Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

According to some economic geographers, modern economic geography has been increasingly fragmented over the last twenty years, concerning both its themes and its paradigms. However, so far, no bibliometric analysis has been carried out to quantitatively measure the degree of fragmentation in economic geography concerning paradigms. In this paper, we therefore aim to analyze the state of the art in economic geography concerning paradigms and perspectives based on a combination of a bibliometric and qualitative analysis. We conclude that fragmented pluralism is less of a problem than stated in scholars’ qualitative judgments.

Keywords

bridging concepts bibliometric analysis economic geography engaged pluralism fragmented pluralism paradigms

I Introduction

Recently, there are increasing concerns in economic geography about intra-disciplinary fragmentation, particularly triggered with the proliferation of paradigms and perspectives¹ (Evolutionary Economic Geography, Relational Economic Geography, Institutional Economic Geography, Geographical Political Economy, and Alternative Economic Geographies), which renders economic geography pluralist and heterodox (Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Clark et al., 2018). First, Barnes (2009: 326) made a salient wake-up call: “economic geography’s future is not assured.” Subsequently, Barnes and Sheppard (2010) lamented that intra-disciplinary plurality and variegation in economic geography have resulted in fragmented pluralism in which a range of insular coteries mainly produce monologues and hence rarely engage in dialogue. This diagnosis of fragmented pluralism has been subsequently uttered by other economic geographers, as well (see Aoyama et al., 2011a; Clare and Siemiatycki, 2014; Muellerleile et al., 2014; Sheppard et al., 2012; Suwala, 2023). In a reaction, Barnes and Sheppard (2010) suggested engaged pluralism with the help of trading zones, and recently, Martin (2021) similarly suggested boundary objects and bridging concepts as a solution to fragmented pluralism.

Although pluralism as such has many positive sides and is hence applauded by most economic geographers, as it allows for studying a complex economic world, conceptual and explanatory innovation, and policy relevance (Martin, 2021), fragmented pluralism has been regarded by many economic geographers, us included, as a problem. However, the discussions about fragmented and engaged pluralism are based on qualitative and sentimental judgments of scholars but have not been, to the best of our knowledge, analyzed in a systemic, quantitative way.

Inspired by concerns, discussions, and proposed solutions for fragmented pluralism, this study has two aims. First, we aim to uncover the extent of economic geographers’ intra-disciplinary dialogue and conversation with the help of a bibliometric analysis. Although publications are not the only building blocks of science, they certainly are crucial elements in the process of intellectual communication. Therefore, bibliometric methods can provide a way to map the fragmentation and/or engagement in economic geography (Van Raan, 2004). Based on studies of interdisciplinary scientific research, we argue that with the help of the analysis of paradigm-specific citations pointing to other paradigms, we can indicate the level of dialogue between paradigms (see Glänzel et al., 2019; Moed et al., 2004; Wagner et al., 2011). By analyzing bibliographic coupling, direct citation, and keywords, we can reveal the extent of communication among economic geography scholars, since the breakdown of all publications cited or referenced in a specific paradigm cluster provides an interesting overview of its intra-disciplinary profile (Bordons et al., 2005; Leydesdorff et al., 2018; Leydesdorff and Amsterdamska, 1990; Weingart, 2010).

Our second aim is to identify, through a bibliometric analysis, potential bridging concepts as common communication points, permitting dialogical knowledge transfer between different paradigms, and hence contributing to engaged pluralism and to strengthening economic geography’s theoretical core.

In the following section of the paper, we first provide some context on economic geography, as well as on paradigms in general, then summarize the five paradigms and then review the discussion on fragmented and engaged pluralism in economic geography. Then, we lay out our bibliometric framework of analysis. In the next section, based on the results of our analysis, we discuss the implications for fragmentation and engagement in economic geography and show potential bridging concepts. We outline a brief conclusion in the final section.

II Economic geography: Debating pluralism

As a historically evolving and heterogeneous nexus of objects, problems, theories, and methods (Barry et al., 2008), each discipline consists of a unique set of institutionalized intellectual communities arising at a specific point in history, paying particular attention to pragmatic academic issues and wider political concerns (Scott, 2005). Economic geography is a discipline that currently blossoms and has moved beyond its original focus(es) on industrial location and/or trade routes and modes of transportation (Aoyama et al., 2011b; Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Leyshon et al., 2011; Malecki, 2015; Suwala, 2023). In fact, economic geography has become a vibrant and productive field having “an impact that resonates increasingly far beyond the discipline of geography itself” (Scott, 2000: 497), with its high-ranking academic journals (such as the Journal of Economic Geography and Economic Geography), conferences (such as the Global Conference on Economic Geography), workshops, and summer schools, and its powerful role as a supplier of scientific knowledge for analysis and policy-making (Asheim, 2020; Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Clark et al., 2018).

The consensus among most economic geographers is that economic activities across space are the discipline’s main research object (see Clark et al., 2018; Florida and Adler, 2020; Malecki, 2015; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019). According to the broad definition of MacKinnon and Cumbers (2019: 15), economic geography can be defined as a discipline that “… is concerned with concrete questions about the location and distribution of economic activity, the role of uneven geographical development and processes of local and regional economic development. It asks the key questions of ‘what’ (the type of economic activity), ‘where’ (location), ‘why’ (requiring explanation) and ‘so what’ (referring to the implications and consequences of particular arrangements and processes).”

Since the discipline focuses on contextual (time and place) analysis (Asheim, 2020; Coe et al., 2013; Gong and Hassink, 2020; MacKinnon, 2009) and is closely linked to its empirical object of inquiry, economic geography and its theoretical frameworks, topical research orientations, and practices have been incessantly renewing, diversifying, and variegating in order to examine the constantly transforming spatial and economic structures of capitalism (Barnes et al., 2007; Sheppard et al., 2004, 2012).

Moreover, in order to cope with and explain the complex and nuanced world of economic geographies of the modern capitalist world, economic geography has been drawing heavily from neighboring disciplines, such as heterodox economics, economic sociology, economic anthropology, political science, and business studies (Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Hudson, 2006; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019). As Peck puts it, “extradisciplinary ‘reading around’ is normal practice” (Peck, 2005: 129). Particularly in the 1990s and the early 2000s, the “turns” emphasizing the cultural, institutional, and evolutionary foundations of the economic processes were affected by these neighboring disciplines. Proper economic geography, as a sub-discipline of human geography (Martin, 2011; Sunley, 2012), currently is a heterodox and pluralist discipline that is constituted by different paradigms, each emphasizing different phenomena, explanatory theories, and research questions. There are currently no fewer than five paradigms in the relatively small discipline (see Table 1): Institutional Economic Geography (IEG), Relational Economic Geography (REG), Evolutionary Economic Geography (EEG), Geographical Political Economy (GPE), and Alternative Economic Geographies (AEG) (Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Clark et al., 2018; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019). Although differing regarding several issues mentioned above, they by and large “… share a critical stance towards positivistic thinking in geographical economics” (Gong and Hassink, 2020: 375).

Table 1.

Overview of current paradigms of economic geography with key characteristics.

Paradigm	Key theoretical background	Key concepts	Key questions/topics	Methods	Main view on place/space
EEG	Evolutionary economics	Routines; path dependence/creation; lock-ins; (un)related variety; branching	Evolutionary processes of economic activities	Deductive and inductive	Neutral space => real place (territorial context)
REG	Relational turn in social sciences; economic sociology	Networks; power; social agency; embeddedness	Interaction and interrelations between different agents and their influence on economic activities	Inductive	Multi-scalar places—space as perspective
IEG	Institutional economics; the French Regulation School	Formal institutions; informal institutions; structure-agency	The role of institutional settings on economic performance	Inductive	Real places at different scales, place dependence


GPE	Political economy; Marxian economics	Capitalism; labor; capital; inequalities;	Capitalism and uneven spatial development; the relationships between the state, labor, and capital	Inductive	National places
AEG	Cultural economy, post-structuralism	Performativity; discourse; context	Non-capitalist relations and practices; de-growth; diverse economies; fair trade	Inductive	Socially constructed space

Source: (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003; Barnes et al., 2012; Boschma and Frenken, 2018; Gertler, 2010; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019).

Even though we use paradigms as a proxy for any other similar term, such as schools of thought or perspectives¹, it is worthwhile to briefly elaborate more on Kuhn and what he meant by paradigms, paradigm shifts, and the incommensurability between paradigms (for more detailed accounts, see Anand et al., 2020; Kuhn, 2012; Nickles, 2003; Weichhart, 2012, 2018), as it potentially has consequences for the question about engaged versus fragmented pluralism. According to Martin (2021: 5), “geographers do not often refer to the later Kuhn, but his ideas … seem much closer to how economic geography has developed in recent decades” (Martin, 2021: 5). In Kuhn’s original work on paradigms, defined as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (Kuhn, 2012: xlii), normal science and revolutionary science were distinguished and one paradigm at the time would dominate, which is supposed to be incommensurable with a new paradigm because of methodological, ontological, and epistemological differences. Later on, Kuhn (1990) weakened his statements on incommensurability, confining it to semantic differences (Sankey, 1993). Particularly in social sciences, such as human geography, the co-existence of several paradigms (paradigmatic pluralism, Martin, 2021: 4) with only semantic incommensurability is common (Bassett, 1999; Weichhart, 2012, 2016). Concerning economic geography, Martin (2021: 5) rightly observes that “… the evolution of the discipline over recent decades would seem to be characterised by an increasing array of subfields … rather than any simple succession of one dominant or hegemonic approach or paradigm by another” (Martin, 2021: 5). It “… does tend to consist of numerous distinct ‘epistemic communities’ that subscribe to different paradigmatic combinations of ontology, theory and method” (Martin, 2021: 5).

