Economic Geography

Theoretical perspectives
The ways in which economic geographers have approached the study of 
corporate dynamics in the manufacturing sector have reflected wider changes in
economic geography. These wider changes are rather neatly summed up by
Barnes (1999: 17) who notes a move from ‘spatial science and location theory
in late 1950s, behavioural theories of the firm in the late 1960s and structural
Marxism . . . in the 1970s and 1980s’. To which might be added a recognition
of the role of institutions in the 1990s. These four approaches to the study of
large firms tend to be moulded together leading to an eclectic mix of theoretical
perspectives and empirical investigations to inform our understanding of 
corporate dynamics and regional economic change.
Despite the successes of approaches based on spatial science and location
theory (for an early example see Stafford 1960) it became increasingly evident
throughout the 1960s and 1970s that economic geographers could not explain
adequately what was going on in a region without an understanding of the corpo-
rate context in which many of the region’s plants were set. This was recognised by
Manufacturing, corporate dynamics, and regional economic change
199

---

McNee (1960) and developed later, under the leadership of Morgan Thomas,
into what might be called the Washington school of economic geography, of
which the work of Hayter (1976) provides an early exemplar. A ‘geography of
enterprise’ emerged with ideas and concepts, which were new to geography.
Strictly this should have been termed a ‘geography of the corporate enterprise’
since the term ‘geography of enterprise’ might equally well apply to the smaller
and medium sized enterprise.
This recognition of the role of the larger firm in regional systems seems a criti-
cal turning point. It was given further impetus, especially in the United Kingdom,
by those who sought to critique the capitalist firm and the study of large capital-
ist firms became central to political economy approaches to economic geography
(Massey and Meegan 1982). However, the emphases in the two approaches to
the larger firm were rather different. Whereas the political economy approach
focused much attention on macro economic forces driving the firm with relatively
little attention to the details of the corporate response, the geography of enter-
prise approach tended to look in detail at the behaviour of the firm and the ways
in which it chose to respond to the wider macro economic forces. Unlike a SME
which could be pushed and pulled by market forces, the larger enterprise, although
not immune from market forces, was able to plan its spatial configuration and to
use its power to exploit the differences between places.
The concern with larger firms and their characteristics led economic geogra-
phers into the literature of industrial economics and management. Particularly
important was the work of Simon (1955) who argued economic man (sic) 
might be a satisficer rather than an optimiser. This had significant implica-
tions for the understanding of patterns of manufacturing activity. In particular
the idea was developed over a decade later by Pred (1967) who argued that
behavioural approaches would suggest corporate geographies might well be
influenced both by the knowledge available to corporate executives and their
ability to use it.
Whilst these behavioural approaches could be linked back to earlier theories
(for example, Weber 1929) economic geography has more recently moved side-
ways rather than in a cumulative manner. Recent research has been over keen on
‘new turns’ and has not built on what has gone before. It might even be argued
as a topic became more difficult it was abandoned to be replaced by something
that was more fashionable. Indeed, Clarke’s (1996: 284) comment on human
geography as a whole seems to be particularly pertinent, ‘the discipline does not
seem to be flowing in a linear progression at all; rather it appears that we are either
going round in circles or perhaps bifurcating in radically opposed directions’.
This is seen clearly in the ‘new economic geography’ which is a fuzzy concept. To
some this is the ‘cultural turn’ in which economic geographers look closely at issues
of consumption, to others it is the ‘geographical economics’ of Krugman (1995)
whilst to others such as Barnes and Gertler (1999) it is institutional geography.
The small amount of contemporary economic geography which builds on the
research of the 1960s and 1970s relates well to Krugman but it is increasingly
200
H. Doug Watts

---

marginalised within mainstream geography and finds its natural home in
Regional Science. It might be argued that this shift also reflects a rejection of
quantitative analysis in geography as a whole. In graduate schools in the UK, find-
ing economic geographers interested in production rather than consumption can
be difficult and finding economic geographers using quantitative methods is
more difficult still.
The absence of a linear progression in research is a major weakness of
economic geography and it is perhaps a weakness it shares with other aspects of
human geography. It is a weakness that stands out in comparing introductory
texts in economic geography with those of related disciplines such as economics
and sociology. Contemporary economic texts are still happy to teach long estab-
lished supply and demand concepts and contemporary sociology texts include
work from the late nineteenth century. In contrast, modern texts on economic
geography tend to pay little attention to early theoreticians. If my students are
typical of the United Kingdom such writers also seem to have disappeared from
the school syllabus too!! Similarly our extensive knowledge of the factors influ-
encing the choice of location for a branch plant are not often reported in contem-
porary texts, despite their significance for regional development issues. This is not
to argue that contemporary concerns and the ‘cultural turn’ are to be ignored but
they should build more firmly on the rich inheritance of earlier work in economic
geography