Navigatingeconomicgeographies
JamiePeck
DepartmentofGeography
UniversityofBritishColumbia
[email protected]
October21,2015
Abstract
Inbothaformalandtemperamentalsense,contemporaryAnglo-Americaneconomicgeographyis
aheterodoxenterprise.Thepaperexploresdistinctivecurrentsinthediscipline’stheory-culture,
bothinitsowntermsandinrelationtothewiderfieldofheterodoxeconomics.Amethodological
interventionisproposed,inspiredbythesubstantivistprojectof“comparativeeconomy,”withthe
goalofpromptingarenewedconversationbetweeneconomicgeography’s“lumpers,”those
concernedwiththerefinementandreconstructionofgeneralizedcategoriesofanalysis,andits
“splitters,”whoopttoworkagainst(oroutside)suchtacitlyacceptedcategories,favoringtheir
deconstructionanddisplacement.Eveniflumpersandsplittersareneverentirelycomfortablein
oneanother’scompany,theyshouldnotbeallowedtoliveapart.Furthermore,theircohabitation
isanenduringandpositivecharacteristicofeconomicgeography’sheterodoxtheory-culture,the
substantiveconcernsofwhichcenterontheproblematicofeconomicspatiality,itsconstitution,
causality,andconsequences.
Acknowledgement
ThispaperwaspresentedastheplenaryaddressattheFourthGlobalConferenceonEconomic
Geography,UniversityofOxford,August2015,intheremarkable(ifslightlydisconcerting)setting
oftheMuseumofNaturalHistory.IamgratefultoDariuszWojcik,GordonClark,andthe
organizingcommitteeforinvitingmetothemeeting,andtoandtheSmithSchoolofEnterpriseand
Environmentforhostingandsponsoringtheevent.Ithank,withoutimplicatinginanyway,Trevor
Barnes,BrettChristophers,JoelWainwright,andthemembersoftheEconomicGeographyReading
GroupatUBCfortheircomments,reflections,andsuggestionsonanearlierdraftofthispaper.
Navigatingeconomicgeographies
Itisgoodtohavehair-splittersandlumpers
(CharlesDarwin1857).
Settingthescene:splittingdifferences
Thepaperreflectsonthecharacterandconsequencesofanalyticalandtheory-making
practicesacrossthefieldofeconomicgeography—itstheory-cultures,forshort.The
pluralizationhereisnotcasual,sinceitwillbesuggestedthateconomicgeographyisbyits
natureaheterodoxendeavor.Contemporaryeconomicgeographycanbeconsideredto
beheterodoxintheweak(andsomewhatnegative)sensethatthepulloforthodox
neoclassicaleconomicshasnotbeenadefiningcurrentinfield(althoughthismaybe
changing),whichalonemightqualifyeconomicgeographyasabranchofheterodox
economics.Butthedisciplinecanalsobesaidtobeheterodoxinthestronger(andindeed
positive)sensethatitdisplaysatheory-culturethatisrobustlypolycentricandpluralist.
Acrossthealways-shiftingdiversityofthefield,epistemologicalandontological
orientationsfrequentlyhewtowardsheterodoxpositionsandperspectivestoo.These
includethewidespreadrecognitionof,andengagementwith,interalia,theemergent,
instituted,andsociallyprocessualcharacterofeconomicprocessesandpractices;the
constitutiverolesofunevendevelopment,spatiality,relationality,andlocalembeddedness
asnon-transientfeaturesofeconomiclife;andtheinseparabilityoftheeconomicfromthe
political,thenatural,thecultural,andsoforth.Thediscipline’smethodologicaltolerances
arealsorelativelywide,spanningethnography,modeling,discourseanalysis,andmuchin
between,albeitwithaconcentrationofqualitativecasestudiesconductedinvarious
registersandorientedtomidleveltheorizing.
Contemporaryeconomicgeographyshowslittlesignofbecomingunifiedarounda
singleprogramordominantperspective,frequentlybridling,infact,attheverysuggestion.
Thismeansthatthefield,atleastsincethelate1970s,hasbeennotonlydiversebutboldly
unboundedandintellectuallyeccentric(intheconstructivemeaningoftheword),whileits
sharedworldviewandpurposeisdifficulttomarshalunderanythinglikeaparsimoniousor
1
succinctdescription.Intheabsence(notably)ofareceiveddefinition,itcanbesaidthat
thisisafieldthatworkswithandfromtherecognitionofeconomic-geographical
difference(formallystated,themore-than-contingentorconstitutivespatialityofthe
economic),mappingandexplaining“thedifferencethatspacemakes”acrossanarrayof
economicprocesses,practices,andperformances.Toinvokethepaper’sepigraphand
whatwillbearecurringmotifinthefollowingargument,thismeansthatdepicting,
parsing,andaccountingforeconomic-geographicaldifference—findingpatternsand
connectionsacrossdiversityby“lumping,”validatingexceptionsandalternativesby
“splitting”—areenduringfeaturesofeconomicgeography’sheterogeneoustheory-culture.
Echoingitsreadingofactuallyexistingeconomies,thisisanintellectualculturemarkedby
persistentdisequilibrium.
Inthiscontext,thepaper’stitlesignifiestwothings.First,itrecognizesthatthereis
nosinglepathwayinto,orthrough,economicgeography(evenifsomearemoretrodden
thanothers).Itfollowsthatthereisnoprivilegedvantagepointfromwhichtosurveyor
readthisdiversefield.Situatedknowledgeisthereforemorethanapoststructuralist
caveat;itisanecessaryrecognitionofdiversityandpositionality.Second,thetitlehintsat
thesensethatcommitmentsto,andwithin,economicgeographyarerarelyonce-and-forallmattersofcertitude.Thegroundisalwaysmoving,asarethefield’scoordinatesand
constituencies,anditisinthenatureofeconomicgeography’sheterogeneoustheoryculturethatthereisnoconsensusonanalyticalframeworksormethodologicalstrategies,
andlittlethatisfixedineithersubstantiveresearchprioritiesorreceivedepicentersof
influence.Characteristicallyrestless,economicgeographyisnotadisciplinewithastrong
gravitationalcenter,withcanonicalbeliefsandlong-livedsacredtexts,orwithdeterminate
objectsofanalysis.Drawingthecontrastwiththemonismoforthodoxeconomics,withits
“implacablecentre,”BarnesandSheppard(2010,199)aptlyobservethat“[f]romthe
beginningeconomicgeographyhasbeenadisciplinewithacentrethatdidnothold.”
Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthereisno“there,there.”Attheveryleast(and
thisisprobablynotasmallthing),therewouldseemtobesomethinglikea“structureof
feeling,”toborrowRaymondWilliams’term,somepatterningofasharedculture,spirit,or
2
consciousnessineconomicgeography.(Anecdotally,thoselocated“outside”economic
geography,andlookingin,willroutinelysaythatthereis.)Butevenifthereareelements
ofasharedculture,thisdoesnotmeanthateconomicgeographersareallsinging,armin
arm,aroundthesamecampfire.Farfromit.Presumptuousclaimsmadeonacoreproject
orprogrammaticmissionforeconomicgeographyareliabletogenerateambivalence,
unease,orevenhostility.Andmaybeitissuchresponsesthatarethemosttelling
indicatorsofasharedculture—anunsettled,decentered,pluralistheterodoxy.“Turns”
maybedeclaredfromtimetotimeineconomicgeography,buttheyneverreallyhold;
rather,theyaresymbolsofatheory-cultureactivelyresistanttoconsensusor
consolidation,andgenerallymoreinclinedto“turnagain.”Thefieldhasforsometime
beengiven,inAllenScott’swords,to“twistsandturnsofsubstantivefocusandsudden
changesoftheoreticalmood”(Scott2000,484),possessedofan“anti-canonical[and]
open-ended”spiritofinquirythatendlesslybreaksdownandthroughanyboundaries
createdforitself(Sheppardetal.2012,18).Overthepasttwodecades,inparticular,
economicgeographyhastakentonarratingandre-narratingitsownstory,whichsurely
cannotbeputdown(atleastnotentirely)todisciplinarynarcissismorintellectual
insecurity.Ithasmoretodowiththefactthatneithertheprovenanceof,norperspectives
in,economicgeographyareself-evidentorpre-given,andthatnoone(situated)account
caneverdo.Thesearecircumstancesthatcallforacertaindegreeofreflexivity,both
epistemologicallyandsociologically;whichrenderunstable,provisional,andcontestable
anypan-disciplinaryclaimstoasingularidentityordominantdirection;andwhichdemand
thatquestionsofpositionandperspectivearenotjustpassivelyacknowledgedbutactively
addressed.Positionalityandcontext,inotherwords,reallymatter.
Considertheimmediatesetting:Oxford’sMuseumofNaturalHistoryisthepoint
ofdeparturefortheFourthGlobalConferenceonEconomicGeography.Itwasonthissite
thatoneofthemostconsequentialdebatesinthehistoryofsciencetookplacein1860,
betweenThomasHuxley,anardentfollowerofDarwin’stheoryofevolution,andSamuel
Wilberforce,theBishopofOxford.Andsoitiscertainlynotoutofplace,inthisdiscussion
ofthepatterninganddiversityofanalyticalpracticesineconomicgeography,toevoke
3
Darwin’smildlyirreverentdistinctionbetweenlumpersandsplitters—familiarterminology
inmid-19thCenturydebatesaroundwhatwasknownatthetimeas“geographicalbotany.”
Backthen,thescientificoccupationoftaxonomywassaidtobeinformallydivided
betweenthesetwotribes,thedifferencesamongwhichwereinstinctivelyandviscerally
felt.Whilethesplitterswereinclinedtoproliferatecategoriesofanalysis,identifyingmany
genera,species,andvarieties,thelumperspreferredtocombineostensiblyrelatedforms
togetherwithintheambitofmoregenericcategories.
ThisishowacontributortotheprominentVictorianperiodicalCornhill(selfdescribingasa“convincedandconsistent”lumper,thebearerof“conscientiousobjections
tosplitting”)characterizedhisdifferenceswiththegentlemanbotanistWilliamBorrer,by
allaccountsan“abandonedsplitter”:
[M]odernbiologistsaredividedintothetwocampsofthesplittersandthelumpers.The
firstareinfavourofmakingaspeciesoutofeverypettylocalraceorvariety;thesecond
areallforlumpingunimportantminorformsintoasinglespecies(Anon1894,295).
Thelumpersweresaidtofavorinclusive,integrativecategories;theychosetolivewitha
relativelyhighdegreeofintra-categoryheterogeneity,optingtoattachoverriding
significancetosimilarity,familyresemblance,recurrence,andconnectivity;onsome
accountstheywereintellectuallymoreconservative,atleastinthesensethatthedefault
positionwastoworkwithanddefendextantcategories,incorporatingnewdiscoveries
withinestablishedschema.Thegazeofthesplitters,ontheotherhand,wasirresistibly
drawntowardsseparationratherthansimilarity,and(thecultivationof)differenceand
deviationratherthanconnectivityandconformity;drawntonewspeciesandvarieties,
theywouldcallforthesubdivisionofexistingcategoriesorthecreationofnewones,
validatingsmallervariationsinthespecificationoflesspromiscuous,more“local”unitsof
analysis.(Mr.Borrer,forexample,whoselifegoalhadbeentocultivate(andclassify)each
andeveryBritishspecies,hadscrupulouslysoughttodistinguishsomeseventeenvarieties
ofthedog-woodplant,andnolessfortystrainsofthenativeblackberry.)
