No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
It is now more than two decades since the idea of adopting evolutionary ideas in economic geography was first mooted (Rigby and Essletzbichler, 1997; Boschma and Lambooy, 1999). Since then, the paradigm has developed significantly, both theoretically and empirically (for some useful surveys, see, for example, Boschma and Frenken, 2006, 2018; MacKinnon et al., 2009; Boschma and Martin, 2010; Kogler, 2015; Pike et al., 2016; Henning, 2022; Martin and Sunley, 2023). Whether or not the paradigm of evolutionary economic geography (EEG) can be said to have yet reached ‘middle age’, it is certainly the case that its first flush of youth is now past. It is perhaps germane, therefore, to reflect on what has been achieved, and what remains to be done. A key question is whether the theoretical and empirical scope of EEG needs adjusting so that it is (better) suited to help understand the upheavals, crises and transformations that confront contemporary capitalism and its spatial configurations, and what those adjustments should be. For the simple fact is that the circumstances under which geographers began to explore the relevance of evolutionary ideas and concepts for explaining change in economic landscapes have themselves changed dramatically. Since the beginning of the 21st century (if not before) the pace, nature and direction of capitalist economic development have been undergoing immense change: we seem to have entered a new age in which more or less continuous and momentous disruption is the ‘new normal’, what some even refer to as a permanent state of ‘polycrisis’ (Tooze, 2022; World Economic Forum, 2023). The list of upheavals that have combined and mutually reinforced one another is now well rehearsed—climate change, trade conflict (especially between the USA and China), financial crises (in 2008, and now again in 2023), the energy price crisis, demographic ageing, biodiversity loss, the accelerating artificial intelligence revolution, widespread distrust in democratic institutions and the rise of populisms of different kinds, increasing geopolitical tensions (especially Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the COVID pandemic and its after-effects, and the growth in social inequality. All of these are impacting differentially not only across nations, but also across the regions and cities within them. Do these ‘new realities’ require revisions and recalibrations of our concepts and theories, or are our existing explanatory frameworks entirely capable of grasping those realities? This question applies to all of our theoretical frameworks and perspectives, including EEG. Thus far, the main line of enquiry in EEG has been on industrial and technological aspects of regional economic evolution. More recently, the focus has also shifted downwards to the micro-level of individual firms or technologies. There has been much less attention, however, to such issues as social inequalities, the public sector or to political institutions, especially the state. Equally, there has been less attention on the ‘big processes’, ‘climacteric crises’ and ‘mega-trends’ that are arguably the key drivers of uneven regional and city development in the contemporary era. These are all topics in the analysis and understanding of which EEG can potentially contribute, though arguably by expanding its theoretical foundations and its empirical remit. The various articles in this themed issue of the journal are, in their various ways, directed to this challenge. But what is distinctive about EEG that makes it potentially valuable as a paradigm for interrogating the contemporary upheavals in global capitalism? Defining EEG is by no means a straightforward task (see Boschma and Martin, 2010; Kogler, 2015; Martin and Sunley, 2023). Even in evolutionary economics, there is a plethora of self-declared approaches—what Dopfer and Potts (2004, 195) termed a ‘massive hybridisation of theory’. To some extent, evolutionary economic geographers face a still developing corpus of ideas. However, the principal guiding focus is on understanding how the spatial configurations of economic activity and materiality, all Boschma and Martin the of EEG is by which the economic spatial of economic and within to this idea by that as the spatial of economic activity and this can in and the that that evolution. the of economic landscapes can be by that are and and by those that are and and of by the between the then, is the of the a of It has as and of and economic But it can also be in a as a to evolutionary concepts and more within economic geography more and Sunley, It should certainly be that within economic geography there is a of the of and regional especially within by and there is the for of ideas and between EEG and these within economic geography (see MacKinnon et al., 2009; Martin and Sunley, 2015; et al., 2023). of however, is to it as a of and still to evolutionary economics, that which on a of economic that the spatial (see 2023). another be to EEG as economic EEG a of concepts for the spatial aspects of economic and economic and to and within EEG (see Martin and Sunley, 2022; Martin et al., These different are not The the in which one the of and in economic (see also Martin and Sunley, 2022; and 2023), and also the of different in the of EEG have its question to the and of economic activity and a of different theoretical and a of empirical the of within EEG has It seem to EEG as a of concepts and ideas and Sunley, A key therefore, is whether there should and can be a theoretical to EEG to more and to its ideas and empirical evolutionary as and that or the for evolutionary on the The is that the key of and can a of (see for example, and The of this to such as economics, on and require and in to the economic of and in evolutionary evolutionary of evolutionary was is by evolutionary and evolutionary economic the in and of the relevance of as a of and ideas in evolutionary seem not to that even within evolutionary the has been and and Sunley, However, some evolutionary have the of frameworks on and (for example, and and is to the economic as is to it as economic and the of their and it is those that the for and change and Martin and EEG is and that it is how a spatial of economic activity and has to be what it that how it was and Sunley, EEG needs to attention to the of capitalist to the fact that different of economic change different different and different To EEG has on change, and less on crises and such ‘big have on the spatial configurations and of economic the fact that we are in another of these and this theoretical and empirical within EEG ‘big or of