As pointed out above, we currently witness a multi-paradigmatic situation in proper economic geography, without strong incommensurabilities, as the paradigms share a critical stance towards positivism and have other philosophies of science as their basis (Gong and Hassink, 2020). This makes engaged pluralism a realistic option and a gestalt shift not necessary. The situation differs, however, between proper economic geography and geographical economics, which is strongly based on critical rationalism and positivism, and which is therefore largely incommensurable to paradigms in proper economic geography. Sunley (2012) writes about critical or even antagonistic pluralism between geographical economics and proper economic geography. We therefore focus in the rest of the paper on the five paradigms within proper economic geography from which we can expect engaged pluralism and leave the discussion about dialogue and exchange between proper economic geography and geographical economics to others (Bathelt et al., 2017; Garretsen and Martin, 2010; Gaspar, 2021; Overman, 2004; Sunley, 2012).

In the remainder of this section, we summarize the five paradigms. We discuss both launching and core papers which define the paradigms, as well as some more peripheral literature which is also relevant for understanding their key aims, theories, and questions, but which might, in some cases, be less close their core. The purpose is not to critically discuss how close literature belongs to the core of each paradigm, which we leave to others, but to give an overview as a basis for discussing fragmented and engaged pluralism.

1 Institutional economic geography

Influenced by the French regulation theory and institutional economics, sociology, and political science, and nourished by the growing recognition of the “the socio-cultural” within economic geography (Martin, 2000), institutional economic geography (IEG) aims to explain the roles and impact of institutions on the way economic activities are organized across space (Gertler, 2018). Moreover, it illuminates why economic activities are organized the way they are by investigating the co-evolution of economic activities and institutions (Gong and Hassink, 2019).

According to IEG, actors are bounded rationalities and their economic activities are socially constructed and territorially embedded phenomena, and hence institutions either enable or constrain them (Gertler, 2010; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Therefore, IEG emphasizes that economic life in space and its changes can be uncovered by referring to institutions which surround economic actors and link “the economic” and “the social” (MacKinnon, 2020). Notably, since the substantive implication of institutions shaping economic processes varies due to broader institutional framework particularities of places, the analytical focus and geographical orientation of IEG are on the place(s) at different spatial scales and their institutional specificities.

Institutions comprise both formal institutions including codified rules, regulations, and arrangements (e.g., property rights) and informal ones including conventions, values, expectations, and norms (e.g., trust between actors) (Pike et al., 2015). Rather than separating them, IEG scholars analyze their complex inter-relationships (see Zukauskaite et al., 2017) and how they are related to the variation of institutional regimes across space shaping local economic outcomes.

Overall, even if conceptualizations of institutions differ, also between the paradigms in economic geography, IEG has been interested in understanding more broadly how institutions shape and constrain all forms of economic behavior and practices, from innovation, organizational change, and entrepreneurship to inter-firm relations and learning, from labor and capital markets to environmental responses to climate challenges (Gertler, 2018; Rodríguez-Pose, 2020). While this interest initially mainly focused on national institutions, influenced by neighboring disciplines, it has expanded to include interactions of regional institutions with national and supra-national institutions, as well (see Amin and Thrift, 1995; Gertler, 2004; Pike et al., 2015; Rodríguez-Pose and Di Cataldo, 2015; Rodríguez-Pose and Storper, 2009).

2 Relational economic geography

Influenced mainly by economic sociology and heterodox economics, REG assumes that the causal factors of socio-spatial changes in economic landscapes are created by, transformed by, and embedded in relationships and interdependencies between people, places, institutions, and firms, at local, regional, national, and global scales (Bathelt and Glückler, 2011; Rantisi and Boggs, 2020; Yeung, 2005). Space is seen “as a perspective” (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003: 124) for inquiring economic phenomena, rather than being an explanatory variable for economic actions and their consequences. Correspondingly, through the “geographical lens,” REG attempts to analytically trace and explain localized economic processes across places, spaces, and scales (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003; Bathelt, 2006).

Since micro-entities, such as firms and organizational structures and their actions, are not isolated atoms but closely linked to their suppliers, customers, and institutional context in which they operate, economic action and change are fundamentally contextual (Bathelt and Glückler, 2018). Therefore, REG highlights networks and relationships as analytical focus in which actors are embedded, without prioritizing a particular scale per se (Boggs and Rantisi, 2003; Murphy, 2018; Yeung, 2005).

Moreover, economic actions are considered having a path-dependent character, that is, economic action enables, constrains, and transforms the localized material and institutional conditions of future economic action (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003). Institutions centrally influence the evolution of economic landscapes as the socio-institutional context creates opportunities for economic action and interaction that would otherwise not exist (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003, 2011). However, institutions are not conceptualized as entities that structurally determine economic activities but rather as important mediators having top-down and bottom-up effects across scales, which stabilize economic relations (Bathelt and Glückler, 2011; Glückler and Lenz, 2018). The emphasis on path dependence and institutions shows how relational economic geography has been influenced by different parts of heterodox economics, namely, evolutionary economics and institutional economics, respectively.

Furthermore, the principle of contingency is emphasized, that is, the strategies and actions of agents can deviate from existing development paths (Bathelt and Glückler, 2011). Even if firms as economic agents operate under the same conditions, they may produce different outcomes in terms of specialization and competitive behavior (Bathelt and Glückler, 2003, 2018).

To understand how, why, and to whom/where resources flow, REG emphasizes “the ties or interconnections—their strength, density, symmetry, and range—between economic actors embedded in historically derived institutional environments as well as social networks” (Murphy, 2018: 162). With this emphasis, REG has been influential in research on clusters, networks, value chains, and global production networks, where tacit knowledge, social interactions, and/or interpersonal trust play a key role in determining who participates, innovates, and performs better or worse (Murphy, 2018: 162).

3 Evolutionary economic geography

Based on Darwinian thinking (biology) and guided by Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction and informed by evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter, 1982), EEG studies “how geography matters in determining the nature and trajectory of the evolution of the economic system,” as well as “the processes by which the economic landscape — the spatial organisation of economic production, circulation, exchange, distribution and consumption — are transformed from within over time …” (Boschma and Martin, 2010: 6, 7). Moreover, to analyze and understand the (uneven geographical) evolution of economies, EEG emphasizes historically acquired organizational routines determining the behavior and location of firms (Boschma and Frenken, 2006). Routines, as organizational skills and capabilities, play a vital and decisive role in the capacities of firms to adapt, survive, and compete in a dynamic environment (Boschma and Frenken, 2009).

Accordingly, the evolution of the economy, which is regarded as a dynamic, irreversible, and self-organizing system (Rafiqui, 2008), is understood as the result of the creation and retaining of new organizational routines, and of their selective transmission and diffusion (Boschma and Frenken, 2011; Kogler, 2015). Since economic actors and firms operate in territorial context (real places) (Boschma and Frenken, 2006), their activities are both path- and place-dependent (Martin and Sunley, 2006).

Therefore, drivers and mechanisms for evolution and change of the economy do not originate and operate evenly across space (Boschma and Martin, 2010). The bounded rationality and cognitive constraints of actors and firms as well as the existence of enabling or constraining conditions (such as institutions) in real places affecting the creation and diffusion of routines can make the routine transmission process imperfect. “This leads to uneven geographical patterns, as embodied in agglomerations, center-periphery patterns, clusters, and networks” (Boschma and Frenken, 2018: 214).

Evolutionary economic geography contributes to explaining and analyzing novelty (new products and technologies, new firms, and new industries), knowledge, and innovation emergence and diffusion, the emergence of spatial economic structures from the micro-behavior of economic agents, and differences in regional economic growth (Boschma and Frenken, 2018; Kogler, 2015; Martin and Sunley, 2015). EEG research is mainly carried out through three interrelated strands: First, path dependence (Martin and Sunley, 2006; Strambach, 2010), lock-ins (Grabher, 1993; Hassink, 2007, 2010), spatial evolution of industries (especially diversification, branching, and variety) (Boschma et al., 2013; Boschma and Wenting, 2007; Frenken et al., 2007; Neffke et al., 2011, 2018; Wenting, 2008), and path development (Grillitsch et al., 2018; Isaksen, 2015; Simmie, 2012; Trippl et al., 2018); secondly, clusters and their evolution (Martin and Sunley, 2003, 2011; Maskell and Malmberg, 2007; Menzel and Fornahl, 2010; Popp and Wilson, 2007); and thirdly, networks and their evolution (Balland, 2012; Broekel and Boschma, 2012; Giuliani, 2013; Morrison and Rabellotti, 2009; Ter Wal, 2014).

