Cultural Geography

such as real industries, history, institutions and

places. A few key concepts have been especially

influential to economic geographers’ study of

production systems (Barnes, 1997). First,

economic systems change over time, but they do

so in ways that are to some extent shaped and

constrained by past decisions, random events

and accidents of history. Current decisions and

events are not determined by past ones, but they

are conditioned by them. As a result of past

events and choices, certain choices today are

easier to pursue, others less so. This is the key

idea of path dependency. Walker captures the

idea succinctly:

One of the most exciting ideas in contemporary

economic geography is that industrial history is literally

embodied in the present. That is, choices made in the

past – technologies embodied in machinery and product

design, firm assets gained as patents or specific compe-

tencies, or labor skills acquired through learning –

influence subsequent choices of methods, designs, and

practices. (2000: 126)

The past may be embodied within material

objects such as machinery, buildings and physi-

cal infrastructure, or through the experiences of

individuals (alone or in groups). Part of this past

is also embodied in institutions – social struc-

tures that shape the attitudes, norms, expecta-

tions and practices of individuals and firms

through formal or informal means of regulation –

meaning that path dependency has a strong

social dimension. In essence then, what we have

already described above as ‘regional culture’ or

‘embeddedness’ can be thought of as a real and

significant component of ‘industrial history ...

literally embodied in the present’. Culture

becomes a part of the historical baggage (some-

times useful, sometimes a liability) associated

with particular regions.

There is another potent idea within the evolu-

tionary approach, closely associated with the

path dependency notion – increasing returns –

which has actually been appropriated from the

much earlier work of economists on the fringe of

the discipline (Myrdal, 1957; Young, 1928). It

refers to the process in which, once a particular

economic change occurs, it becomes self-

reinforcing. A particular technological design,

once adopted by a critical mass of early users,

becomes a standard. After this happens, the

market for this design will expand even further.

Initial growth begets further growth. Moreover,

even though a particular technology has become

a standard in its field, this will not necessarily

indicate that it is unequivocally superior to avail-

able alternatives. Its dominance may instead

be based on the fact that it was the first viable

technology in the marketplace, that many supplying

businesses, complementary technologies and

institutions, plus a large community of developers

and users, have been created to support its use.

Once this unfolds to the point where perfectly

viable – if not superior – alternatives cannot

easily be adopted, a situation of ‘lock-in’ is said to

have been reached (Arthur, 1989; David, 1985).

The twin concepts of path dependency and

increasing returns have obvious relevance in

understanding the historical paths taken by pro-

duction regions. Once a region establishes itself

as an early success in a particular set of produc-

tion activities, its chances for continued growth

are very good indeed. While this may be to some

extent reducible to the success of dominant ‘lead’

firms in the region (e.g. Microsoft in Seattle), the

really interesting aspects of this process have

more to do with the collective processes and

forces at work: local social and economic insti-

tutions and, yes, culture. By the same token, as

cases such as the Ruhr or Route 128 suggest,

ailing places may also be difficult to turn around

for the same reasons. Once a path-dependent

trajectory of decline becomes firmly established,

institutional and cultural lock-in will make devi-

ation from this path a serious challenge.

CULTURE CONTROVERSIES

I am certain I have done a disservice to the liter-

ature on the cultural economic geography of pro-

duction by reducing the hefty weight of its

intellectual output to three big ideas. But if you

were to sit me down and force me to enunciate

what is/was new, different, distinctive and most

significant in this work – reduced to its bare

essence – this is pretty much the list I would pro-

duce. Nevertheless, the danger of engaging in

such a summary exercise is that it creates the

mistaken impression of consensus and comple-

tion where none actually exists. In fact, there is

plenty of disagreement and lack of convergence,

as well as much unfinished business. Perhaps

surprisingly, one of the most troublesome areas

concerns the economic-geographical theory of

the firm – a theory that ought to be able to pro-

vide answers to fundamental questions like: why

do firms in particular places adopt particular pro-

duction and innovation practices, and not others?

What forces and processes determine what a firm

‘knows’, and how easy is it to transfer this

knowledge from one place to another? Or to use

the language of the previous section, must learn-

ing by firms really conform to the geographies of

local cultures?

CULTURAL ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY OF PRODUCTION 135

3029-ch06.qxd 03-10-02 10:40 AM Page 135