Economic Geography

Conclusions
Economic geography is now characterised by a plethora of sometimes compet-
ing, sometimes complementary, sometimes simply indifferent to one another,
theoretical positions. This is both exciting and testimony to the intellectual
vigour of economic geography. However, it is also potentially confusing, espe-
cially for those seeking to pick their way through these entangled positions as
they are grounded in different assumptions as to what is important, what matters
and what economic geography ought to be – and it is important to keep in mind
this normative dimension. To some extent, the developmental trajectory of
economic geography can itself be understood in terms of instituted behaviour
and path dependent development, with what was once seen as new becoming
seen as old and with the (allegedly) new sometimes involving a re-discovery and
re-invention of the old. However, the end-product of this complex and emergent
process is a heterodox and multiply theoretical economic geography, which
certainly accommodates a wide variety of viewpoints and provides the arena for
vigorous discussion as to their varying merits. 
How should we explain this complex trajectory and proliferation of co-existing
theoretical positions? In short, we can identify three sorts of reasons. First, 
a genuine concern with the explanatory limitations of particular theoretical 
positions, arising from the perception of conceptual lacunae within them and an
exploration of other theoretical positions that allow these perceived weaknesses
to be better addressed. Second, the impacts of generational disciplinary sociolo-
gies, as newly qualified economic geographers felt the need to carve out and
define their own intellectual territory, to ‘do something different’ from the exist-
ing orthodoxies. This is neither surprising nor necessarily unwelcome. After 
all, the engagement of differing and conflicting ideas is what drives forward under-
standing and theory, as long as – and this is a key caveat – this is not simply a fash-
ion effect and change for the sake of change. Third, there were the effects of
political correctness and ‘insidious careerism’ (Walker 1989: 151), which were