4 Geographical political economy

Emerged in the 1970s from the attempts in economic geography to address issues of urban and regional restructuring by getting insights from Marxist political economy and affected by economic sociology and economic anthropology (Bok, 2019; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019) as well as by seminal work of Harvey (1982) and Smith (1984), GPE’s core focus is on capitalism and its geographies, as a specific social, economic, and political formation. Their trajectories are formed by class and geographical conflict, as well as by the unintended effects of economic decisions and political actions (Sheppard, 2006).

According to geographical political economy scholars, “the economic” goes beyond simple market exchange, including capitalist commodity production having a spatial-temporal nature being far from equilibrium (Sheppard, 2018). The geography of capitalism is not assumed exogenous to the economy but actively produced through the development and restructuring of the economy (Lefebvre, 1991; MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019; Sheppard, 2011). Moreover, space and place are transformed, the nature and significance of geographical scales are altered, and distance and connections are reconstructed through their fundamental relations with capitalism (Pike, 2020; Sheppard, 2018).

By analyzing relationships between the state, power, labor, and capital, GPE tries to capture the moving (unequal) spatial matrix of “the economic” which is affected by unstable and crisis-prone processes under capitalism (Hu and Lin, 2011; Jones, 2008). It is particularly interested in how labor processes, wage relations, regulatory architectures, and technological systems, which make up an historical regime of capital accumulation, enable, constrain, and influence the dynamics and interaction of firms, industries, labor markets, institutions, and regional patterns of development, which together make up the space economy of capitalism (Sheppard, 2011). Research topics vary from deindustrialization to financialization and the production of scale (see Brenner, 2004; Peck and Whiteside, 2016; Pike, 2005, 2006; Wainwright, 2012).

5 Alternative economic geographies

Influenced by post-structuralism stressing the social construction of meaning, identity, and representation and the cultural turn (MacKinnon and Cumbers, 2019; Sheppard et al., 2004), an alternative approach can be identified in economic geography, called “Alternative Economic Geographies,” by Barnes and Christophers (2018). It is “broadening out from Marxism and feminism and drawing eclectically on economic anthropology, economic sociology, institutional economics, area studies, and studies of the underground and informal economies” (Gibson-Graham, 2008: 615). AEG is a paradigm, a diverse economy research program, or movement (Smith, 2012), reframing both “the economic” and “the geography” of economic geography research (Gibson-Graham, 1996; Gibson-Graham and Dombroski, 2020a).

Challenging mainstream economy thinking, it signals “alternative,” previously neglected, marginalized, and non-capitalist economic activities, practices, and processes (Hudson, 2006; Sheppard et al., 2004). AEG attempts to open up to the capitalism’s others who also contribute to maintaining livelihoods alongside, supporting those who earn wages, and generate new wealth (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski, 2020a), by conceptualizing “economic geographies [that] are so much more than mere spatial manifestations of a singular and autonomous economic logic” (Lee, 2011: 378)

Since it is assumed that what counts as “the economy” is constituted in and distributed over space via a diverse and complex mix of social relations, understandings, representations and interpretations, and practices (Hudson, 2005), economic geographies are conceptualized as phenomena organized and driven in diverse ways, rather than a singular one (Lee, 2006, 2011). Across the socially constructed spaces, “the economy” diversifies with a complex interdependency of economic relations within the variously constituted households, volunteers, self-employed, family businesses, prisons, and illegals, as well as industrial markets and sectors (Gibson-Graham, 2003).

Overall, AEG tries to illuminate the alternative economic, social, and ecological practices in different aspects of the economy (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). AEG arguably represents the most open-ended, context-dependent economic geography, with research on topics ranging from worker cooperatives, to anti-mafia enterprises, violent economies, precarious labor, to care-full economies (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski, 2020b; Leyshon et al., 2003).

6 Debating pluralism in economic geography

As mentioned in the introduction, particularly since Barnes and Sheppard’s (2010) article, pluralism has been debated in economic geography with different nuances concerning what is good and bad about pluralism, whether the discipline needs a core and if so, how it should look like, and what the consequences are of pluralism for the identity of the discipline.

On the one hand, some economic geographers argue in favor of the interdisciplinary structure and decentered and heterodox intellectual culture of economic geography, characterized by the existence of these five different paradigms. This culture reflects the discipline’s intellectual vitality and strength rather than being a problem or weakness (Barnes et al., 2012; Barnes and Christophers, 2018; Peck, 2005; Sheppard et al., 2004; Weichhart, 2018; Martin, 2021). For instance, Hudson (2006: 55) emphasized the necessity for plurality to deal with the complex and nuanced nature of the modern capitalist world, which would not be explicable by one all-encompassing theoretical position. Similarly, according to Agnew (2012: 567) the pluralist character of economic geography goes beyond “the idealized image of 19^th Century physics as the ultimate model of knowing.” Moreover, in Markusen’s (2006) view, economic geography offers scholars, policy-makers, and students a remarkable arena for harnessing the best of sciences to understand change because it is not hindered by strict orthodoxies and limiting normative underpinnings. Indeed, these arguments in favor of intra-disciplinary plurality are quite justified. Because in the face of economic geography's context (place and space)-dependent nature, an intellectual lock-in induced by scientific monism would impede it in dealing with and understanding and explaining a multifaceted and complex reality.

On the other hand, as has been stated in the introduction, recently concerns have been rising in economic geography about the flip sides of pluralism. Barnes and Sheppard (2010: 193) argued that “economic geography has become increasingly fragmented into a series of intellectual solitudes that has created isolation, producing monologues rather than conversation, and raising the question of how knowledge production should proceed.” They called this situation fragmented pluralism. Moreover, according to Aoyama et al. (2011a: 111) “the increasingly specialized and fragmented nature of the discipline and the resulting ‘disappearing of the middle’ lead to fewer dedicated scholars, which, in turn, endangers the survival of the discipline.” Relatedly, this would lead to difficulties “to isolate a disciplinary core” (Muellerleile et al., 2014: 11), coming at “the expense of disciplinary cohesiveness, which is sorely lacking” (Clare and Siemiatycki, 2014: 6). Similarly, fragmented pluralism in economic geography led to the question of the raison-d’être of economic geography vis-à-vis geographical economics and other neighboring social sciences (Sheppard et al., 2012; Peck, 2015: 32).

In a reaction to these threats of fragmented pluralism and related specialization traps, Sheppard and Plummer (2007) and Barnes and Sheppard (2010) developed the idea of engaged pluralism, as a prescription for treatment. It has the potential to enable mutually productive exchanges, through “trading zones” in which different theoretical and intellectual traditions are brought together through intersecting research and discussion. Although there are some doubts about what engaged pluralism means in practice (see Simandan, 2011; Sunley, 2012), calls for engaged pluralism have until now resonated in the discipline (see Clare and Siemiatycki, 2014; Mann, 2012; Rosenman et al., 2020). Some initiatives explore ways in which some degree of combination, amalgamation, fusion, or synthesis of different perspectives and theories might be achievable (see Hassink et al., 2014; Hassink and Gong, 2017; MacKinnon, 2012; Martin and Sunley, 2015; Pike, 2020). For instance, MacKinnon (2012) proposed a geographical political economy of evolution (GPEE) approach trying to link EEG and IEG, incorporating a social and pluralist conception of institutions and agency, in order to be able to assess the evolution of economic landscapes. Hassink et al. (2014) followed the engaged pluralism argument in order to attempt to combine evolutionary, relational, and institutional economic geography in certain respects. Moreover, seeking to foster engagement, dialogue, and mutual learning, Pike (2020) outlined a geographical political economy approach to economic evolution and focus on geographically differentiated pathways and institutions.

Recently, Martin (2021) proposed the ideas of “integrative pluralism” and “boundary objects” to economic geographers, as ways of pursuing communication and knowledge exchange between different epistemic communities while nevertheless preserving the advantages of theoretical and perspectival pluralism. Inspired by Mitchell (2004), Martin (2021: 15) categorized the integrative initiatives in economic geography (such as Hassink and Gong, 2017; Martin and Sunley, 2015) as “local theoretical unification,” which explore possible overlaps and complementarities between different paradigms or propose “foundational” or “spanning” frameworks for uniting particular viewpoints. He labeled other attempts (such as Sheppard, 2016, 2018) as “foundational pluralism,” which propose one or more common “organizing principles” to which different perspectives can (or should) subscribe and under which they can be unified. Moreover, Martin (2021) proposed boundary objects and bridging concepts as ways to facilitate integrated pluralism across economic geography between different epistemic communities, while nevertheless preserving the advantages of theoretical and perspectival pluralism. Boundary objects refer to objects that are dynamic, egalitarian, and flexible concerning interpretations and have “… sufficient acceptance across different scholars and disciplines of the idea in broad terms … as to permit the exchange (‘trade’) of ideas between different perspectives” (Martin, 2021: 21). Bridging concepts go one step further and actually actively link “… fields and stimulates dialog” in an integrative way (Baggio et al., 2015: 2). Martin (2021) mentioned several examples of the latter, such as clusters, path dependence, resilience, sustainability, inequality, globalization, agglomeration, global production networks, and governance.