Similarbifurcationshavebeenwitnessedinscientificenterpriseseversince,and
notonlyamongstgeographicalbotanists.Inthewakeofthemillennialprotestmovements
4
ignitedinSeattle,PortoAlegre,andelsewhere,theanalystofcomparativepolitical
systems,SidneyTarrow,restatedthecasefor“splittingthebiggestlumps”offsomeofthe
mostamorphouscategoriesinthecontemporarysocialsciences,namelytheone-lump
conceptionofglobalizationasfree-markethomogenization,whichhadbeenhitchedtoa
hastilyassembledother,thehardlylesspromiscuousconceptof“globalresistance”
(Tarrow2002,234).Aroundthesametime,therenownedeconomichistorianCharles
Kindlebergerstumbledacrossthedistinctionbetweenlumpersandsplitters,havingbeen
intriguedtoseehishabitofdrawingcross-contextualanalyticalgeneralizationsportrayed
astheworkofanarch-lumper.Followinganimpromptuinvestigationoftheoriginsofthe
term,hewasrelievedtodiscoverthatthelabelwasnotintendedaspejorative,conceding
thatitwasindeed“moreorlesstruethatIbelievefinancialcriseshavebroadsimilarities”
(Kindleberger2000,88).Athoroughlyheterodoxscholarhimself,Kindleberger’smediation
onlumpingandsplittingineconomicsdidnotleadhimallthewaybacktoDarwin,buthis
instinctivewarinessofintellectualmonoculturesledhimtoconclude—alongwiththegreat
scientist—thatongoingdialogueanddebatebetweenthetwocampsrepresenteda
healthystateofaffairs.(Darwin’scounsel,incorrespondencewithhislongtime
interlocutorJosephDaltonHooker,anenthusiasticlumper,wasthatitwas“goodtohave
hair-splittersandlumpers.”)
Bearingthisadviceinmind,thepaperproceedsinthreesteps,takingtheformof
aninevitablysituated,perhapsprovocative,buthopefullyconstructiveseriesofreflections
oneconomicgeography’scontemporarycondition.Itbeginsbyconsideringthenatureof
heterodoxtheory-culturesacrossthefieldeconomics,whichinaggregateatleastareoften
definedagainstthefoilofneoclassicalorthodoxy.Second,thepaperelaboratestheclaim
thatcontemporaryeconomicgeographyis—inbothaformalandatemperamental
sense—aheterodoxdiscipline,promptedbytheclaimthatcentraltendenciesinthe
disciplinecanbeenvelopedbythesignifier“geographicalpoliticaleconomy,”thepatterns
ofdevotion,deviation,anddissentfromwhichrevealafieldstillsomewhathauntedby
Marxbutalsotovaryingdegreesinthethroesofapoststructuralistexorcism.Andthird,
sincehealthyheterodoxiesshouldreallybedynamic,evolving,andcontestable,rather
5
thansettledorstatic,aheterodoxinterventionisproposedintheformofaconstructive
methodologicalchallenge.Here,thepaperdrawsuponareinterpretationofKarlPolanyi’s
notionofsubstantivism,ananthropologicalformulationoriginallyelaboratedinopposition
tothemethodologicalnormsofneoclassicalformalism,asaprompttoadifferentkindof
heterodoxconversation.ThedebthereisnottothefamiliarPolanyi(theoriginatorofthat
nowfreightedterm,“embeddedness”),buttotheratherlesswell-knownpostwar
Polanyi—Polanyithecomparativeeconomist.Hiswasaprojectofheterodoxeconomics,
programmaticallyconcernedwiththespatialandthesocial;itwasnevercompleted,
althoughitsguidingprinciplesandmethodologicalspiritremainsuggestivelyprovocative.
Economicheterodoxies
Whatdoesitmeantocharacterizeeconomicgeographyasnotjustgenericallyheterodox,
butasabranchofheterodoxeconomics?Onthefaceofit,thissignifierofweak-center
multipolaritycapturessomethingaboutthecontrarianspiritofthefield,anditslimited
toleranceoforthodoxiesofjustaboutanystripe.Ontheotherhand,thereissurelymore
atworkherethandissentandnegation,orthemereabsenceoforthodoxy.Strictly
speaking,however,thelabel“heterodox”establishesnomorethanastateofexception
(hencetheOxfordEnglishDictionarydefinition,“Notinaccordancewithestablished
doctrinesoropinions,orthosegenerallyrecognizedasrightor‘orthodox’”).Inthe
languageofeconomics,ofcourse,heterodoxycarriesveryparticularconnotations.Across
thebroadandheterogeneousfieldofheterodoxeconomics—whichspanseverythingfrom
economichistorytofeministeconomics,andinstitutionalismtoMarxism,andmuchelse
besides—theshadowoftheBigOtherthatisneoclassicaleconomicsloomsdauntingly
large.AsSheilaDow(2000,157,emphasisadded)putsit,“heterodoxeconomistscannot
butbeaware”ofthisoutsizedorthodoxy,againstwhichtheyareunevenlyunifiedin
dissent,eveniftheirowndisparateprioritiesandpurposesarenotsoeasilybracketedasa
sharedendeavor.TonyLawson’s(2015,26)purposivestrategyhasbeentoarticulatewhat
heseesasthefoundationsofheterodoxy’s“unitywithindifference.”Itisdifficultto
escapethefact,however,thatsomeofthisunityderivesfromasenseofmutual
6
estrangementfromtheorthodoxy,onethatrepresentsmorethanjustanintellectual
mainstream,butalsoabastionofgatekeepingandmanagementfunctions,with
implicationsforaccesstodisciplinaryresources,status,andotherformsofrecognition
(seeFourcadeetal.2015).
