Publication

Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models: Taking Geography and History More Seriously

Garretsen, H. & Martin, R., Jun-2010, In : Spatial Economic Analysis. 5, 2, p. 127-160 34 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Garretsen, H., & Martin, R. (2010). Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models: Taking Geography and History More Seriously. Spatial Economic Analysis, 5(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421771003730729

Author

Garretsen, Harry ; Martin, Ron. / Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models : Taking Geography and History More Seriously. In: Spatial Economic Analysis. 2010 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 127-160.

Harvard

Garretsen, H & Martin, R 2010, 'Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models: Taking Geography and History More Seriously' Spatial Economic Analysis, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421771003730729

Standard

Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models : Taking Geography and History More Seriously. / Garretsen, Harry; Martin, Ron.

In: Spatial Economic Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 2, 06.2010, p. 127-160.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Garretsen H, Martin R. Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models: Taking Geography and History More Seriously. Spatial Economic Analysis. 2010 Jun;5(2):127-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421771003730729


BibTeX

@article{1653ddb838514f4d85a4718e3f9f5363,
title = "Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models: Taking Geography and History More Seriously",
abstract = "Two aspects of New Economic Geography models are often singled out for criticism, especially by geographers: the treatment of geography, typically as a pre-given, fixed and highly idealized abstract geometric space; and the treatment of history, typically as 'logical' time (the movement to equilibrium in a model's solution space) rather than real history. In this paper we examine the basis for these criticisms, and explore how far and in what ways NEG models might be made more credible with respect to their representation of geography and history, and particularly whether and to what extent the work of geographers themselves provides some insights in this regard. We argue that the conceptualization of space and time is in fact a challenge for both NEG theorists and economic geographers, and that, notwithstanding their ontological and epistemological differences, both groups would benefit from an interchange of ideas on this front.",
keywords = "New economic geography, proper economic geography, history, geography, INCREASING RETURNS, TRANSPORT COSTS, PATH DEPENDENCE, GREAT-BRITAIN, REGIONAL WAGE, CITY GROWTH, SPACE-TIME, TRADE, AGGLOMERATION, EQUILIBRIUM",
author = "Harry Garretsen and Ron Martin",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1080/17421771003730729",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "127--160",
journal = "Spatial Economic Analysis",
issn = "1742-1772",
publisher = "ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking (New) Economic Geography Models

T2 - Taking Geography and History More Seriously

AU - Garretsen, Harry

AU - Martin, Ron

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Two aspects of New Economic Geography models are often singled out for criticism, especially by geographers: the treatment of geography, typically as a pre-given, fixed and highly idealized abstract geometric space; and the treatment of history, typically as 'logical' time (the movement to equilibrium in a model's solution space) rather than real history. In this paper we examine the basis for these criticisms, and explore how far and in what ways NEG models might be made more credible with respect to their representation of geography and history, and particularly whether and to what extent the work of geographers themselves provides some insights in this regard. We argue that the conceptualization of space and time is in fact a challenge for both NEG theorists and economic geographers, and that, notwithstanding their ontological and epistemological differences, both groups would benefit from an interchange of ideas on this front.

AB - Two aspects of New Economic Geography models are often singled out for criticism, especially by geographers: the treatment of geography, typically as a pre-given, fixed and highly idealized abstract geometric space; and the treatment of history, typically as 'logical' time (the movement to equilibrium in a model's solution space) rather than real history. In this paper we examine the basis for these criticisms, and explore how far and in what ways NEG models might be made more credible with respect to their representation of geography and history, and particularly whether and to what extent the work of geographers themselves provides some insights in this regard. We argue that the conceptualization of space and time is in fact a challenge for both NEG theorists and economic geographers, and that, notwithstanding their ontological and epistemological differences, both groups would benefit from an interchange of ideas on this front.

KW - New economic geography

KW - proper economic geography

KW - history

KW - geography

KW - INCREASING RETURNS

KW - TRANSPORT COSTS

KW - PATH DEPENDENCE

KW - GREAT-BRITAIN

KW - REGIONAL WAGE

KW - CITY GROWTH

KW - SPACE-TIME

KW - TRADE

KW - AGGLOMERATION

KW - EQUILIBRIUM

U2 - 10.1080/17421771003730729

DO - 10.1080/17421771003730729

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 127

EP - 160

JO - Spatial Economic Analysis

JF - Spatial Economic Analysis

SN - 1742-1772

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 5248059