Overall, discussions about fragmented pluralism in economic geography and the proposals for engaged or integrative pluralism as well as for boundary objects and bridging concepts are mostly based on narratives of economic geographers, that is, their qualitative judgments (for an exception, see Rosenman et al., 2020). In our view, arguments for fragmented pluralism related to the communication structure of economic geography first need to be subject to empirical analysis. The bibliometric network of economic geography publications can help to learn more about intra-paradigm dialogue and communication patterns. The use of bibliometrics can quantitatively help to understand the research foundation, the current state of research, and the research trends in a given field (Boyack and Klavans, 2019; Van Eck and Waltman, 2014; Zupic and Čater, 2015). Therefore, based on three analyses, we tried to empirically explore the relationships and interactions among the five abovementioned paradigms in order to provide a solid basis for these discussions and to uncover both the extent of communication among paradigms and their communication points (as boundary objects and bridging concepts).

III Data collection and methodological approach

1 Data collection

After several rounds of data collection and analysis between June 2022 and August 2022, we finalized a set of data collection and retrieval methods shown in Table 2. For each paradigm, we collected literature in English in two ways. First, we collected papers citing the “launching paper(s)” of each paradigm in economic geography (see Table 2, first column); secondly, we collected papers through a series of keywords (see Table 2, second column).

Table 2.

Data collection and retrieval strings.

Citing launching paper(s) AND All = (“economic geograph*”)	Research string with keywords	Manual adding	Total 1034
Boschma and Frenken, 2006→318	All = (((“evolutionary perspective” OR “evolutionary approach” OR “evolutionary turn”) AND “economic geograph”) OR (“evolutionary economic geograph*”))→383	5	EEG-560-565
Bathelt and Glückler, 2003; Yeung, 2005→282	All = (((“relational perspective” OR “relational approach” OR “relational turn”) AND “economic geograph”) OR (“relational economic geograph*”))→100	7	REG-312-319
Gertler, 2010; Martin, 2000→148	All = (((“institutional perspective” OR “institutional approach” OR “institutional turn”) AND “economic geograph”) OR (“institutional economic geograph*”))→45	18	IEG-181-199
Gibson-Graham, 1996, 2008; Leyshon et al., 2003→70	All = ((“Alternative economic activit” OR “Diverse econom” OR “Alternative Economic Space” OR “Alternative Economic Geograph” OR “The proliferative econom” OR “Alternative Financial Space” OR “Alternative Retail Space” OR “Alternative Work Space” OR “Alternative Employment Space” OR “Alternative Exchange Space” OR “Alternative lifestyle Space”) AND “economic geograph”)→31	0	AEG-83-83
Sheppard, 2011→35	All = ((“Geographical political econom” OR “regional political econom”) AND “economic geograph*”)→34	6	GPE-58-64

Since the data collected by these two methods will overlap, the final data will be less than the sum of the data collected by both methods. For example, although we collected 318 and 383 articles for the EEG literature by using “launching papers” and “keywords,” respectively, we only obtained 560 articles. Furthermore, we acknowledge that there might be some papers that did not cite the launching paper or use corresponding keywords, yet still belong to one or more of the paradigms. To prevent the omission of significant recordings, based on multiple rounds of data collection using several different search strings, we manually read some papers with high citations, but which are not included in this set of retrieval methods, and eventually added 5, 7, 18, and 6 additional articles for EEG, REG, IEG, and GPE, respectively (we put these manually added articles in Appendix I).

Finally, we obtained 1034 pieces of data. Due to the overlap of data obtained from searching through the five paradigms search strings in Table 2, 162 papers occupied 358 spaces among these 1034 pieces of data. This means that these 162 papers involved at least two paradigms. By manually reading these 162 papers, we eventually found 53 papers that take engaged pluralism seriously (we categorize them as EP a priori) and the remaining papers that simply referred to multiple paradigms. By referring to the Local Citation Score (LCS)² as well as manual checks, we assigned the remaining 109 papers into the paradigm with the highest LCS based on the different single paradigms. We acknowledge that not all papers citing a particular launching paper or using special keywords necessarily belong to, or are exclusively attributed to, that paradigm. However, as the subsequent analysis in this paper is mainly based on bibliometric analysis, such instances are not predominant and do not affect the main conclusions. Moreover, through the manual check process described above about the EP category, and the use of the LCS indicator, we are well positioned to identify papers that are widely cited and recognized within the paradigm, while excluding those that may not truly embody the core ideas of their respective paradigms (since such articles often do not have a high LCS).

2 Choice of bibliometric networks

We used three bibliometric networks to map the relationships and interactions among the five paradigms (Table 3). First, a bibliographic coupling (BC) network was used to measure the degree of overlap of prior knowledge or the proximity of the relationships among the five paradigms. BC is about the overlap of the reference lists in different publications (Van Eck and Waltman, 2022). It “… uses the number of references shared by two documents as a measure of the similarity between them. The more the bibliographies of two articles overlap, the stronger their connection” (Zupic and Čater, 2015: 434). Secondly, we used a direct citation (DC) network to reflect the interaction between the five paradigms to determine whether the existing literature can be characterized as fragmented or engaged in terms of communication and knowledge exchange. Compared to BC networks, DC more directly shows the first-order links between two documents, tracing the citation of one publication by another (Boyack and Klavans, 2019). We acknowledge that DC between a few articles may not adequately reflect the communication (engaged pluralism) among paradigms, as such citation is unidirectional. When paper A cites paper B, it only represents B's influence on A and hardly reflects A's impact on B (since the premise for B being cited is often that it has already been published). However, when viewed from the perspective of the entire group of paradigm papers and over an extended time frame, direct citations become a very indicative measure of the dialogue and exchange among paradigms. Inspired by Newell and Cousins (2015), we added a time dimension to this network (we call this Direct Citation with Time, DCT) to reflect the evolutionary relationships between the paradigms. Finally, we used a keyword-based (KB) analysis to find bridging concepts among different paradigms. To complete the four analyses described above, we used bibliometric software including VOSviewer, Pajek, and HistCite.

Table 3.

Three bibliometric networks.

Bibliometric networks	Core of the network	Answer the questions in this article
1. Bibliographic coupling (BC)	The overlap of the reference lists in different publications	How much their prior knowledge differ across paradigms?
2. Direct citation (DC)	Mixed citation and cited relationships, as both reflect the “trade” between the publications	How much fragmented or engaged pluralism there among the different paradigms?
2a. Direct citation with time (DCT)	Adding a time dimension to DC makes the origin and evolution of the literature more intuitive, visible, and straightforward	How the different paradigms evolve conditioned by each other?
3. Keywords-based analysis (KB)	The frequency status of keywords appearing simultaneously in different fields	How do the different paradigms bridge to each other?

IV Results of bibliometric analysis

1 Trend

Based on the data collected above, we counted the output of articles of different paradigms for each year and obtained Figure 1. Overall, we recently see an, in our view, worrisome overall trend of declining reference to current paradigms.

Figure 1.

Output trend of five paradigms.

Figure 1 also shows that EEG is the largest of all paradigms. REG rose before EEG but did not do as well as EEG after 2009. Based on the year-by-year number of all paradigm papers, we roughly divided it into three phases: before 2007 (the start-up phase), from 2007 to 2017 (the rapid growth phase), and after 2017 (the fluctuating development phase). Figure 1 also shows that some paradigms, such as GPE and AEG, are not often referred to.

The popularity of EEG can be partly explained by the active role of its main scholars organizing special sessions at conferences, such as Dieter Kogler who organized during a long time successfully special sessions at the AAG Annual Meeting with EEG in its title, as well as special issues, such as in Regional Studies (Kogler, 2015) and the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society (Kogler et al., 2023). The main scholars of the other paradigms have been less active in this respect. Other reasons for the waxing and waning of paradigms are generational transitions and related life cycles, empirical research showing the decreasing of their explanatory power, and a lacking fit to societal needs. Concerning the latter, arguably, given current crisis-ridden times, GPE might gain momentum in the near future, given its emphasis on the state and macro-scale analysis, as suggested recently by Essletzbichler et al. (2023). It would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these issues in much more detail here, but they need to be included in future debates about paradigms and pluralism in economic geography.

2 To what extent does prior knowledge differ across paradigms?

As stated in Section III.2, BC shows the relationship of a common reference between two papers (citing paper). The higher the number of the same references (cited articles), the more they share the same research base, the higher the similarity between these two papers (citing paper). When we analyze from the BC network perspective, the more links there are between two paradigms, the fewer differences or deviations there are between these two. According to the algorithm of VOSviewer, the closer the location of different nodes in the BC network in the visualization, the stronger the coupling relationship will be. In other words, paradigms that are close to each other tend to share common prior knowledge, which means they are more similar. Vice versa, paradigms that are far from each other usually do not cite the same publications, which means they are more different.

We have formed two BC networks based on different filtering criteria, which are visualized in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Figure 2 shows the BC networks of the five paradigms (after deducting the 53 EP papers). We retained 183 papers according to the threshold of LCS no fewer than 5. Of these, EEG contributed 115, REG 47, IEG 16, AEG 3, and GPE 2 papers³. Through Figure 2, we can easily observe that the coupling relationships between EEG and REG are overall independent, indicating that they are overall distanced and dissimilar to each other. However, as the most and second most cited articles within EEG (identified by the node size in Figure 2), Boschma and Frenken (2006) and Martin and Sunley (2006) are, respectively, closely coupled to REG and IEG, which indicates that the important contributions of EEG are closely related to REG and IEG. Moreover, it shows that IEG is strongly coupled with both EEG and REG. In particular, example BCe1 (Grillitsch, 2015) and example BCe2 (Markusen, 1996), although both articles belong to the IEG paradigm, strongly share research foundations with EEG and REG, respectively (using the same principle, we have labeled 10 such special articles in Figures 2 and 3). In addition, although the coupling density is lower than the ones of REG, EEG, and IEG, GPE also is bibliographically coupled with IEG. Finally, AEG is only slightly close to REG and IEG and has almost no coupling relationship with EEG.