Thereareseverallevelsofironyatwork,however,intheheterodoxhabitof
assemblingitselfinthemirroroforthodoxeconomics,notleastinthatthedissentershave
proventoberathermoreadeptatportrayingthetheory-cultureoftheorthodoxythanthe
(mostlyunreflexive)mainstreamitself.Hardlyamereinversion,thereisnosuchsharpness
offocusintheratherblurry,kaleidoscopicfigurethatistobefoundontheheterodoxside
ofthelookingglass.Acommoncomplaint,moreironicallystill,isthatheterodoxy’s
galvanizingcritiqueoforthodoxeconomicsascribesanexaggerateddegreeofunitytothe
mainstreamneoclassicalproject.Conventionally,thisisdefinedbymoreorlessstrict
devotiontotheholytrinitythatisatomisticself-interest,rationaloptimization,andgeneral
equilibrium.Itiswellknown,ofcourse,thatmanyintheorthodoxcamphavestrayed
fromthispath,evenifonlyrarelydoesthismeanfallingunderthespellofgenuinely
hereticalinfluences.Therehavebeendeviations,forexample,intoexperimentaland
behavioraleconomics,intoevolutionarygametheory,andintothestudyofinformation
asymmetriesthatraise,anddonotneatlyresolve,somequitetroublingandeven
sacrilegiousquestionsfortheorthodoxbeliefsystem.Someclaimthatmainstream
economicsisfragmentingunderthesecentrifugaldynamics.
Onedoesnothavetobeacard-carryingsplitter,then,tonoticeaseriesofdeviant
tendencieswithintheneoclassicalprogram.Wheremainstreameconomicsdemonstrates
astrikinglymonistintellectualculture,however,isinthefield’sresolutecommitmentto
formalistic-deductivemethods,inthepervasivetendencytoequatetheorybuildingwith
modeling,andinthevenerationofthetheory-languageofmathematics.WhatLawson
callsthe“mathematisinginclination”oforthodoxeconomics,reinforcedbyapreference
forformalisticrepresentationanddeductivemodeling,amountstomorethananinnocent
methodologicalchoice;itimplies(indeedimputes)theexistenceofaclosed-system
economy,themostpertinentfeaturesofwhicharenotonlymeasurablebutmodelable,
7
andthereforecompriseknowncoordinatesandeventregularities:“theformalisticdeductiveframeworkthatmainstreameconomistseverywhereadoptandinsistupon,”
Lawson(2015,32)remarks,“issotakenforgrantedthatitgoeslargelyunquestioned.”
Thisrobustlypositivistorientation,groundedinapredispositiontowardsmathematical
modeling,substantially(pre)determineswhatorthodoxeconomicscansee,andhowthat
whichisrenderedvisibleissubsequentlyvalued.
Wheretheyrespondtochallengesderivingfromheterodoxeconomics,mainstream
economistswilloftendosobyfindingclosed-systemsubstitutes,ineffecttomodelor
remodelthesechallengesintodigestible(ormanageable)form(seeLawson2015,43).
Suchistheirtaken-for-grantedness,mathematicalmodesofknowingandcommunication
areconsideredtobepracticallysynonymouswith“seriouswork”inmainstreameconomics
(Lawson2015,3),asinthedeclaration,“Ifitisn’tmodeled,itisn’teconomics”(Colanderet
al.2004,492).Critiquesandalternativesthatfall“outsidethenetofmathematical
formalism”tendtobefilteredoutiftheycannotbeexpressedinmodelingterms;they
may“noteven[be]recognizedaseconomics”(Dow2000,168).
Therearedifferencesanddebatesaroundmanyissueswithinmainstream
economics,butrareindeedareinstancesofdissentfromthemonocultureofmodeling.
Toamainstreameconomist,theorymeansmodel,andmodelmeansideasexpressedin
mathematicalform…Mainstreameconomistsbelievepropermodels—goodmodels—take
arecognizableform:presentationinequations,withmathematicallyexpresseddefinitions,
assumptions,andtheoreticaldevelopmentsclearlylaidout…[Itisunderstood]thatthe
legitimatewaytoargueiswithmodelsandeconometricallyconstructedformsofevidence
[but]thatnomodelisperfect.Indeed,studentslearnthatitisbadmannerstoengagein
excessivequestioningofsimplifyingassumptions.Claimingthatamodelisdeficientisa
minorfeat—presumablyanyonecandothat.Whatisreallyvaluediscomingupwitha
bettermodel,abettertheory…Inthiswayeconomistslearntheirtrade(Strassmann1994,
153-4).
Whentheleadinggrowththeorist,PaulRomer,raisedsometroublingquestionsaboutthe
economicsprofession’sapparenttoleranceforanalyticalandpoliticalsleightsofhand
enactedunderthecoverofmodelingandquantification—aformofsophistrythathe
chosetoportrayas“mathiness”—thepatternofresponsesspoketoanentrenchedculture
ofmethodologicalconformity.Theadvicefromhisfriendswas“don’tmakewaves,”while
8
youngercolleagueswereespeciallyanxiousthatifthey“deviate[d]fromwhat’s
acceptable,they[would]getintrouble”(Romer,quotedinSussman2015,2;Romer2015).
Amongstthesocialsciences,economicsstandspracticallyaloneinitscapacityto
maintaininga“unitarydisciplinarycore,”basedonadisciplinedintellectualculturethat
tendstobeself-regardinganddeferentialtointernalhierarchies(Fourcadeetal.2015,96).
Itisnotablethatwheneconomistsventureintootherfields,theydosoinclinedmoreto
teachthantolearn,armedwithrigorouslydefinedmodelsdeemedappropriatefor
“set[ting]otherdisciplinesstraight”(Fourcadeetal.2015),dulyreinforcingthecommon
perceptionamongst“sociologists,geographers,historians,politicalscientists,[and]even
psychologists,[that]economistsresemblecolonistssettlingontheirland.”AfterClifford
Geertz,onemightpeerbehindthestronglycenteredtheory-languageoforthodox
economicstoconceiveofthisasaculturallyparticulardomainof“sacredsymbols,”one
thathasbeendefinedbythecombination—andindeedintegration—ofawidelyshared
worldview(amodelofreality)andaparticularethos(ormodelforliving).Orthodox
economicsreadstheworldthroughitsmodelofaprice-directedmarketsystempopulated
byrationalactorslivingundercircumstancesofscarcity,butthisisbolstered,sometimes
almostunconsciously,byadherencetoaschemeofnormativevaluation,amodelfor
competitivemodesofexistenceandmethodsofminimalistgovernance(Benton1982;cf.
