Common Territory? : Comparing the IMP Approach with Economic Geography

Abstract

The IMP research tradition has always been open to the cross-fertilisation of ideas with other social science disciplines that study similar phenomena. Recent years have seen a growing interest among IMP researchers in phenomena such as regional strategic networks, spatial clusters and innovation and new business development in networks. IMP papers published on these topics are increasingly citing conceptual frameworks and empirical findings from the field of economic geography. This paper discusses the development of IMP thought and the development of thought in economic geography (particularly evolutionary economic geography), and compares their approaches to the analysis of regional phenomena. The goal is to identify key ideas from economic geography that have been under-exploited in IMP research, in order to suggest original new approaches available to IMP researchers interested in these fields. A number of such ideas are explored: proximity as a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted concept; the distinction between, and relative importance of, learning activities arising automatically from being embedded in a community (local or regional buzz) and learning activities arising from positive investment in channels of communication (pipelines); the concept of relational capital developed by economic geographers; and, conceptualisations of externalities commonly used in the study of spatial clusters

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.