Figure 2.

Bibliographic coupling networks of five single paradigms (node size represents LCS, LCS ≥5,183 nodes).

Figure 3.

Bibliographic coupling networks of five single paradigms and “engaged pluralism cluster” (node size represents LCS1034, LCS1034 ≥ 7,209 nodes).

Figure 3 shows the BC networks of five paradigms and 53 EP articles. In this figure, we filtered out 209 articles using a threshold of LCS1034 no fewer than 7. Among them, we obtained 98 EEG, 47 REG, 25 IEG, 4 AEG, and 6 GPE articles. At the same time, the remaining 25 EP articles from the original set of 53 EP articles were added as the sixth cluster to the network. By examining the changes in the number of papers for different paradigms in Figures 2 and 3, we found that except for the EEG paradigm, which has decreased in size, all other paradigms have increased in size as the filtering criterion changed from LCS ≥5 to LCS1034 ≥ 7. This to some extent indicates that the EEG paradigm has a higher internal self-citation rate than the other paradigms. In other words, EEG has a more closely connected internal network, which validates our argument in Section IV.1 that the popularity of EEG is due to its active internal interactions, including conferences, special issues, and of course, internal self-citations. Figure 3 also confirms our interpretation of Figure 2, that IEG has the highest number of couplings with other paradigms because it has the most overlapping bibliography with EP. Finally, as the node size is represented by LCS1034, we can also identify articles that are important in all paradigms by the size of the node. This can help us to identify some articles that may not be very important in their own paradigm but are important in the overall paradigm research, or vice versa. For example, the LCS of BCe10 is 3, so the node in Figure 2 is very small. However, its LCS1034 is 13 (thus the node is larger). This indicates that although BCe10 (Trippl et al., 2015) is cited less in the IEG field, it is cited many times in other paradigm studies. Therefore, Trippl et al. (2015) is an important article for other paradigm papers.

3 How much fragmented or engaged pluralism is there among the different paradigms?

In fragmented pluralism, it is expected that self-referencing dominates, that the centrifugal forces are strong and communication is “closed” towards the other paradigms, and that evaluation of the relevance and quality of research are limited to the members of the respective paradigm (Bernstein, 2005; Weingart, 2010). However, this expectation is just a qualitative judgment made by scholars and should not be treated to be true a priori. Moreover, the engaged pluralism judgment in economic geography was made 10 years ago, and we hence urgently need to quantitatively verify it.

As mentioned in Section III.2, DC networks are helpful in clarifying the citation relationship between two articles and recognizing research direction (with time dimension). “As the authors referring to prior literature have to be selective as they cannot cite all relevant literature on the studied topic, direct citation link among two documents is created intentionally … reflecting which paper consider communication with another one as relevant and important” (Thijs, 2019: 216). In general, DC networks are depicted with arrows pointing from the cited references to the citing references. Alternatively, in the absence of arrows, the timeline can be used to represent the relationship between cited papers and citing papers, as it is not possible for past publications to cite publications that are published in the future. However, in this section, we will disregard the direction of citation arrows because from the overall thinking, no matter whether a reference is cited by or cites another reference, it reflects the “dialogue” and “trade” between paradigms. Therefore, in this section, we adopt a citation network without arrows (i.e., without a time dimension) to visually represent the dialogue between different paradigms. In the next section, we will use a citation network with a time dimension to reflect the evolution of the mutual influence between different paradigms.

Similar to the logic in section IV.2, Figures 4 and 5 show the DC networks of the 183 and 209 articles, respectively. Similarly, relying on the algorithm of VOSviewer, we can identify the strength of the dialogue between different paradigms (i.e., the amount of mutual citation) by the distance between their locations on the visualization map. Based on Figure 4, we can see that although there are a few citation relationships between paradigms, such as DCe1 (Balland et al., 2013) and DCe2 (Martin and Sunley, 2001), overall, the relationships between paradigms are very sparse. EEG is minimally associated with REG, and most of these connections occur after 2010 (e.g., Balland et al., 2013; Fløysand and Jakobsen, 2011). REG overall is almost unaffected by EEG, so there is still a strong separation between the two. AEG is mainly associated with REG and to a lesser extent with GPE, but not with the overall popular EEG.

Figure 4.

Direct citation networks of five single paradigms (node size represents LCS, LCS ≥5,183 nodes).

Figure 5.

Direct citation networks of five single paradigms and “engaged pluralism cluster” (node size represents LCS1034, LCS1034 ≥ 7,209 nodes).

It seems that we may need to consider this as fragmented pluralism. However, Figure 5 seems to give us other evidence. First, “the use of direct citations often leads to very sparse networks (i.e., networks with only a very small number of edges)” (Van Eck and Waltman, 2014: 287). Secondly, Figure 4 was constructed by excluding 53 articles defined as EP. By comparing Figures 4 and 5, we believe that the fragmentation mentioned above may be due to the small number of articles in Figure 4. Through Figure 5, we found that except for AEG, each paradigm has the intellectual lending or borrowing with other paradigms, although the degree of interaction may be uneven. For example, although IEG has extensive dialogue with both EEG and REG, it has relatively more dialogue with REG than with EEG. In addition, there is a strong dialogue between GPE and REG, although the BC network in Section IV.2 did not find much overlap between them in terms of research base. Combining Figures 4 and 5, we have marked a total of nine papers (from DCe1 to DCe9) that clearly communicate with other paradigms.

4 How did the different paradigms evolve and affect each other?

Similar to the previous two sub-sections, Figures 6 and 7 show five clusters and six clusters including the “engaged pluralism cluster” for the DCT networks, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 6 that EEG, despite being launched later than IEG and REG, has developed into the largest paradigm since the publication of the two papers by Boschma and Frenken (2006) and Martin and Sunley (2006). It is worth noting that, although the development of IEG and REG predates the development of EEG, the earliest economic geography articles with an evolutionary perspective did not explicitly draw inspiration from these two paradigms. Instead, as can be seen from Figure 6, the development of REG was based on the foundation of IEG (Markusen, 1996), while the emergence of GPE relied on the foundation of REG (Scott, 2004).

Figure 6.

Direct citation networks of five single paradigms (node size represents LCS, LCS ≥5,183 nodes. The figure shows from the left to right the older and newer papers. In each cluster, papers with larger LCS are located at the top and bottom, and articles with smaller LCS are located in the middle.).

Figure 7.

Direct citation networks of five single paradigms and “engaged pluralism cluster” (node size represents LCS1034, LCS1034 ≥ 7,209 nodes. The figure shows from the left to right the older and newer papers. In each cluster, papers with larger LCS1034 are located at the top and bottom, and articles with smaller LCS1034 are located in the middle).

As can be seen in Figure 7, “Engaged Pluralism” has gradually emerged since 2009 and has become more common. More or less after the beginning of the debate on engaged pluralism and fragmented pluralism in the discipline, there has been an increasing number of articles from a multi-paradigm perspective that have reconciled with the limitations implied by using one paradigm in terms of object of study, research topic, explanatory strategies, methods, and tools. It clearly shows the increasing concern in the economic geography community about fragmented pluralism and the embodied practices of engaged pluralism. These studies have sought and considered ways of engaged dialogue, synthesis, or integration with the frameworks of other paradigms, clearly showing that communication is not “closed” towards the other paradigms. Taking the latest EP paper as an example (Yeung, 2021), it not only commonly involves EEG and REG but also includes considerations of IEG, GPE, and AEG.

5 How do the different paradigms bridge to each other?

After cleaning the keywords (in addition to the usual merging of singular and plural and keywords, such as “cluster/clusters,” or “catching-up/catching up”), we merged “policy/policies,” “economy/economics,” and “globalization/globalisation” in the field of economic geography. The keywords of all paradigms and the keywords of each paradigm were counted by year and then we filtered the keywords with frequencies greater than 20 in all paradigms and those with frequencies greater than 10 in a single paradigm. After deleting the retrieval keywords such as “economic geography” and “evolutionary economic geography,” we ended up with 29 important keywords, and the following keyword graph was obtained (Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Frequency of keywords (node size represents the number of keywords).

In Figure 8, the year is shown on the left (the three colors from the bottom to the top are the three phases of start-up-rapid growth-fluctuating development), the paradigms on the right, and the 29 important keywords mentioned above in the middle.

First, we can identify some of the most important keywords in the paradigm papers, which are ranked at the top and bottom of the middle column, such as path dependence, regional development, institution, innovation, and cluster.

Secondly, we can obtain information about timing, connection, and thickness. For example, institutions, clusters, path dependence, and evolution are developed in the initial phase, while relatedness, regional innovation system, related variety, agency, path creation, and co-evolution are developed during the rapid growth phase. Some words, such as globalization and networks, have become less popular in recent years. In the same way, we can find important keywords within each paradigm. For example, uneven development is particularly important for GPE, while diverse economy is particularly important for AEG, and technology relatedness is unique to EEG.