Galbraith1971;Geertz1973).Crucially,thelattermapsontosignificantsourcesof
ideologicalandinstitutionalpowerwithincontemporarycapitalistsociety:
Economicsasaprofessionisprominentlyintertwinedwithpubicadministrations,
corporations,andinternationalorganizations;theseinstitutionsnotonlyprovide
economistswithresourcesandcollecttheirdata,theyalsofostera“fixit”culture—or,as
sociologistswouldputit,aparticular“habitus,”adispositiontointerveneintheworld…
Economists,particularlymoderneconomists,wanttofixthings,whichisbothaproductof
theirtheoreticalconfidenceandofthepositionoftheirdisciplinewithinsociety(Fourcade
etal.2015,107).
Thenormativepowerofeconomicstakesaparticularhistoricalformunderthe
economizinghegemonyofneoliberalism:evenwhilemischaracterizingthesocialworld,
neoliberalismworkswithperformativeforceandpersuasion,“disseminat[ing]themodelof
themarkettoalldomainsandactivities”(Brown2015,31,originalemphasis).“Within
9
neoliberalrationality,”WendyBrown(2015,36)continues,“humancapitalisbothour‘is’
andour‘ought’—whatwearesaidtobe,andwhatweoughttobe,andwhatthe
rationalitymakesusintothroughitsnormsandconstructionofenvironments.”
Itisimportanttoemphasizethatheterodoxeconomistsdonotfinditnecessaryto
disavoweithernormatively-basedargumentorthevalueofmathematicalmodeling(both
ofwhichhavesignificantandconstructiverolestoplaywithinpluralistandreflexive
theory-cultures)intheirrepudiationoftheorthodoxvarietyofformalizedmarket
reductionism.Butifthemonismoforthodoxeconomicsisprimarilyepistemological,the
pluralismofheterodoxeconomicsfindsadifferentexpression.Heterodoxpracticesare
orthogonaltothoseofthemainstreaminthesensethattheembraceof(andrespectfor)
pluralismisaxiomatic,notmarginal,exceptional,ortemporary.Thelimitedpluralismof
orthodoxeconomicsmayinvolvesomesplinteringaroundtheedges,butthecentral
tendenciesinitsresolutetheory-culturearesuchthatpluralismcanonlybea“temporary
position,”enroutetoananticipatedsynthesis(Dow2000,163).Heterodoxy,ontheother
hand,isbasedonrecognitionthatallscientificenterprisesareconductedbyandwithin
scholarlycommunities(usuallyrevealedasresearchprograms),eachofwhichoperates
accordingtointernally-sanctionedparadigmsandmethodologicalpractices,thepremises
ofwhicharesomewhatvariablyrecognizedandrespectedinothercommunities,and
whichinprinciplearealwaysopentorevision.Thecriteriaforrecognizingandrewarding
“progress,”inturn,arealsogovernedbyscientificcommunitiesthemselves,proceeding
accordingto“local”understandingsofnormalscienceandachievingwiderinfluencein
accordancewiththeir“persuasive”efficacy.Sincethefactsdonotspeakforthemselves,
andneitheristhereauniversalyardstickofscientificvalidity,“progress”acrossthe
heterodoxeconomicsciencesischaracteristicallygovernedbymoreorlesscompelling
arguments,backedbyvariousformsofdocumentationandevidence;persuasionisnot
simplyanarrowmatterof“science,”butalsoarhetorical,ideological,institutional,
cultural,andsociologicalissue.
Reflexiveandself-awareheterodoxieswillofteninternalizeachallengetothe
imperialistclaimsoforthodoxorrulingparadigms(thisisthemeasureofmore-than-
10
normalscience,or“extraordinaryscience”intheKuhniansense),butinthecaseof
economicsatleasttheeffectivenessofthesechallengestomainstreamsupremacyhas(so
far)beenlimited.Heterodoxknowledgeculturesaredefinedbyanactiveembraceof
pluralismandbythesimultaneityofalternativewaysofknowing(alongwiththeirown
modesofrepresentation),asdifferentpathsarefollowedinaparallelandoverlapping
fashion.Itisinthissensethatheterodoxy’s“unitywithindifference”takestheformofa
“comingtogetherofseparate…heterodoxprojectsortraditions,”notintoaunified
sciencebutasadiversecommunityofpracticeswithinapolycentriccultureofdialogic
coexistence(Lawson2015,26,emphasisadded).
Heterodoxeconomicsdefinesalooselyboundedanddecenteredfieldthat(just
about)hangstogetherdespiteitsenduringinternaldifferences,itsmulticultureof
coexistingresearchprogramsbeingfortifiednotjustbyasharedrejectionofreductionism
andmonism,butbyfundamentallydifferentconceptionsofeconomicontology.
Heterodoxeconomiststendtoread“economy”asaprocessualandopen-endedsystem,
subjecttotransformativesocialagencyandenduringpatternsofinstitutionalization.
