We present some reflections on the state of regional science and how its value might be enhanced. We have two primary suggestions. First, reduce the unfortunate divergence between regional science and practice. Second, pay more attention to places in regional science. More attention to the characteristics of real world places will help to bring regional science and practice closer together.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailly, A.
, and W. Coffey. 1994. Regional science in crisis: A plea for a more open and relevant approach. Papers in Regional Science73: 3-14.
2.
Bartik, T.1991. Who benefits from state and local economic development policies?Kalamazoo: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
3.
Bolton, R.1989. An economic interpretation of a "Sense of Place."Williamstown: Williams College Economics Department Research Paper No. 130.
4.
Bolton, R.1992. "Place prosperity vs. people prosperity" revisited: An old issue with a new angle. Urban Studies29: 185-203.
5.
Bolton, R.
1994. Household production and the sense of place. Paper read at meeting of Association of American Geographers, San Francisco, April.
6.
Chinitz, B.1990. Growth management: Good for the town, bad for the nation?Journal of the American Planning Association56: 3-8.
7.
Funck, R.1975. Regional science: Frontiers or boundaries?Papers of the Regional Science Association34: 179-193.
8.
Funck, R.1991a. Presidential address: Regional science in transition. Papers in Regional Science70: 1-8.
9.
Funck, R.
1991b. The world in transition Regional science: Learn and lead, or leave. Remarks at panel discussion on Philosophy, Values, and Directions in Regional Science. Pacific Regional Science Conference, Cairns, Australia, July.
10.
Heidemann, C.1975. Planning of problems or problems of planning?Papers of the Regional Science Association34: 179-193.
11.
Hirsch, P.
, S. Michaels, and R. Friedman. 1990. Clean models vs. dirty hands: Why economics is different from sociology. In Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy, eds. S. Zukin and P. DiMaggio. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Hirschman, A.1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13.
Hirschman, A.1984. Against parsimony: Three easy ways of complicating some categories of economic discourse. American Economic Review74: 89-96.
14.
Isserman, A.1993. Lost in space? On the history, status, and future of regional science. Review of Regional Studies23: 1-50.
15.
Isserman, A. M.1995. The history, status, and future of regional science: An American perspective. International Regional Science Review17, 3: 249-296.
16.
Jensen, R.1991. Presidential address: Quo vadis, regional science?Papers in Regional Science70: 97-111.
17.
Kahneman, D.
, J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review76: 728-741.
18.
Kahneman, D.
, J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. 1987. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. In Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology, eds. R. Hogarth and M. Reder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Marsh, B.1987. Continuity and decline in the anthracite towns of Pennsylvania. Annals of the Association of American Geographers77: 337-352.
20.
Marshall, A.1961. Principles of Economics, variorum edition with annotations by C. W. Guillebaud. London: Macmillan.
21.
Ridley, M.1991. A survey of science: The edge of ignorance. The Economist318 (No. 7694, February 16).
22.
Vining, R.1988. Seeing to it that the subject of the science is the subject of its practice: Towards a theory of an economic system's working. Review of Regional Studies18: 1-3.
