transform (that is, process) knowledge, thereby
leadingto new or better products and processes.
Moreover, the firm’s competitive edge is defined
by its success in producing distinctive compe-
tences through the management of its knowledge
(Thrift, 2000b). And the emphasis on knowledge
processing fits well with the greater attention
recently given to the ‘knowledge-based’
economy (OECD, 1996). But notice as well that
the principal emphasis here is very much on the
firm itselfand its ability to define its own context
for knowledge production and sharing.^7 This is
the point where the argument veers into highly
contested terrain.
As noted above, a key argument emerging
from this competence-based perspective holds
that the success of the firm has become increas-
ingly dependent on its ability to gain access to
tacit knowledge. As Maskell and Malmberg have
recently put it, when all firms have unimpeded
access to explicit/codified knowledge, the creation
of unique capabilities and products depends on
the production and use of tacit knowledge:Though often overlooked, a logical and interesting con-
sequence of the present development towards a global
economy is that the more easily codifiable (tradable)
knowledge can be accessed, the more crucial does tacit
knowledge become for sustaining or enhancing the
competitive position of the firm. (1999: 172)And recalling from our earlier discussion of
learning, culture and the context-specific nature
of tacit knowledge, it is the growing importance
of this form of knowledge to the firm that has,
according to the now widely accepted argument,
been responsible for asserting the resurgence of
the local in an era of the globalizing economy. In
other words, tacit knowledge is most easily
shared locally, while knowledge must be codi-
fied in order for it to ‘travel’ globally. This is
because (1) local proximity enables and promotes
the direct, face-to-face interaction necessary to
support tacit knowledge transmission, and (2)
common local origins also generate the shared
understandings (equals local culture) neces-
sary to support the easy translation of tacit ideas
between two interacting economic agents.
Recently, this tendency to link the tacit with
the local scale and the codified with the global
scale has been subjected to critical scrutiny,
exposing an interesting new twist in economic
geography’s cultural turn (Allen, 2000; French,
2000). While this critique of the localist
approach has helped focus our attention on some
critical issues and weaknesses in the (now) main-
stream cultural economic geography of produc-
tion, it ultimately disappoints as well by failing
to offer up a conceptually robust alternative.For example, Allen represents this tacit/local,
codified/global dualism as something more akin
to the learning region literature’s big lie^8 rather
than its big idea: ‘largely a flawed, if not spuri-
ous, exercise’ (2000: 30). He blames the propa-
gation of this oversimplified dualism on what
might be described as an unfortunate family
reunion, featuring the Polanyi brothers. He com-
plains that Michael Polanyi’s (1958; 1966)
essential insights into the context-specific nature
of tacit knowledge have been combined with, and
corrupted by, brother Karl’s (Polanyi, 1944) sem-
inal ideas on the social and institutional embed-
dedness of economic action – a kind of conceptual
sleight-of-hand attributed to a ‘powerful set of dis-
courses’ with a disturbing ‘inability to keep apart
the ideas of the two Polanyi brothers’, resulting in
this ‘conflation’ (Allen, 2000: 27).
Allen openly challenges the idea that tacit
knowledge is ‘solely the creation of territorially
specific actions and assets’ (2000: 27), or that
‘face-to-face presence and proximity are para-
mount’ (2000: 28). Instead, he offers up alter-
native assertions about the importance of
‘distanciated contacts ... [and] “thick” relation-
ships [that] may span organizational and industry
boundaries’, realized through ‘people moving to
and through “local” contexts, to which they bring
their own blend of tacit and codified knowl-
edges’. He continues:What matters in such situations is not the fact of local
embeddedness, but the existence of relationships in
which people are able to internalize shared understand-
ings or are able to translate particular performances on
the basis of their own tacit and codified understandings.
(2000: 28)Communities of practice: is all
knowledge local?In highlighting distanciated, thick relationships,
Allen implies that tacit knowledge is not the pris-
oner of local culture, but can in fact flow across
long distances so long as the relationships
between actors involved in this flow are strong
enough. In making this claim, Allen situates
himself implicitly within the recent literature on
‘communities of practice’ emerging from organi-
zational studies (Amin, 2000; Wenger, 1998),
which emphasizes the possibilities for non-local
learning crossing geographical, organizational
and cultural divides.^9 Received wisdom is
always worth interrogating, and Allen’s unset-
tling analysis draws our attention to some very
fundamental questions. Canwe be so sure that
tacit knowledge really is embedded in local
culture to the extent that is widely implied orCULTURAL ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY OF PRODUCTION 1373029-ch06.qxd 03-10-02 10:40 AM Page 137