Alongwithvirtuallyallofthehumansciences,withthenotableexceptionoforthodox
economics,theycharacteristicallyseesocialformsandprocessesprecedingtheformation
ofindividualpreferences,ratherthantheotherwayaround(VidalandPeck2012;
Fourcadeetal.2015).Heterodoxeconomistsalsorejectthenotionthattheeconomy(or,
initsreducedform,themarket)canbeconceivedasanhermeticallyseparateor
functionallyautonomousdomain,understandingthistobeembeddedinandcoconstitutedwiththemore-than-strictly-economicworld.Insuchopen(andporous)
systems,theuniverseofrelevantrelationshipsandvariablesissomewhatunboundedand
notcomprehensivelyknowable,withtheresultthatknowledge-buildinginitiatives,
researchprograms,ortheoreticalformulations,arealwayspartialandcontestable(Lawson
2015).Theformalistic-deductivemethodsoftheeconomicsmainstream,incontrast,
typicallypresupposerelativelyhighdegreesofclosure,inthesenseofaknownarrayof
variablesandrelationshipsrenderedmathematicallycommensurate,demarcatedfrom(or
subordinating)thespheresofcultureorpoliticsornature,closed-systemqualitiesthatare
11
imputedtothemarketasaself-regulatingdomain,coterminouswitheconomy,withits
ownrationality,logic,andcharacteristicpatternsofbehavior.Theorthodoxeconomic
ontologyispremisedonasingulareconomy,whichisencounteredandreadinasimilarly
singularfashion,thevariabilityofwhichoverhistoricaltimeandconcretespacebeing
deemedforthemostparttrivialortransitory.
IfTonyLawsonisoneofthosewhorepresentorthodoxy’sorthodoxyasa
fundamentallyepistemologicalone,heportraysthefoundationsofeconomicheterodoxy
inontologicalterms.Onthisbasis,herejectsanyclaimtotheexistenceofalegitimately
separate,letalonesuperior,scienceoftheeconomic:
[T]hematerialsandprinciplesofsocialrealityarethesameacrosseconomics,sociology,
politics,anthropology,humangeography,andallotherdisciplinesconcernedwiththe
studyofsociallife.HenceIthinkwemustacceptthatthereisnolegitimatebasisfor
distinguishingaseparatescienceofeconomics.Rather,economicsisbestviewedasat
mostadivisionoflabourwithinasinglesocialscience(Lawson2015,45,originalemphasis).
Amongstthe(critical)socialsciences,heterodoxeconomicsisdulydefinedbyits
substantiveconcernswiththematerialconditionsofwell-being(alongwiththeir
constitutivecultures,socialrelations,andrecurrentpracticesandprocesses),andnotbya
determinateorexclusivemethodologicalortheoreticalcanon,whilethevariousbranches
andsub-branchesofheterodoxeconomics(ecologicaleconomics,economicsociology,
economicanthropology,andsoon)arelikewisedefinedbytheirrespectivesubstantive
foci,andbyasustainedconcernwithparticularproblematizations,knowinglycoproduced
notasuniversalmodesofexplanationbutalongside(andinconversationwith)other
heterodoxies.Incontrasttoorthodoxeconomicformalism,economicheterodoxiesare
definedsubstantively,morebywhattheydothanbyhowtheydoit,andbywhatthey
seektoproblematize,ratherthantheparameterstheychoosetoimpose.
Theory-culturesineconomicgeography
Accordingtothe(admittedlyforgiving)criteriabywhicheconomicheterodoxyhasdefined
itself,economicgeography—atleastinitspost-1970sAnglo-Americanform—qualifiesasa
12
heterodoxproject,withEricSheppard(2016,emphasisadded)havingrecentlygoneasfar
astocharacterizeitsprevailingtheory-cultureintermsof“heterodoxyasorthodoxy.”But
whatarethepositivefeaturesofeconomicgeography’stheory-culture,onwhatgrounds
mightitbesaidto“hangtogether”(BarnesandSheppard2010,195),despiteitsmanifestly
disparateconcerns,itstheoreticalandmethodologicaldiversity,anditsoccasionally
argumentativedisposition?Thefollowingaresomesituatedandexperientialobservations
concerningthepatterninganddiversityofanalyticalpracticesineconomicgeography,
whichintheirnatureareopentochallengeandcorrection
First,“spacematters”foreconomicgeographersinthemostbasicsenseofan
ontologyfoundedontheprinciplesofopen-systemcomplexity,socialandinstitutional
variegation,unevendevelopment,andmore-than-contingentgeographicaldifference.
Second,economicgeographyischaracteristicallyengagedwiththerealandthenow,with
studiesofactuallyexistingeconomies,mostlyconductedinrealtime;itisforthemostpart
a“dirtyhands”enterprise,inwhichresearcherscollectandconstructtheirowndata
(workingaloneorinsmallteams),typicallyindirectdialoguewitheconomicactors.Third,
thereisaleaningtowardsrichlycontextualized,contingency-laden,andoftencluttered
modesofexplanation,marriedwithadegreeofsuspicionabouthighlyparsimonious,
heavilystylized,oroverlydeductivereasoning;intolerantofbothgrandiosetheorization
andpedanticdescription,thisisafieldthatbothattractsandproducessmall-scale
lumpers,themanipulatorsandmodifiersof(generallymidlevel)theories,andmore
skepticalsplitters,workingbetweenthedeconstructionofcoarseconceptualcategories
andthedevelopmentofalternatives.Clark(1998,75,74)characterizesprevailing
methodologicalnormsineconomicgeographythisway:“afine-grained,substantive
appreciationofdiversity,combinedwithempiricalmethodsofanalysislikecasestudies,”
involvingtheutilizationofmostly“qualitativeandspeculative[modesofinquiry]inthe
hopeofrepresentingthespatialscopeanddiversityofeconomiclife.”
Thismethodologicalorientationisreflected,fourth,inarobustcultureofcritique,
featuringalternatingcurrentsofdeconstructionandreconstruction,aswellasperiodic
“turns,”butalsoinalowerlevelofpriorityassignedtomethodologicaltriangulationand
13
verification.Thedisciplinarytemperamentisoneofeclecticism,skepticism,and
impatience,would-beorthodoxies,orresearchprograms,rarelybeingallowedtoreach
thestageofcalcificationbutoftenfailingtodeveloptothepointofthoroughgoing
codificationeither,progressbeingmeasuredmorebychangethanconsolidation(see
Barnesetal.2007;Sheppardetal.2012).Tosummarize,theprevailingtheory-culturein
contemporary(Anglo-American)economicgeographyis,amongstotherthings,precocious,
unruly,vigorous,inconsistent,anti-canonical,erratic,restive,improvisational,selective,
forgiving,unsystematic,fickle,creative,impatient,andforgetful.