Last but not least, this figure allows us to identify some bridging concepts. For example, the cluster concept bridges EEG, REG, and IEG, and especially REG and EEG, institutions bridge EEG, REG, IEG, and GPE, and especially IEG and EEG, and the diverse economy bridges GPE and AEG.

These bridging concepts may have different functions in the paradigms, such as object of study, research topic, explanatory strategy, method, and tool. For example, globalization might be the object of study and social network analysis the method. However, the usefulness of these concepts for bridging paradigms needs to be debated on an individual basis. In our view, they are particularly useful, if they contribute to strengthening the core of economic geography, as a context- and place-sensitive discipline (Gong and Hassink, 2020; Chu and Hassink, 2023).

V Conclusions

Concerns about fragmented pluralism in economic geography, which we share, were the main motivation to write this paper. Like many other economic geographers, we are in favor of engaged pluralism. Moreover, we want to debate the discipline’s identity and core, without having a normative, politically driven agenda. We see the discussion about bridging concepts as an interesting way forward to achieve the aims of engaged pluralism and finding a theoretical core.

Although our bibliometric analysis showed a complex knowledge landscape in economic geography, it did not confirm the worries expressed in the economic geography literature about fragmented pluralism. First, through the BC network, we verified that there is a large amount of common use of prior knowledge between IEG and EEG, IEG and REG, and IEG and GPE. Secondly, we observe considerable direct citing among different paradigms by DC networks, pointing to interaction, intellectual lending, and borrowing among different paradigms. Thirdly, we could also observe an increasing number of papers arguing in favor of engaged pluralism, with concrete suggestions for complementarities between paradigms, particularly between EEG, REG, and IEG. Finally, therefore, although economic geography is pluralistic in terms of paradigms, networks of communication between paradigms point to a conversational community, with engaged dialogues and exchange between paradigms, rather than fragmented pluralism where intellectual monocultures engage only in self-validating research. A closer look at the individual scholars also reveals that not only do some scholars appear in several paradigms, such as Ron Martin, but they also play an active role as intermediaries in the engaged pluralism literature. This observed engaged pluralism is possible because of a high level of commensurability between the paradigms, as they share a critical stance towards positivism (Gong and Hassink, 2020), as some have critical realism as an underlying philosophy of science (Chu and Hassink, 2023) and as most draw on heterodox economics. Moreover, and related to the previous point, it arguably also shows that in fact some of the paradigms are more overlapping than their main protagonists make us believe, because they represent speciation, rather than radical new paradigms, with a high degree of commensurability.

We see the discussion about bridging concepts as an interesting way to further strengthen engaged pluralism and to debate about a theoretical core (Muellerleile et al., 2014), whether it is desirable and whether it should change, and see our first analysis as an invitation to contribute to these debates. In our view, criteria for proposing or selecting bridging concepts between paradigms should be their contribution to understanding and exploring the core questions of economic geography and they should bridge paradigms in such a way that the theoretical core will be strengthened. Such a theoretical core is by no means fixed and once-and-forever, and can change through time, as paradigms and bridging concepts change through time, as well.

However, our observed increasing engaged pluralism and the related debate about bridging concepts are no reasons for economic geographers to sit back and relax because our analysis has also shown a worrisome decreasing overall reference to paradigms in the literature (Figure 1), and there are arguably few alternatives to the currently existing paradigms on the horizon. In our view, existing paradigms need to be more challenged and criticized and potential alternatives, such as recently mentioned by Yeung (2023), need to be discussed. They could consist of environmental economic geography (Braun et al., 2018; He et al., 2022), the geography of sustainability transitions (Hansen and Coenen, 2015), financial geography (Gibadullina, 2021; Wójcik, 2022), global production networks (Coe and Yeung, 2019), and the platform economy (Kenney and Zysman, 2020). However, in our view, these alternatives could be regarded as topic-related “major research foci and communities” (Yeung, 2023: 1), rather than paradigms with theories that are helpful for generally understanding and explaining economic activities in space. Concerning the latter, one might, given the current crisis-ridden times in which nation-states play a key role, expect geographical political economy to become more important in the near future (see also Essletzbichler et al., 2023)

Using a bibliometric method analyzing paradigmatic pluralism, although promising, is not without limitations. First, we took launching papers as a starting point for demarking the paradigms, but maybe some of the influence is more indirectly and implicit without citing the launching literature and this might also differ from paradigm to paradigm. Secondly, we only use English-speaking literature. In some other main language areas, there might be influential paradigms that are slightly different from the internationally discussed ones, such as Raumwirtschaftslehre in Germany (Suwala, 2023), loosely translated with regional science by Bathelt and Glückler (2011: 22). Thirdly, due to the limited information that static pictures can reveal, we cannot distinguish between one-directional and two-directional engagement between paradigms.

However, despite these limitations, we are convinced that our bibliometric analysis provides a solid basis for a much-needed debate in economic geography about pluralism, identity, the theoretical core of the discipline, and about its paradigmatic future.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Fragmented or engaged pluralism in economic geography?

Supplemental Material for Fragmented or engaged pluralism in economic geography? by Han Chu, Robert Hassink, and Şükrü Yılmaz in Progress in Human Geography.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Preliminary versions of this paper have been presented in-person at the 6^th Global Conference on Economic Geography, Dublin, in June 2022, at the Mini Conference of the International Geographical Union-Commission on the Dynamics of Economic Spaces, Osnabrück, in October 2022, at the 16^th Rauischholzhausener Symposium zur Wirtschaftsgeographie in April 2023, and at a workshop in CURDS, Newcastle, in September 2023. We are grateful to participants of these events for their comments and questions after these presentations. We also thank Alex Hughes, the editor, and two anonymous reviewers for giving very helpful and constructive comments. Finally, we are grateful to Huiwen Gong, who was involved in earlier work that formed the basis of this paper (Hassink and Gong, 2017), provided and some text, and gave some good comments on a previous version of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the China Scholarship Council (No. 202108080164).

ORCID iDs

Han Chu

Robert Hassink

Şükrü Yılmaz

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biographies

Han Chu, a Research Associate in Evolutionary Economic Geography at Kiel University, Germany, explores the impact of digital platforms on regional development, focusing on cluster development and global production networks in her PhD projects.

Robert Hassink is Full Professor of Economic Geography at the Department of Geography at Kiel University, Germany. His research focuses on industrial restructuring, regional innovation policy and paradigms and perspectives of economic geography.

Şükrü Yılmaz is a Doctoral Researcher in the Working Group of Economic Geography at Kiel University, Germany. His research is grounded in evolutionary economic geography and focuses on the role of multi-actor and multi-scalar dynamics in regional path development processes.

References

Agnew

(2012) Putting politics into economic geography. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) The Wiley‐Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 567–580.

Amin

Thrift

(1995) Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association. Economy and Society 24(1): 41–66.

Anand

Larson

Mahoney

(2020) Thomas Kuhn on paradigms. Production and Operations Management 29(7): 1650–1657.

Aoyama

Berndt

Glückler

, et al. (2011a) Emerging themes in economic geography: outcomes of the economic geography 2010 workshop. Economic Geography 87(2): 111–126.

Aoyama

Murphy

Hanson

(2011b) Key Concepts in Economic Geography. London: Sage.

Asheim

(2020) Economic geography as regional contexts’ reconsidered – implications for disciplinary division of labour, research focus and societal relevance. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 74(1): 25–34.

Baggio

Brown

Hellebrandt

(2015) Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Ecology and Society 20(2): 2.

Balland

(2012) Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies 46(6): 741–756.

Balland

De Vaan

Boschma

(2013) The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle: the case of the global video game industry, 1987–2007. Journal of Economic Geography 13(5): 741–765.

10.

Barnes

(2009) Economic geography. In: Kitchin

Thrift

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 315–327.

11.

Barnes

Christophers

(2018) Economic Geography: A Critical Introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Barnes

Sheppard

(2010) ‘Nothing includes everything’: towards engaged pluralism in Anglophone economic geography. Progress in Human Geography 34(2): 193–214.

13.

Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

, et al. (2007) Methods matter: transformations in economic geography. In: Tickell

Sheppard

Peck

, et al. (eds) Politics and Practice in Economic Geography. London: Sage Publications, 1–24.

14.

Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) (2012) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

15.

Barreiro

(2015) Using histcite software to identify significant articles in subject searches of the web of science. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:1512.07069.

16.

Barry

Born

Weszkalnys

(2008) Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49.

17.

Bassett

(1999) Is there progress in human geography? The problem of progress in the light of recent work in the philosophy and sociology of science. Progress in Human Geography 23(1): 27–47.

18.

Bathelt

(2006) Geographies of production: growth regimes in spatial perspective 3 - toward a relational view of economic action and policy. Progress in Human Geography 30(2): 223–236.

19.

Bathelt

Glückler

(2003) Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 117–144.

20.

Bathelt

Glückler

(2011) The Relational Economy: Geographies of Knowing and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21.

Bathelt

Glückler

(2018) Relational research design in economic geography. In: Clarke

Feldman

Gertler

, et al. (eds) New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179–195.

22.

Bathelt

Coe

Kerr

, et al. (2017) Editorial: economic geography IMPULSES. Journal of Economic Geography 17(5): 927–933.

23.

Bernstein

(2005) The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity, Postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

24.

