Экономическая география: теория, методы и история развития

Subfield of human geography and economics
the journal

Economic geography is the subfield of human geography that studies economic activity and factors affecting it. It can also be considered a subfield or method in economics. There are four branches of economic geography. Economic geography takes a variety of approaches to many different topics, including the location of industries, economies of agglomeration (also known as "linkages"), transportation, international trade, development, real estate, gentrification, ethnic economies, gendered economies, core periphery theory, the economics of urban form, the relationship between the environment and the economy (tying into a long history of geographers studying culture environment interaction), and globalization.

There are diverse methodological approaches in the field of location theory. Neoclassical location theorists, following in the tradition of Alfred Weber, often concentrate on industrial location and employ quantitative methods. However, since the 1970s, two major reactions against neoclassical approaches have reshaped the discipline. One is Marxist political economy, stemming from the contributions of scholars like David Harvey, which offers a critical perspective on spatial economics. The other is the new economic geography, which considers social, cultural, and institutional factors alongside economic aspects in understanding spatial phenomena. Economists like Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs have contributed extensively to the analysis of economic geography. Krugman, in particular, referred to his application of spatial thinking to international trade theory as the "new economic geography," which presents a competing perspective to a similarly named approach within the discipline of geography. This overlap in terminology can lead to confusion. As an alternative, some scholars have proposed using the term "geographical economics" to differentiate between the two approaches.

Early approaches to economic geography are found in the seven Chinese maps of the State of Qin, which date to the 4th century BC and in the Greek geographer Strabo's Geographika, compiled almost 2000 years ago. As cartography developed, geographers illuminated many aspects used today in the field; maps created by different European powers described the resources likely to be found in American, African, and Asian territories. The earliest travel journals included descriptions of the native people, the climate, the landscape, and the productivity of various locations. These early accounts encouraged the development of transcontinental trade patterns and ushered in the era of mercantilism. Lindley M. Keasbey wrote in 1901 that no discipline of economic geography existed, with scholars either doing geography or economics. Keasbey argued for a discipline of economic geography, writing,

Generally, spatially interested economists study the effects of space on the economy. Geographers, on the other hand, are interested in the economic processes' impact on spatial structures. Moreover, economists and economic geographers differ in their methods in approaching spatial economic problems in several ways. An economic geographer will often take a more holistic approach to the analysis of economic phenomena, which is to conceptualize a problem in terms of space, place, and scale as well as the overt economic problem that is being examined. The economist approach, according to some economic geographers, has the main drawback of homogenizing the economic world in ways economic geographers try to avoid.

Industries have different patterns of economic geography. Extractive industries tend to be concentrated around their specific natural resources. In Norway, for example, most oil industry jobs occur within a single electoral district. Industries are geographically concentrated if they do not need to be close to their end customers, such as the automotive industry concentration in Detroit, US. Agriculture also tends to be concentrated. Industries are geographically diffuse if they need to be close to their end customers, such as hairdressers, restaurants, and the hospitality industry.

With the rise of the New Economy, economic inequalities are increasing spatially. The New Economy, generally characterized by globalization, increasing use of information and communications technology, the growth of knowledge goods, and feminization, has enabled economic geographers to study social and spatial divisions caused by the rising New Economy, including the emerging digital divide. The new economic geographies consist of primarily service based sectors of the economy that use innovative technology, such as industries where people rely on computers and the internet. Within these is a switch from manufacturing based economies to the digital economy. In these sectors, competition makes technological changes robust. These high technology sectors rely heavily on interpersonal relationships and trust, as developing things like software is very different from other kinds of industrial manufacturing—it requires intense levels of cooperation between many different people, as well as the use of tacit knowledge. As a result of cooperation becoming a necessity, there is a clustering in the high tech new economy of many firms.

As characterized through the work of Diane Perrons, in Anglo American literature, the New Economy consists of two distinct types. New Economic Geography 1 (NEG1) is characterized by sophisticated spatial modelling. It seeks to explain uneven development and the emergence of industrial clusters. It does so through the exploration of linkages between centripetal and centrifugal forces, especially those of economies of scale. New Economic Geography 2 (NEG2) also seeks to explain the apparently paradoxical emergence of industrial clusters in a contemporary context, however, it emphasizes relational, social, and contextual aspects of economic behaviour, particularly the importance of tacit knowledge. The main difference between these two types is NEG2's emphasis on aspects of economic behaviour that NEG1 considers intangible. Both New Economic Geographies acknowledge transport costs, the importance of knowledge in a new economy, possible effects of externalities, and endogenous processes that generate increases in productivity. The two also share a focus on the firm as the most important unit and on growth rather than development of regions. As a result, the actual impact of clusters on a region is given far less attention, relative to the focus on clustering of related activities in a region. However, the focus on the firm as the main entity of significance hinders the discussion of New Economic Geography. It limits the discussion in a national and global context and confines it to a smaller scale context. It also places limits on the nature of the firm's activities and their position within the global value chain. Further work done by Bjorn Asheim (2001) and Gernot Grabher (2002) challenges the idea of the firm through action research approaches and mapping organizational forms and their linkages. In short, the focus on the firm in new economic geographies is undertheorized in NEG1 and undercontextualized in NEG2, which limits the discussion of its impact on spatial economic development. Spatial divisions within these arising New Economic geographies are apparent in the form of the digital divide, as a result of regions attracting talented workers instead of developing skills at a local level (see Creative Class for further reading). Despite increasing inter connectivity through developing information communication technologies, the contemporary world is still defined through its widening social and spatial divisions, most of which are increasingly gendered. Danny Quah explains these spatial divisions through the characteristics of knowledge goods in the New Economy: goods defined by their infinite expansibility, weightlessness, and nonrivalry. Social divisions are expressed through new spatial segregation that illustrates spatial sorting by income, ethnicity, abilities, needs, and lifestyle preferences. Employment segregation is evidence by the overrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in lower paid service sector jobs. These divisions in the new economy are much more difficult to overcome as a result of few clear pathways of progression to higher skilled work.