Has the New Economic Geography Overcome the Shortcomings of Mainstream Economics in Theorizing Space? An Inquiry on the Space, Time and Modeling Constraints of Theorizing Uneven Geographical Development in the Development Process

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 201 - 219, 26.03.2025

Ferda Uzunyayla

https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1585012

https://izlik.org/JA43EY46UZ

Abstract

The neglect of the relationship between geography and economics in mainstream economic analysis has led economists to develop new economic approaches to understand uneven geographical development, and the New Economic Geography approach was born out of such a theoretical endeavor. The aim of this paper is to examine whether this approach, which incorporates space into economic theory, develops a theoretical framework that overcomes the problems of ignoring the spatial and temporal context inherent in mainstream economic analysis and building models based on simplistic assumptions that cannot explain the real world. Based on this examination, the argument of the study is that this approach, which has attempted to bring mainstream economics and geography together by rising as “new” in the field of economic geography, provides a problematic analysis of the relationship between geography and economics by failing to overcome the spatial, temporal and modeling constraints of mainstream economic analysis for the following reasons in the hypothetical world of models that can be applied “anywhere” and“anytime”: dealing with space as abstract geometric representations, limiting time to the analysis of equilibrium and stability and reducing it to a methodological tool that shows movement towards equilibrium and building mathematical models which are limited to deriving equilibrium states in a fictional world with simple assumptions.

Keywords

geography-economics relationship , new economic geography , uneven geographical development

Eşitsiz Coğrafi Gelişmenin Teorizasyonunda Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya Modeli Anaakım İktisadın Eksikliklerini Aşmış mıdır? Kalkınma Sürecinde Mekânın Kuramlaştırılmasına Dair Modelin İçerdiği Kısıtlar

https://izlik.org/JA43EY46UZ

Abstract

Coğrafya ve iktisat ilişkisinin anaakım iktisadi analizde yok sayılması, eşitsiz coğrafi gelişmeyi anlamak için iktisatçıların yeni iktisadi yaklaşımlar geliştirmesine yol açmış ve Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımı böyle bir teorik çaba içinden doğmuştur. Çalışmanın amacı, iktisadi teoriye mekânı dahil eden bu yaklaşımın, anaakım iktisadi analize içkin olan mekânsal ve zamansal bağlamı yok sayma ve basit varsayımlara dayalı, gerçek dünyayı açıklayamayan modeller kurma sorunlarını aşan bir teorik çerçeve geliştirip geliştirmediğini sorgulamaktır. Bu incelemeye dayalı olarak, çalışmanın argümanı, ekonomik coğrafya alanında “yeni” sıfatıyla yükselerek anaakım iktisatla coğrafyayı bir araya getirme çabasına giren bu yaklaşımın “her yerde” ve “her zaman” uygulanabilen modellerinin varsayımsal dünyasında, mekanın soyut geometrik temsiller olarak alınması, zamanın denge ve istikrar analiziyle sınırlandırılarak dengeye doğru hareketi gösteren bir metodolojik araca indirgenmesi ve kurduğu matematiksel modellerin basit varsayımlarla kurgusal bir dünyada denge durumları türetmekle sınırlı kalması itibariyle anaakım iktisadi analizin taşıdığı mekânsal, zamansal ve modellemeye dair kısıtları aşamayarak, coğrafya ve iktisat ilişkisinin sorunlu bir analizini yaptığıdır.

Keywords

coğrafya-iktisat ilişkisi , yeni ekonomik coğrafya , eşitsiz coğrafi gelişme

References

• Amin, A., Thrift, N. (2000). What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic geography? Antipode, 32(1), 4-9.
• Barnes, T. (2003). The place of locational analysis: a selective and interpretive history. Progress in Human Geography, 27(1), 69-95.
• Boddy, M. (1999). Geographical economics and urban competitiveness: A critique. Urban Studies, 36(5), 811-842.
• Clark, G. (1998). Stylized facts and close dialogue: Methodology in economic geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(1), 73-87.
• Corpataux, J., Crevoisier, O. (2007). Economic theories and spatial transformations clarifying the space-time premises and outcomes of economic theories. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(3), 285-309.
• Dymski, G. (1996). On Krugman’s model of economic geography. Geoforum, 27(4), 439-452.
• Eser, U., Köse, S. (2005). Endüstriyel yerelleşme ve yoğunlaşma açısından Türkiye Sanayii: İl imalat sanayilerinin analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 60(2), 97-139.
• Fujita, M., Hamaguchi, N. (2001). Intermediate goods and the spatial structure of an economy. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31, 79-109.
• Garretsen, H., Martin, R. (2010). Rethinking (new) economic geography models: Taking geography and history more seriously, Spatial Economic Analysis, 5(2), 127-160.
• Gaspar, J.M. (2018). A prospective review on new economic geography. The Annals of Regional Science, 61 (2), 237–272.
• Gaspar, J.M. (2020). New economic geography: history and debate. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1-37.
• Harvey, D. (2013). Sosyal Adalet ve Şehir, Metis Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Koo, J., Lall, S. (2007). New economic geography: Real or hype? International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 3-19.
• Krugman, P. (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
• Krugman, P. (1993a). Economic geography: On the number and location of cities. European Economic Review, 37, 293-298.
• Krugman, P.(1993b). On the relationship between trade theory and location theory. Review of International Economics, 1(2), 110-122.
• Krugman, P. (1998a). The role of geography in development. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington, D.C., April 20–21, 1998.
• Krugman, P. (1998b). What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 7-17.
• Krugman, P., Venables, A.J. (1996). Integration, specialization, and adjustment. European Economic Review, 40, 959-967.
• Marchionni, C. (2004). Geographical economics versus economic geography: towards a clarification of the dispute. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1737-1753.
• Marchionni, C. (2006). Contrastive explanation and unrealistic models: The case of the new economic geography. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(4), 425-446.
• Martin, R. (1999). The new 'geographical turn' in economics: some critical reflections. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(1), 65-91.
• Martin, R. (2012). (Re)placing path dependence: A response to the debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 179–192.
• Martin, R., Sunley, P. (1996). Paul Krugman's Geographical Economics and Its Implications for Regional Development Theory: A Critical Assessment. Economic Geography, 72(3), 259-292.
• Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 5–35.
• Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2011). The new economic geography and policy relevance. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(2), 357-369.
• OECD (2009). How Regions Grow: Trends and Analysis.
• Olsen, J. (2002). On the units of geographical economics. Geoforum, 33, 153–164.
• Overman, H.G. (2004). Can we learn anything from economic geography proper? Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 501–516.
• Scott, A.J. (2004). A perspective of economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(5), 479-499.
• Sjöberg, Ö., Sjöholm, F. (2002). Common ground? Prospects for integrating the economic geography of geographers and economists. Environment and Planning A, 34, 467-486.
• Sugden, R. (2000). Credible worlds: the status of theoretical models in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 7(1), 1-31.
• World Bank (2009). Reshaping Economic Geography. World Development Report.