evolutionary to economic geography can be which can be as of and across these are some key that are to evolutionary (see all of the frameworks in have the attention, and within there scope for and For example, in of by the focus has been on the of (see Martin and Sunley, 2006, for a of this and much less on analysis and such ideas which the of case and of and of economic evolution. and and of and of economic evolution. and and key of EEG. of new a key in evolutionary it a in EEG. it is this that has by the attention in The of to have a of of EEG et al., and is as the of all of regional economic change, to and technological to This focus on is not not only are there issues as to how should be and its on what or are and on whether and is more than and and technological is not but also a what to and there is much more to the of and how new of regional economic development are and than can be by The scope for expanding on a to EEG. the by and and 2009; et al., the idea of in EEG has been that of what be that on the and of the configurations of or within and between individual regions and This of is to that of The is that the is and of a regional the more and the be. has even as as to of economic and and regional in economic and a is some economic as a ‘new in EEG et al., But regional in of their is not the as as The regional as by and and of (see Martin and Sunley, also 2023). This is of EEG much to be yet which again seem of relevance a of to and regional the of has not the attention it is the by which the and of a are but are not the and of micro-level (see the such on the micro-level Thus is not to the of economic but to the within which such on the of economic landscapes or simple the and the Economic landscapes are by and of for example, to to to cities (see Martin and Sunley, these the individual of and to those is a of evolutionary the or of EEG is to how city and regional The of in this is but it have to the of a or and to well to the and in which and the by which such is All of the in on these two The of different regions and cities their development are some regions and cities more than in to economic and the more of some regions and cities the of to the idea of combined and uneven regional These of to the of evolutionary to economic also have for cities and regions to the new of economic development on and artificial intelligence certainly be are to a The upheavals to including change, financial demographic ageing, geopolitical the pandemic and social have a in the of institutions and the state. However, the has to some to a that issues the and as such than in their for et al., This of less than the transformations that are that only to for example, the industrial and and of as in the et al., the of artificial across industrial and the public in but to economic and social more to and to that are that are and that these transformations not in a of the which is on a more and of the state than has been for example, as and EEG has been in what should it still evolutionary of the state. under evolutionary needs to be not only a but also a one that and themselves as evolutionary to this is to in and much of the evolutionary and also in there is that is and evolutionary as by a to the by a of the evolutionary of and in and political to are by and that the between ideas and to to the of some and the of is also to and and potentially the of for The of as in has been in EEG see, for example, et al., of are in how or to of economic and regional This our to understand the the state in new et al., et al., 2023). A understanding of and a more understanding of the for to regions within et the focus in EEG on the of the has to of regional and a to the between and and (see also MacKinnon et al., 2009; et al., evolutionary a of and including of the of that have to and the of and or by are still more by the fact that are themselves of the that are to and and A key is to EEG should not the of and but the of this and and the and and about the and such as and economic has a in the for in and et al., to industrial and and to and and have for a more of the of and including these however, aspects of economic are not This is that the EEG paradigm how the of have about and to and as such the that or configurations of economic activity and to one EEG and has been is in regional The regional has been in regions as a for the and of regional et al., et al., More recently, this in EEG has been a by in the This a of in which on are key for regional economic the idea is to new of in regions that and their and these be in EEG is still especially it industrial and regions and institutions et al., which themselves in or to of such a Economic has been as a for less developed regions to but how the of and by evolutionary economic growth in regions by and a of that potentially change, is again the has only began to and Kogler, of the main in this is to what can and evolutionary and transformations more development are in the and economic of a and are to change in the paradigm by or in for example, the by the the and et al., rise to to and economic on that are to For in regions is in even those on which that some of and economic is for 2016; et al., et al., have also been in to the of regions to to the the is and the of regions to However, there is still understanding of how that the of there is increasing of the of regional to key or technological et al., 2022; et al., et al., 2023). and political et al., that new and change and and have been to a of change in that across by and of and A understanding is of these of change are, the of and and their of the in various spatial All of that of on the of public institutions to and and There is also a in EEG to that require on that by across and such as and a focus on the and change key and and This the a focus on that EEG in the of et al., 2023). A main focus of is on and between different as the and of have been in the especially in on and (for example, et al., and 2016; and et al., as well as the of (for example, and but are for it to useful to and we EEG in to the issue of are to a of capitalism that has the on the of firms on a which has of the for This has for the to which are to to of economic the one it has especially to that have on or social especially in developing and a this was to on the idea that economic growth and also to their However, in this has not been have that some of are shifted to et al., 2023), that of to their on and the for example, of are more and and in a of so as to their in that their for example, a valuable are which to on public this as to whether EEG has so developed a theoretical to or understand this is the such as or to the of Do we or