Having analysed the similarities and differences between evolutionary and neoclassical economic
geography and between evolutionary and institutional economic geography, we can conclude that
evolutionary and neoclassical approaches share the concept of neutral spaces, while evolutionary and
institutional approaches share the emphasis on real places. This seemingly paradoxical conclusion can be
understood from the explicit dynamic nature of evolutionary theorising that aims to explain how real
places emerge in neutral spaces, i.e. how spatio-economic structures evolve from contingent yet self-
reinforcing process. In this view, institutional specificity is an outcome of evolutionary processes of
technological change that in turn trigger institutional change. This is why we would argue that the central
notion of innovation systems (and related concepts), uniting evolutionary and institutional approaches,
should not be taken in a structuralist fashion (as an explanans) determining actor’s behaviour, but as
structures that emerged historically (taken as an explanandum). In this view, innovation systems co-evolve
with technological innovation and market structures, primarily, at the sectoral level.
Concerning policy discourse, it is important to remind that an evolutionary analysis is largely
incompatible with comparative analysis dominant both in neoclassical economics (convergence literature)
and institutional economics (comparing different models of capitalism). Differences between territories
can only be understood as an outcome of a long-term evolutionary process, during which the knowledge
and routines have become embedded in firms’ routines and territories’ institutions. Imitation (or
‘transplantation’) of successful routines or institutions is inherently difficult and, more importantly, the
effects are expected to be very different depending on the set of routines and institutions in which it is
introduced. This perspective has fundamental implications for policy. In short, policies should no longer
per geared towards stated objectives and pre-planned paths towards these, but towards strengthening the
adaptive capabilities (‘dynamic capabilities’) of firms and other economic agents, including labour,
consumers, research institutions, who set their own goals and pursue their own strategies.
Bibliography
Alchian A.A. (1950) Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy 58: 211-
221
Amin, A. (1999) An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development, International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 23, pp. 365-378
Amin, A., Thrift, N. (1994) (Eds.): Globalization, Insitutions and Regional Development in Europe, in:
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Amin A, Thrift N (2000). What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic geography? Antipode
32 (1): 4-9
Andersen E.S. (1994) Evolutionary Economics: Post-Schumpeterian Contributions. London: Pinter
Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L. (1990) ‘Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical
model of technological change’, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, pp. 604-633.
Andersson C, Frenken K, Hellervik A (2004) A graph-theoretical approach to economic geography,
Manuscript, March, Chalmes University and Utrecht University.
24