Evolutionary economic geography can be considered a third approach in economic
geography. Evolutionary economists argue that “the explanation to why something exists
intimately rests on how it became what it is” (Dosi, 1997: 1531). Rather than focusing on
universal mobility processes underlying agglomeration (neoclassical) or the uniqueness of
institutions in specific territories (institutional), an evolutionary economic geography views the
economy as an evolutionary process that unfolds in space and time. In doing so, it focuses on the
path-dependent dynamics underlying uneven economic development in space (Martin and
Sunley, 2006). In particular, it analyses the geography of firm dynamics (such as the geography
of entrepreneurship, innovation and extinction) and the rise and fall of technologies, industries,
networks and institutions in different localities. In this view, uneven economic development
requires an understanding of the Schumpeterian process of creative destruction at different levels
of spatial aggregation (cities, regions, nations, continents).
Even though evolutionary economics goes back at least to the seminal contribution by Nelson
and Winter (1982), evolutionary approaches to economic geography are fairly recent (Arthur,
1994; Swann and Prevezer, 1996; Boschma, 1997; Rigby and Essletzbichler, 1997; Storper,
1997; Boschma and Lambooy, 1999; Antonelli, 2000; Caniëls, 2000; Klepper, 2001; Maggioni,
2002; Breschi and Lissoni, 2003; Bottazzi et al., 2004; Brenner, 2004; Werker and Athreye,
2004; Boschma and Wenting, 2005; Essletzbichler and Rigby, 2005; Martin and Sunley, 2006).
The difference between evolutionary economic geography and both the new economic geography
and institutional economic geography can be summarised as follows (Boschma and Frenken,
2006). An evolutionary approach to economic geography is different from new economic
geography in that it attempts to go beyond the heroic assumptions about economic agents and the
reduction of geography to transportation costs. At the same time, evolutionary economic
geography also differs from institutional economic geography in that an evolutionary approach
explains territorial differences not primarily by referring to different institutions, but from
differences in the history of firms and industries residing in a territory. An evolutionary analysis
may well take into account the role of institutions though, but in a co-evolutionary perspective
(Nelson, 1995). Methodologically, evolutionary economic geography differs from both
institutional and new economic geography in that it combines all research methodologies: case-
study research, surveys, econometrics, theoretical modelling exercises and policy evaluation can,
in principle, all be based on evolutionary theorising.