Boggs

Rantisi

(2003) The ‘relational turn’ in economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 109–116.

25.

Bok

(2019) ‘By our metaphors you shall know us’: the ‘fix’ of geographical political economy. Progress in Human Geography 43(6): 1087–1108.

26.

Bordons

Morillo

Gómez

(2005) Analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In: Moed

Glänzel

Schmoch

(eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 437–456.

27.

Boschma

Frenken

(2006) Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 6(3): 273–302.

28.

Boschma

Frenken

(2009) Some notes on institutions in evolutionary economic geography. Economic Geography 85(2): 151–158.

29.

Boschma

Frenken

(2011) The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 11(2): 295–307.

30.

Boschma

Frenken

(2018) Evolutionary economic geography. In: Clarke

Feldman

Gertler

, et al. (eds) New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 213–229.

31.

Boschma

Martin

(2010) The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography. In: Boschma

Martin

(eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 3–39.

32.

Boschma

Wenting

(2007) The spatial evolution of the British automobile industry: does location matter? Industrial and Corporate Change 16(2): 213–238.

33.

Boschma

Minondo

Navarro

(2013) The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: a proximity approach based on product relatedness. Economic Geography 89(1): 29–51.

34.

Boyack

Klavans

(2019) Creation and analysis of large-scale bibliometric networks. In: Glänzel

Moed

Schmoch

, et al. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer, 187–212.

35.

Braun

Oßenbrügge

Schulz

(2018) Environmental economic geography and environmental inequality: challenges and new research prospects. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 62(2): 120–134.

36.

Brenner

(2004) New State Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Broekel

Boschma

(2012) Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography 12(2): 409–433.

38.

Chu

Hassink

(2023) Advancing spatial ontology in evolutionary economic geography. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 16(3): 391–404.

39.

Clare

Siemiatycki

(2014) Primacy or pluralism: future directions in economic geography. The Professional Geographer 66(1): 4–10.

40.

Clark

Feldman

Gertler

, et al. (eds) (2018) The New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

Coe

Yeung

HWC

(2019) Global production networks: mapping recent conceptual developments. Journal of Economic Geography 19(4): 775–801.

42.

Coe

Kelly

Yeung

HW-C

(2013) Economic Geography: A Contemporary Introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

43.

Essletzbichler

Scholz-Wäckerle

Gerdes

, et al. (2023) Geographical evolutionary political economy: linking local evolution with uneven and combined development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 16(3): 543–560.

44.

Florida

Adler

(2020) Economic geography. In: Kobayashi

(ed) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 25–28.

45.

Fløysand

Jakobsen

(2011) The complexity of innovation: a relational turn. Progress in Human Geography 35(3): 328–344.

46.

Frenken

Van Oort

Verburg

(2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies 41(5): 685–697.

47.

Garretsen

Martin

(2010) Rethinking (new) economic geography models: taking geography and history more seriously. Spatial Economic Analysis 5(2): 127–160.

48.

Gaspar

(2021) New economic geography: history and debate. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28(1): 46–82.

49.

Gertler

(2004) Manufacturing Culture: The Institutional Geography of Industrial Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50.

Gertler

(2010) Rules of the game: the place of institutions in regional economic change. Regional Studies 44(1): 1–15.

51.

Gertler

(2018) Institutions, geography, and economic life. In: Clarke

Feldman

Gertler

, et al. (eds) New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230–242.

52.

Gibadullina

(2021) The birth and development of Anglophone financial geography: a historical analysis of geographical studies of money and finance. Geoforum 125: 150–167.

53.

Gibson-Graham

(1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

54.

Gibson-Graham

(2003) Poststructural interventions. In: Sheppard

Barnes

(eds) A Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 95–110.

55.

Gibson-Graham

(2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography 32(5): 613–632.

56.

Gibson-Graham

Cameron

Healy

(2013) Take Back the Economy: An Ethical Guide for Transforming Our Communities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

57.

Gibson-Graham

Dombroski

(2020a) Introduction to the handbook of diverse economies: inventory as ethical intervention. In: Gibson-Graham

Dombroski

(eds). The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–24.

58.

Gibson-Graham

Dombroski

(eds) (2020b) The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

59.

Giuliani

(2013) Network dynamics in regional clusters: evidence from Chile. Research Policy 42(8): 1406–1419.

60.

Glänzel

Moed

Schmoch

, et al. (eds) (2019) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer.

61.

Glückler

Lenz

(2018) Drift and Morphosis in institutional change: evidence from the ‘Walz’ and public tendering in Germany. In: Glückler

Suddaby

Lenz

(eds) Knowledge and Institutions. Cham: Springer, 111–133.

62.

Gong

Hassink

(2019) Co-evolution in contemporary economic geography: towards a theoretical framework. Regional Studies 53(9): 1344–1355.

63.

Gong

Hassink

(2020) Context sensitivity and economic-geographic (re)theorising. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 13(3): 475–490.

64.

Grabher

(1993) The weakness of strong ties. The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In: Grabher

(ed), The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. London, New York, NY: Routledge, 255–277.

65.

Grillitsch

(2015) Institutional layers, connectedness and change: implications for economic evolution in regions. European Planning Studies 23(10): 2099–2124.

66.

Grillitsch

Asheim

Trippl

(2018) Unrelated knowledge combinations: the unexplored potential for regional industrial path development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 11(2): 257–274.

67.

Hansen

Coenen

(2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 17: 92–109.

68.

Harvey

(1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

69.

Hassink

(2007) The strength of weak lock-ins: the renewal of the Westmünsterland textile industry. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space 39(5): 1147–1165.

70.

Hassink

(2010) Locked in decline? On the role of regional lock-ins in old industrial areas. In: Boschma

Martin

(eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 450–468.

71.

Hassink

Gong

(2017) Sketching the contours of an integrative paradigm of economic geography. Papers in Innovation Studies 2017/12. Lund: Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

72.

Hassink

Klaerding

Marques

(2014) Advancing evolutionary economic geography by engaged pluralism. Regional Studies 48(7): 1295–1307.

73.

, et al. (2022) Environmental economic geography: recent advances and innovative development. Geography and Sustainability 3(2): 152–163.

74.

FZY

Lin

GCS

(2011) Situating regional advantage in geographical political economy: transformation of the state-owned enterprises in Guangzhou, China. Geoforum 42(6): 696–707.

75.

Hudson

(2005) Economic Geographies: Circuits, Flows and Spaces. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

76.

Hudson

(2006) The ‘new’ economic geography? In: Bagchi-Sen

Lawton Smith

(eds) Economic Geography: Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge, 47–56.

77.

Isaksen

(2015) Industrial development in thin regions: trapped in path extension? Journal of Economic Geography 15(3): 585–600.

78.

Jones

(2008) Recovering a sense of political economy. Political Geography 27(4): 377–399.

79.

Kenney

Zysman

(2020) The platform economy: restructuring the space of capitalist accumulation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 13(1): 55–76.

80.

Kogler

(2015) Editorial: evolutionary economic geography – theoretical and empirical progress. Regional Studies 49(5): 705–711.

81.

Kogler

Evenhuis

Giuliani

, et al. (2023) Re-Imagining evolutionary economic geography. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 16(3): 373–390.

82.

Kuhn

(1990) The road since structure. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–13.

83.

Kuhn

(2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

84.

Lee

(2006) The ordinary economy: tangled up in values and geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31(4): 413–432.

85.

Lee

(2011) Ordinary economic geographies: can economic geographies be non-economic? In: Leyshon

Lee

McDowell

, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Economic Geography. London: Sage, 368–382.

86.

Lefebvre

(1991) The Production of Space. London: Blackwell Publishing.

87.

Leydesdorff

Amsterdamska

(1990) Dimensions of citation analysis. Science, Technology & Human Values 15(3): 305–335.

88.

Leydesdorff

Wagner

Bornmann

(2018) Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—a tribute to Eugene Garfield. Scientometrics 114(2): 567–592.

89.

Leyshon

Lee

Williams

(eds) (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage.

90.

Leyshon

Lee

McDowell

, et al. (eds) (2011) The Sage Handbook of Economic Geography. London: Sage.

91.

MacKinnon

(2009) Institutionalism/institutional geographies. In: Kitchin

Thrift

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 499–506.

92.

MacKinnon

(2012) Beyond strategic coupling: reassessing the firm-region nexus in global production networks. Journal of Economic Geography 12(1): 227–245.

93.

MacKinnon

(2020) Institutionalism/institutional geographies. In: Kobayashi

(ed) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 349–355.

94.

MacKinnon

Cumbers

(2019) An Introduction to Economic Geography: Globalisation, Uneven Development and Place. New York, NY: Routledge.

95.

Malecki

(2015) Economic geography. In: Wright

(ed) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, 33–37.

96.

Mann

(2012) Release the hounds! The marvelous case of political economy. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 61–73.

97.

Markusen

(1996) Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography 72(3): 293–313.

98.

Markusen

(2006) Economic geography and political economy. In: Bagchi-Sen

Lawton Smith

(eds) Economic Geography: Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge, 47–56.

99.

Martin

(2000) Institutional approaches in economic geography. In: Sheppard

Trevor

(eds) A Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell, 77–94.

100.