theoretical in the to these To these we should first as et al., that social or in that or individual and that in or individual example, of and and of we should that are not or we that firms et al., and that be more the than the on including the firms et al., 2023). the micro-level the development of industrial regions and which can in (for example, growth and in economic is now for a of and social its are for the of in developing also for their et al., micro-level are to such as the of capitalism in a and as well as to the of institutions that are to or by or and these as key of a new understanding of economic we for a of the EEG theoretical to that it is to these and the that to development within and across not some of its are to EEG is to in and their as the of the to and and that in their the of a than and It has these to as development increasing on of including as or are and in EEG on micro-level such as as well as on a more on of capitalism and the in is the of that are to or and which means that a between the to and the to a et al., 2023). that have a for and which that is state which to This is by the in to the of by the a of or of the which to the of the activity and of its and The of is one of the are and not and the of is also not on individual but it has a and which by or to as therefore, This is for regional or (for example, as some can development A of is the of in the to the global financial crisis, the of to that on global in and the of the and on the of and the The that uneven as the of by to the of the More than decades of financial this by EEG of one of the which one can understand such and some are more than to face development EEG has to how can as some are more et al., However, there is still to this to development than the have as a to some firms are more to to and et al., 2023), has been to of as a especially are the in et al., a of the theoretical to and is the scope of this we that EEG its theoretical in to be to our understanding of the of there is scope for EEG to this of by how of capitalism even more of and are the of to in has that by the of a for and However, or different of state capitalism et al., also to the of their institutions and to the political between economic and political more how contemporary of and their the of development regional and to be both and The of the theoretical of EEG the in the to it more to the key transformations of a of the The of is to a and of the or of the of its main and how these are and how and therefore, paradigm or is on of some even that is or There are, no some evolutionary economic geographers that of are to be and it is to focus on empirical of that EEG is what evolutionary economic geographers are This is not The topics be by of how the empirical only on in of a of what is on in the The in EEG and the micro-level and which are by and These rise are in such as the or of or in a or the or of to this in a of ways, so it a more for and the economic not a of this but we to aspects of such the should a of development within The and of a is by in not only in the technological and industrial but also in aspects of the regional such as the and the of various of and of in different of a the or this has been within a of articles that have the concepts of development and in regional economic (see for example, et al., MacKinnon et al., and These articles the different of within and across various and these to how the of a (see Martin and Sunley, Martin, and of within various in a between and new and the of new growth in regional (for example, et al., and Kogler, More and in the of and and and in technological development (for example, and et al., et al., within and a and by key in the and public which the development of new (for example, MacKinnon et al., and a within a as of which also a new growth for the require and financial in (for example, MacKinnon et al., et al., and of to of in the and a distinctive (for example, of which the and growth of new and on a to the fact that only new economic or are to a that on (for example, and et al., or there is a of the that is and which to a regional that can (for example, of within a or that adjustments and (for example, et al., 2010; growth and between and which in the of and for the within existing or the of for example, or and and 2010; Martin, 2010; and and in in which only of are and of for and new and in which more and more are to a of even though this has so been to no even in in to the of that of or to between and new and the of new growth in regional (for example, et al., and Kogler, More and in the of and and and in technological development (for example, and et al., et al., within and a and by key in the and public which the development of new (for example, MacKinnon et al., and a within a as of which also a new growth for the require and financial in (for example, MacKinnon et al., et al., and of to of in the and a distinctive (for example, of which the and growth of new and on a to the fact that only new economic or are to a that on (for example, and et al., or there is a of the that is and which to a regional that can (for example, of within a or that adjustments and (for example, et al., 2010; growth and between and which in the of and for the within existing or the of for example, or and and 2010; Martin, 2010; and and in in which only of are and of for and new and in which more and more are to a of even though this has so been to no even in in to the of that of or to and and of within various in a between and new and the of new growth in regional (for example, et al., and Kogler, More and in the of and and and in technological development (for example, and et al., et al., within and a and by key in the and public which the development of new (for example, MacKinnon et al., and a within a as of which also a new growth for the require and financial in (for example, MacKinnon et al., et al., and of to of in the and a distinctive (for example, of which the and growth of new and on a to the fact that only new economic or are to a that on (for example, and et al., or there is a of the that is and which to a regional that can (for example, of within a or that adjustments and (for example, et al., 2010; growth and between and which in the of and for the within existing or the of for example, or and and 2010; Martin, 2010; and and in in which only of are and of for and new and in which more and more are to a of even though this has so been to no even in in to the of that of or to between and new and the of new growth in regional (for example, et al., and Kogler, More and in the of and and and in technological development
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.