Inthisrespect,economicgeography’sinternalcultureisnoticeablydifferenteven
fromthoseofitscloserrelativesinthenon-nuclearfamilyofheterodoxeconomicstudies,
suchaseconomicanthropologyandeconomicsociology.Somewhatimpressionistically,in
relationtothesepeers,economicgeographyischaracterizedbyanuninhibiteddegreeof
eclecticisminthechoiceoftheoriesofmethods;byelevatedlevelsoftheoreticaland
normativedisplay,broadlydistributedacrossthefield;byaporousandinclusive
intellectualcommunitywithopenbordersandlowbarrierstoentry;andalsobyless
exactingexpectationswithrespecttomethodologicalspecificationandcodification(see
Peck2005;Grabher2006).Ifthevariousbranchesoftheheterodoxfamilyaredefinednot
byasingularparentagebutbyself-determinedfociofsubstantiveconcern,however,then
thedomainofeconomicgeographyisunusuallysprawlingandpracticallyboundless,
perhapsevenincomparisontosociologyandanthropology.Economicgeography’swiderangingbeatencompassesallaspectsofthegeographicalvariegationofeconomic
processes,practices,andphenomena,inotherwordstheinherentlumpinessofthe
economicworlditself.Atroot,economicgeographyproblematizes(ifnotprivileges)the
spatialdimensionsofeconomicdiversity(Clark1998;Peck2005;BarnesandChristophers
2016),amore-than-ampleremitthathasbeengraspedandsignaled,inawidevarietyof
ways,including:therecognitionofbasicnotionsofunevengeographicaldevelopmentand
unequalexchange;theproductionofpositivetheoryclaimsaroundlogicsofagglomeration
and(regionalized)cumulativecausation;theanti-essentialistvalidationofalternative
economicimaginariesandcommunityeconomies;attentivenesstotherelational
14
positioningofregionaleconomies,withreferencetospatialdivisionsoflabor,regulatory
orders,globalproductionnetworks,andsuch;thedevelopmentofevolutionaryand
institutionalistformulationslikepathdependencyanddevelopmentallock-in;and
methodologicalorientationstendingtofavorlocalcasestudies(nominallyorexplicitly)
locatedwithinworldsofeconomicdifference.Theheterodoxconversationineconomic
geographypersistentlyturnsontheseandotherissuesconcerningthenature,extent,and
formofeconomicspatiality—andhowtocapture,explain,represent,andrespondtoit.
Neithereternalnoruniversalunderstandingsoftheeconomichavemuchcurrency
inthefieldofeconomicgeography,whichinsteadisattunedtodistinguishinganddealing
withkaleidoscopicdifferenceasitsalways-movingobject.Fromtheaustereperspectiveof
orthodox-economicmonism,thismaylooklikeastateofpermanentlycontingent
distraction,orasplitter’scharter,butinfactrelativelyrobustcurrentsofbothlumpingand
splittingcoexistinthefieldofeconomicgeography,theheterodoxconversationsbetween
which,ratherthanflowingtowardssomeequilibriumresolution,tendtobeperpetually
destabilizedunderconditionsofcontinuingturbulenceor“chop.”Therearepreciousfew
smoothorentirelypredictablepassagesthroughtheshiftingcurrentsandcountercurrents
watersofeconomicgeography.Thefield’slumpersandsplittersarepassingandengaging
oneanotherallofthetime.
Economicgeography’slumpersaredrawntowardsbigger,connectivecategories,
variouslytrimminginthedirectionofemergentprototypeslikenewindustrialspaces,
hegemonicformationslikeneoliberalgovernance,orwidelyencompassingconceptslike
financializedcapitalism.Theywillrarelygotothestakeforanabsolutistinterpretationof
thesecategories,insteadtendingtofavortheiradaptive(re)useandongoingmodification,
onthebasisofproductivefrictionsandtensionswithgroundedempiricalevidence.The
discipline’ssplitters,ontheotherhand,arewonttoidentifysignificantexceptionstothese
andotheroverarchingformula(tion)s,todemandrecognitionforalternativeconfigurations
andvisionsoftheeconomic,topullthepracticallyneglectedandostensiblymarginalinto
thespectrumofthetheoreticallyandpoliticallyvisible,andtovalueexuberantdifference
overtendentialsingularity.Crucially,thesplittersandlumpersineconomicgeographydo
15
notexistaswarringfactions,separatedbyanunbridgeabledivide,eveniftheyoscillate
aroundaconspicuouslyabsentcenter.Mosteconomicgeographerswillbeinclinedto
workmoreinoneregisterthantheother,whileacknowledgingthattheterrainisshared,
andnotlikelyevertobemonopolized.
Economicgeography’sdistinctivelyheterodoxformationischaracterizedbya
climateofmostlypacificcoexistence(inthatawiderangeofintellectualprojectsand
programsfunctionasneighboringclustersorlociofactivity),althoughthisismarked,
accordingtosomeobservers,byacentrifugalpulltowardsasamultitudeofsolitudes
(BarnesandSheppard2010).Thismeansthatcoexistingprojectsonlyrarelychafeagainst
oneanother,andonlysporadicallycontestthesameexplanatoryturf.WhileAllenScott
(2000,493)onceremarkedthatthefieldispredispositionally“quarrelsome,”today’s
economicgeographyseemstoberatherlessaboutafewBigArgumentsandinsteadmore
ofacontinuingcacophony.Thereismoretalkingpastthantakingon,morelive-and-letlivethanthereisactiverakingoverofdifferences.Withsomeexceptions,economic
geography’stheory-cultureconsequentlymarkedbybroadlytolerantcohabitation,amid
varyingdegreesofambivalence,(mis)communication,andmutual(in)compatibility,
coupledwithanunrulyaccretionofhabitualorientations,unevenlysharedsensibilities,
andlooselytaken-for-grantedpositions,manyofwhichareonlyreallyremarkeduponon
occasionsofnoticeablebreach.Itsquiteparticularbrandofheterodoxyhasbeenshaped
byadiversearrayofsedimentedperspectivesandpractices,orwhatScottaptlycalls
“traces,”includingaknotofpropositions,premises,andpracticesderivedfromvarious
formsofpoliticaleconomy,institutionalism,feminism,managementtheory,
poststructuralism,andsoon,suchthatthefield’ssomewhatcumulativebut
heterogeneouscultureofemergenceisshotthroughwithwebsofcontinuityand
commonality,the“[l]andscapeofeconomicgeography[perhapsstill]beingbest
representedasasortofintellectualpalimpsestratherthanaunifiedfront”(Scott2000,
495).
