TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca
Toward a Relational Economic Geography
Harald Bathelt & Johannes Glückler
Version Post-print/accepted manuscript
Citation
(published version)
Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2003). Toward a relational economic
geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 117-144.
Copyright / License
Publisher’s Statement This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted
for publication in Journal of Economic Geography following peer review.
The version of record [Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2003). Toward a
relational economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 117-
144.] is available online at:
http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/117
[doi: 10.1093/
j
e
g
/3.2.117].
How to cite TSpace items
Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track
citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the TSpace version (original manuscript or
accepted manuscript) because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in
addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.
Towards Relational Economic Geography
Harald Bathelt
Faculty of Geography, Philipps-University of Marburg,
Deutschhausstraße 10, D-35037 Marburg, F.R.G.,
E-mail: bathelt@mailer.uni-marburg.de
and
Johannes Glückler
Institute of Economic and Social Geography,
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University of Frankfurt/Main,
Postfach 111932, Dantestraße 9, D-60054 Frankfurt/Main, F.R.G.,
E-mail: glueckler@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Paper Submitted to
Journal of Economic Geography
i
Towards Relational Economic Geography
Abstract. In this paper, we argue that a paradigmatic shift is presently occurring in economic
geography. Based on the particular German tradition in geography, we view this shift as a
second transition in economic geography following the first transition in the late 1960s and
early 1970s from regional description and synthesis (i.e. Länderkunde) to regional science (or
spatial analysis). Our argument starts with a reconstruction of factor-centered thinking in
regional science and systematically unravels limits of this approach. It is shown that this
research fails to provide a deeper understanding of localized economic and social processes.
As a science of the spatial, this approach neglects the real actors in these processes.
Economic agents are capable of creating their own regional environments to support their
goals, based on previous experience. As a consequence, we argue for a need to re-
conceptualize economic geography based upon an integration of both economic and social
theory. A relational view rests on three basic propositions. First, from a structural perspective
economic actors are situated in contexts of social and institutional relations (and material
structures). Second, from a dynamic perspective economic processes are path-dependent to
the extent that future action is constrained by historical development. Third, economic
processes are at the same time contingent in that the agents’ strategies and actions are
fundamentally open-ended and may deviate from existing development paths. Drawing on
Storper’s holy trinity, we define four ions as the basis for analysis in economic geography:
organization, evolution, innovation and interaction. Therein, we employ a particular spatial
perspective; that is, we view economic processes using a geographical lens. Economic
organization and innovation are dependent upon localized institutions which constitute a
common framework for economic interaction along territory-specific, yet contingent
development paths.
Keywords: Economic geography, regional science, relational economic geography, ions of
economic geography. JEL Classifications : B41, B52, D83, L22, Z13.
1
1. Prelude: Multiple ‘Turns’ in Economic Geography?
During the 1990s, a controversial debate has emerged in economic geography and other
social sciences, such as economics and sociology, focusing on the question of what research
program, key focus and methodology a novel economic geography should embody (Perrons,
2001). This was, partially, a reaction to the work of Krugman (1991), Fujita, Krugman and
Venables (2001) and others who claimed to have developed a new economic geography. This
self-proclaimed new economic geography offers an interesting economic perspective on the
conventional problems of spatial distribution and equilibrium, based on an analysis of
increasing returns, transportation costs and other traded interdependencies (Martin and
Sunley, 1996; Bathelt, 2001). Yet it fails to develop a comprehensive research program as a
basis for economic geography because “… the new economic geography ignores almost as
much of the reality they study as old trade theory did” (Krugman, 2000, 50).
1
In following
Martin and Sunley’s (1996) suggestion, this approach is better classified as geographical
economics.
While this literature brings economic geography closer to the core ideas of neoclassical
economics, Amin and Thrift (2000) have recently suggested another fundamentally different
direction for economic geography, capitalizing on concepts and theories from other social
sciences. Amin and Thrift (2000, 4) provocatively claim that economic geography is no
longer able to ‘fire the imagination’ of researchers. Therefore, they ask for a critical reflection
and renewal of this field’s basic goals, concepts and methods. The reactions to their
contribution have stimulated a debate, parts of which have been published in a special issue
1
Berry (2002), one of the great thinkers in regional science, also criticizes the new economic
geographers for their refusal to acknowledge previous academic contributions on similar topics. Further, their
concept of space would be rather limited and partial.
