Why is Economic Geography not an Evolutionary Science?
Ron A. Boschma & Koen Frenken
Section of Economic Geography & Urban and Regional research centre Utrecht (URU)
Faculty of Geographical Sciences, University of Utrecht
P.O. Box 80115, NL-3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
r.boschma @ geog.uu.nl ; k.frenken @ geog.uu.nl
14 June 2004
Paper prepared for the 44th ERSA Congress, Porto, 25-29 August 2004
Abstract:
This paper explains the main commonalities and differences between neoclassical, institutional and
evolutionary approaches that have been influential in economic geography during the last couple of
decades. For all three approaches, we argue that they are in agreement in some respects and in conflict in
other respects. While explaining to what extent and in what ways the Evolutionary Economic Geography
approach differs from the Neoclassical (or ‘new’) Economic Geography and the Institutional Economic
Geography, we can specify the value-added of economic geography as an evolutionary science. Finally,
we briefly outline a research agenda of the Evolutionary Economic Geography we like to explore.
1. Introduction
Since the ‘Geographical Turn’ in economics (Martin, 1999, 2003), a true Methodenstreit has been
raging in the field of economic geography. Following a seminal contribution by Krugman (1991),
neoclassical economists have entered the field of economic geography (Fujita et al., 1999; Brakman et al.,
2001; Fujita and Thisse, 2002; Puga 2002), yet met harsh resistance from the side of economic
geographers. From the 1980s onwards, economic geography has moved away from traditional economic