analysis and has transformed into a more interdisciplinary approach using insights from social, cultural
and political sciences. This turn has also been characterised by the ‘Cultural Turn’ (Amin and Thrift,
2000; Barnes, 2001) or the ‘Institutional Turn’ (Martin, 2000) in economic geography. A similar
institutionalist approach exists in economics (Hodgson, 1998), yet by far not gained the support within the
community of economists as it did within the community of geographers. Neoclassical economists
renewing their interest in geography while geographers moving away from economics, the debate between
economists and geographers has been little fruitful, and is probably best characterised by a ‘dialogue
between the deaf’ (Martin, 2003).
Evolutionary economics as a third approach, has, however, hardly drawn attention in economic
geography. Although it is noticeable that, to an increasing extent, lip service is paid to evolutionary
thinking and concepts (Storper, 1997; Cooke and Morgan, 1998; Boschma and Lambooy, 1999; Martin,
1999; Sjoberg and Sjoholm, 2002), there are few systematic attempts to apply evolutionary economics
into the realm of economic geography. As Martin (2003) puts it, within the context of economic
geography, evolutionary economics “has yet to crystallize into a coherent body of theory and empirics” (p.
14). It is even fair to say that evolutionary economists themselves have been somewhat more active in
linking evolutionary economics with geographical issues (e.g. Antonelli, 2000; Swann, 1998; Caniëls,
2000; Breschi and Lissoni 2001, 2003; Klepper 2002a). Perhaps one of the reasons of the relatively minor
impact of evolutionary economics in economic geography so far, is that economic geographers tend to
refer to evolutionary economics and institutional economics as one and the same (Martin, 2003). Similarly
confusing is the equation of new economic geography with evolutionary economics, because of the
neoclassical concept of equilibrium being an evolutionary stable equilibrium (Krugman 1996; Brakman
and Garretsen 2003).
Our main objective is to outline, in a programmatic manner, the basic elements of an Evolutionary
Economic Geography. Before sketching the main contours of this new approach, we will first show that an
evolutionary economic geography is not reducible to the institutionalist approach neither to the
neoclassical approach to economic geography. In order to do so, we first characterise the three approaches
in economics (section 2). We then discuss the main similarities and differences between the three streams
by making use of three recurrent debates in economics (the assumption debate, the use of mathematics,
and static vs. dynamics), each of which unites two approaches and differentiates them from the third
(section 3). Applying the framework to economic geography, we are able to clarify, at least to some
extent, the current Methodenstreit between neoclassical and institutional economic geography, as well as
the more constructive debates involving evolutionary contributions (section 4). While the interface
between institutionalists and neoclassicals has shown to be a fertile ground for conflict, but not for
exchange (‘dialogue between the deaf’), developments at the interface between evolutionary and
neoclassical approaches, and between institutional and evolutionary economics suggest more following.
However, we will also argue that, although exchange along the interfaces is fruitful, synthesis is not
expected. Rather we will argue that an evolutionary economic geography approach is unique in being
characterised by core assumptions, units of analysis, and explananda that are different from both
institutional economic geography and neoclassical economic geography (section 5). Thus, we are able to
specify the value-added of the evolutionary approach and make the case that an evolutionary economic
geography puts ‘new wine in new bottles’.