Economic Geography

Theory vs interpretation
Influenced by feminist and post-structural philosophies, advocates of both the
cultural turn and feminism have been highly critical of economic geography
under the influence of either economics or Marxian political economy (Barnes
1996). In their view, these approaches make the mistake of believing in 
the chimerical possibility that a theory can be developed to explain much of the 
capitalist space economy. Notwithstanding profound differences of theory and
interpretation, both approaches envision a foolproof method through which
such theories can be constructed. In addition, both are overly economistic, reduc-
ing social processes to economic processes of production, distribution, exchange
and consumption. By contrast, geographical economists and political economists
regard the cultural turn and feminist approaches as unwilling to examine the
larger picture, overly optimistic about the possibilities associated with non-
capitalist economic practices, and overly focused on individual case studies
(Harvey 1996; Overman 2004). Scott (2004: 491) complains: ‘quite apart from
its dysfunctional depreciation of the role of economic forces . . . , the cultural turn
also opens the door to a disconcerting strain of philosophical idealism and politi-
cal voluntarism’.
Geography vs economics
Once location theory fell out of fashion in favor of critical economic geography,
geographers and economists have taken very different approaches to economic
geography (compare, for example, the essays in Clark et al. 2000). For geograph-
ical economists, spatial economic structures are theorized as equilibrium outcomes
of rational choices made by individual human agents. Microeconomic theory is
paramount; economic value (marginal utility or productivity) is determined 
by market prices; production is the instantaneous conversion of inputs into
outputs; livelihood possibilities are equated with income and wealth; geography
is generally taken to be a given spatial structure and natural environment; and
market mechanisms tendentially organize the space economy in a socially benefi-
cial manner (with intervention necessary in the presence of market failure).
Epistemologically, theories are evaluated on the basis of their ability to account
for a given set of observations, and their logical (Aristotelian) rigor. For (critical)
economic geographers, the capitalist economy is in a perpetual state of disequi-
librium and conflict. Individual actions are constrained by (socially constructed)
structures, and agents’ class, gender and other social locations; capitalist
economic processes cannot be separated from, and are embedded in and shaped
by the social, political and cultural context; livelihood possibilities cannot be
reduced to economic measures, since difference (local conceptions of the good
life) must be taken into account (and cannot be reduced to preference func-
tions); space and nature are shaped by, as well as shape, social processes; and 
capitalist competition tendentially reinforces geographically and socially unequal
livelihood possibilities (markets are a source of social tension, not harmony).
The economic geography project
19

---

Epistemologically, observations are taken to be theory-laden, and thus cannot 
be used as an independent measure of a theory’s validity. By the same token,
Aristotelian (mathematically deductive) logic is too narrow a framework for
theory construction, as it cannot encompass dialectical mechanisms or differ-
ence. Whereas geographical economists seek to use their insights to offer policy
advice so that capitalism’s stakeholders can reduce the negative effects of market
failure, economic geographers, while also offering short-term policy advice, in
addition envision alternative economic systems with more emancipatory poten-
tial, and seek to work with marginalized members of civil society to realize such
alternatives on the ground.
These differences have resulted in widespread mutual criticism. Thus economic
geographers dismiss geographical economics, and often Economics in general, as
overly simplistic, as pro-market, and as far too narrow – as reducing everything
to economic processes. Thus Amin and Thrift (2000: 5) argue that economic
geographers should ‘abandon mainstream “formal” economics and take up with
those pursuing economic knowledges outside economics’. Geographical econo-
mists argue that economic geographers are too negative about capitalism, lack
rigor in their theoretical and empirical research, and should leave the big theo-
retical issues to Economics. Thus Overman (2004: 513) suggests that geogra-
phers most useful role in the division of economic geography scholarship is to
contribute ‘[g]ood, careful case studies’.