competition are . . . central to an understanding of contem-
porary industrial restrucuturing, regional development and policy, yet to date
little academic work has addressed itself explicitly to such questions’. Answers to 
such questions will provide further understanding of the ways in which large
multi-regional firms create, maintain or destroy job opportunities in particular
places.
Conclusion
In my fourth decade as a researcher into corporate dynamics and industrial
change it seems reasonable to conclude that although our knowledge has
advanced significantly since the early 1960s there are still exciting ways in which
our research can move forward, especially if it builds on what has gone before.
However, we need to recognise economic geography is not simply about the
economic factors influencing regional economic change but that it also needs to
consider the impact of social, cultural and political factors in influencing such
change.