Cultural Geography

(Nora) #1
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

Free download pdf