Martin

(2011) The “new economic geography”: credible models of the economic landscape? In: Leyshon

Lee

McDowell

, et al. (eds) The Sage Companion to Economic Geography. London: Sage, 53–71.

101.

Martin

(2021) Putting the case for a pluralistic economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 21(1): 1–28.

102.

Martin

Sunley

(2001) Rethinking the “economic” in economic geography: broadening our vision or losing our focus? Antipode 33(2): 148–161.

103.

Martin

Sunley

(2003) Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography 3(1): 5–35.

104.

Martin

Sunley

(2006) Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 6(4): 395–437.

105.

Martin

Sunley

(2011) Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle model? Regional Studies 45(10): 1299–1318.

106.

Martin

Sunley

(2015) Towards a developmental turn in evolutionary economic geography? Regional Studies 49(5): 712–732.

107.

Maskell

Malmberg

(2007) Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 7(5): 603–618.

108.

Menzel

M-P

Fornahl

(2010) Cluster life cycles--dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(1): 205–238.

109.

Mitchell

(2004) Why integrative pluralism? Emergence: Complexity and Organization 6(1–2): 81–91.

110.

Moed

Glänzel

Schmoch

(eds) (2004) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S & T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

111.

Morrison

Rabellotti

(2009) Knowledge and information networks in an Italian wine cluster. European Planning Studies 17(7): 983–1006.

112.

Muellerleile

Strauss

Spigel

, et al. (2014) Economic geography and the financial crisis: full steam ahead? The Professional Geographer 66(1): 11–17.

113.

Murphy

(2018) The relational turn in economic geography. In: Cook

Johns

McDonald

, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to the Geography of International Business. New York, NY: Routledge, 161–173.

114.

Neffke

Henning

Boschma

(2011) How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography 87(3): 237–265.

115.

Neffke

Hartog

Boschma

, et al. (2018) Agents of structural change: the role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification. Economic Geography 94(1): 23–48.

116.

Nelson

Winter

(1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press.

117.

Newell

Cousins

(2015) The boundaries of urban metabolism: towards a political–industrial ecology. Progress in Human Geography 39(6): 702–728.

118.

Nickles

(ed) (2003) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

119.

Overman

(2004) Can we learn anything from economic geography proper? Journal of Economic Geography 4(5): 501–516.

120.

Peck

(2005) Economic sociologies in space. Economic Geography 81(2): 129–175.

121.

Peck

(2015) Navigating economic geographies. Keynote Speech at the Fourth Global Conference on Economic Geography. Oxford: University of Oxford.

122.

Peck

Whiteside

(2016) Financializing detroit. Economic Geography 92(3): 235–268.

123.

Pike

(2005) Building a geographical political economy of closure: the case of R&DCo in North East England. Antipode 37(1): 93–115.

124.

Pike

(2006) ‘Shareholder value’ versus the regions: the closure of the Vaux brewery in Sunderland. Journal of Economic Geography 6(2): 201–222.

125.

Pike

(2020) Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South. International Journal of Urban Sciences 26(1): 1–22.

126.

Pike

Marlow

McCarthy

, et al. (2015) Local institutions and local economic development: the local enterprise partnerships in England, 2010-. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8(2): 185–204.

127.

Popp

Wilson

(2007) Life cycles, contingency, and agency: growth, development, and change in English industrial districts and clusters. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space 39(12): 2975–2992.

128.

Rafiqui

(2008) Evolving economic landscapes: why new institutional economics matters for economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 9(3): 329–353.

129.

Rantisi

Boggs

(2020) Economic geography, relational. In: Kobayashi

(ed) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 29–34.

130.

Rodríguez-Pose

(2013) Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies 47(7): 1034–1047.

131.

Rodríguez-Pose

(2020) Institutions and the fortunes of territories. Regional Science Policy & Practice 12(3): 371–386.

132.

Rodríguez-Pose

Di Cataldo

(2015) Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 15(4): 673–706.

133.

Rodríguez-Pose

Storper

(2009) Better rules or stronger communities? On the social foundations of institutional change and its economic effects. Economic Geography 82(1): 1–25.

134.

Rosenman

Loomis

Kay

(2020) Diversity, representation, and the limits of engaged pluralism in (economic) geography. Progress in Human Geography 44(3): 510–533.

135.

Sankey

(1993) Kuhn’s changing concept of incommensurability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44(4): 759–774.

136.

Scott

(2000) Economic geography: the great half-century. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24(4): 483–504.

137.

Scott

(2004) A perspective of economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 4(5): 479–499.

138.

Scott

(2005) Sociology and its others: reflections on disciplinary specialisation and fragmentation. Sociological Research Online 10(1): 71–78.

139.

Sheppard

(2006) The economic geography project. In: Bagchi-Sen

Lawton Smith

(eds) Economic Geography: Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge, 11–23.

140.

Sheppard

(2011) Geographical political economy. Journal of Economic Geography 11(2): 319–331.

141.

Sheppard

(2016) Limits to Globalization: The Disruptive Geographies of Capitalist Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

142.

Sheppard

(2018) Heterodoxy as orthodoxy: prolegomenon for a geographical political economy. In: Clarke

Feldman

Gertler

, et al. (eds) New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 159–178.

143.

Sheppard

Plummer

(2007) Toward engaged pluralism in geographical debate. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space 39(11): 2545–2548.

144.

Sheppard

Barnes

Peck

, et al. (2004) Introduction: reading economic geography. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

, et al. (eds) Reading Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–10.

145.

Sheppard

Barnes

Peck

(2012) The long decade: economic geography, unbound. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–24.

146.

Simandan

(2011) Is engaged pluralism the best way ahead for economic geography? Commentary on Barnes and Sheppard (2009). Progress in Human Geography 35(4): 568–572.

147.

Simmie

(2012) Path dependence and new technological path creation in the Danish wind power industry. European Planning Studies 20(5): 753–772.

148.

Smith

(1984) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

149.

Smith

(2012) The insurmountable diversity of economies. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Wiley, 258–274.

150.

Strambach

(2010) Path dependence and path plasticity: the co- evolution of institutions and innovation – the German customized business software industry. In: Boschma

Martin

(eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 406–431.

151.

Sunley

(2012) Inheritance or exchange? Pluralism and the relationships between economic geography and economics. In: Barnes

Peck

Sheppard

(eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography. Malden, MA: Wiley, 581–593.

152.

Suwala

(2023) Wirtschaftsgeographie – neuere Entwicklungen und Konturen einer Disziplin. In: Suwala

(ed) Schlüsselbegriffe der Wirtschaftsgeographie Stuttgart: UTB, 17–30.

153.

Ter Wal

ALJ

(2014) The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure. Journal of Economic Geography 14(3): 589–620.

154.

Thijs

(2019) Science mapping and the identification of topics: theoretical and methodological considerations. In: Glänzel

Moed

Schmoch

, et al. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer, 213–233.

155.

Trippl

Grillitsch

Isaksen

, et al. (2015) Perspectives on cluster evolution: critical review and future research issues. European Planning Studies 23(10): 2028–2044.

156.

Trippl

Grillitsch

Isaksen

(2018) Exogenous sources of regional industrial change: attraction and absorption of non-local knowledge for new path development. Progress in Human Geography 42(5): 687–705.

157.

Van Eck

Waltman

(2014) Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding

Rousseau

Wolfram

(eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice. Cham: Springer, 285–320.

158.

Van Eck

Waltman

(2022) VOSviewer Manual 1.6.18. 1(0). Available at: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.18.pdf

159.

Van Raan

AFJ

(2004) Measuring science: capita selecta of current main issues. In: Moed

Glänzel

Schmoch

(eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 19–50.

160.

Wagner

Roessner

Bobb

, et al. (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 5(1): 14–26.

161.

Wainwright

(2012) Number crunching: financialization and spatial strategies of risk organization. Journal of Economic Geography 12(6): 1267–1291.

162.

Weichhart

(2012) Wie “funktioniert” ein Paradigma? In: Fassmann

Glade

(eds). Geographie für eine Welt im Wandel. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 53–64.

163.

Weichhart

(2016) Der Kieler Geographentag 1969 – Modernisierungsschub, Mythos, Paradigmenwandel oder vergessene Geschichte? Geographica Helvetica 71(1): 7–13.

164.

Weichhart

(2018) Entwicklungslinien der Sozialgeographie; Von Hans Bobek bis Benno Werlen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

165.

Weingart

(2010) A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman

Klein

Mitcham

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–14.

166.

Wenting

(2008) Spinoff dynamics and the spatial formation of the fashion design industry, 1858–2005. Journal of Economic Geography 8(5): 593–614.

167.

Wójcik

(2022) Financial geography III: research strategies, designs, methods and data. Progress in Human Geography 46(1): 245–254.

168.

Yeung

HWC

(2005) Rethinking relational economic geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30(1): 37–51.

169.

Yeung

HWC

(2021) Regional worlds: from related variety in regional diversification to strategic coupling in global production networks. Regional Studies 55(6): 989–1010.

170.

Yeung

HWC

(2023) Troubling economic geography: new directions in the post‐pandemic world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 48(4): 672–680.

171.

Zukauskaite

Trippl

Plechero

(2017) Institutional thickness revisited. Economic Geography 93(4): 325–345.

172.

Zupic

Čater

(2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18(3): 429–472.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.44 MB