Havingproperlyissuedallofthenecessarycaveats,EricSheppardhassoughtto
gatherthisparticularconfigurationofunity-within-differenceunderthecapaciousbanner
16
of“geographicalpoliticaleconomy”(Sheppard2011,2016;cf.MacKinnonetal.2009;Peck
2012;Jones2015),abig-tentedificeshapedatleastasmuchbycorralleddissensusasby
settledconsensus.Therehavebeenoccasionswhengeographicalpoliticaleconomyhas
pausedtolookatitselfinthemirrorofneoclassicaleconomics,butthishashardlybeena
preoccupationforanunplannedresearchprogramthathaslargelymadeitsowntracks,
mostlybywalkingthem.Therehasbeenanuptickinengagementswithneoclassical
alternativesoflate,althoughmoreasaresponsetotheresuscitationoforthodoxy’sown
versionof“geographicaleconomics”thanasalocallygrowninitiative.Forquitesome
time,orthodoxeconomicshasbeena“lostcontinent,”withfewcross-channelconnections
toeconomicgeography’sisland(cf.Peck2012).
Inasfarasgeographicalpoliticaleconomyrepresentsaprevailingcurrentwithin
contemporaryeconomicgeography,thisspeakstothecharacterofadisciplinethat
remains,tovaryingdegrees,“hauntedbyMarx”(Sheppard2011,320;Swyngedouw2009,
548),evenifsometimesthismeanslittlemorepositionsbeingdefinedoutsideoragainst
variousstrandsof(neo)Marxianpoliticaleconomy.Asimilarpointmightbemadeabout
numerousbranchesofheterodoxeconomics,whereMarxandMarxismremainsignificant
(ifnotdefining)pointsofreferencepoints.Again,thecontrastwiththeorthodox
mainstream—withinwhichMarxianeconomicsissomewherebetweeninvisibleand
irrelevant—isparticularlystark.Ineconomicgeography,followersofhigh-churchMarxism
arefewandfarbetweenthesedays,intheloosecongregationthatisgeographicalpolitical
economy,althoughtherearesomearticlesoftheoldfaiththathavepassed,indiluted
form,intotheecumenicalmainstream.Itistruethatsomehavetakenamoreorthodox
path(albeitrarelybeyondtheprecinctsofconventionalinstitutionalism),whilemorehave
embracedvariousformsofpoststructuralism(asamorereflexivestyleofpolitical
economyinsomecases;splittingawayfromgeographical;politicaleconomyinothers).
Butevenacrossthesedifferences,somethingapproachingacriticalcommonsensecanbe
discerned:
[T]heconsensusamongeconomicgeographersisthatcapitalismisconflictualandunstable,
incapableofsolvingitsowninternalproblemsandproductiveoftheverysocio-spatial
inequalitiesthatitsproponentsbelieveitcan(atleastinprinciple)overcome…Beyond
17
conceptualizingcapitalismasanunstableeconomicsystem,characterizedbyuneven
geographicaldevelopment,geographicalpoliticaleconomistsinsist[that]capitalismisjust
onewayoforganizingtheeconomicimperativesofanysociety(i.e.,productionofa
surplus,transforming“nature”intoobjectsofuse,exchangingsuchproducts,distributing
thesurplusamongparticipants,settingasidesurplusforaccumulationand/orreproduction,
improvingtechnicalknowhowandwastecreationanddisposal).Whilecapitalismmaybe
hegemonic,itisneithernecessarilysuperiortoalternativesnortheonlyformofeconomy
worthyofseriousconsideration(Sheppard2011,320-1).
Economicgeographersdevoteconsiderableenergytounderstandinghowcontemporary
capitalismworks,andperiodicallyfails,acrossitsmanyformsandformations.Muchofthe
fieldoperatesin“restructuringtime,”beingparticularlyattunedtoemergentdynamicsof
capitalism(s),studiedinmotionandthroughmethodologicalopticslikeregionalclustersor
globalnetworks,itsconstantlyreassembledprojecttendingtomovewiththerhythmsof
(selectedfeaturesof)theactuallyexistingeconomy,oftenatthebreakingedgesofchange.
Thisbringswithitthevirtuesofreal-timerelevanceandalmostspontaneousrenewal,but
economicgeographyremainsvulnerabletothecritiquethatitsattentionspanisboth
restrictivelyshortandmyopicallyfocused.Thedominantgazeremainsapresentistone,
drawntothefrontiersofcapitalistrestructuring,withbothmoredeeplyhistoricaland
substantivelyexpansiveinquiriesremainingforthemostpartminorityenterprises.The
timebeforeFordismordevelopmental-statism,forexample,isnotespeciallywellcharted,
andwhilethemore-than-capitalistnatureofeconomiesis(now)widelyrecognizedin
theory,rathermoreisolatedhavebeensignificantadaptationsinpractice.
Itisanothermeasureofeconomicgeography’scriticallyorientedheterodoxythat
oneoftheprincipallinesofinternalcontentioninrecentyearshasconcernedthe
characterandconsequencesofcapitalisthegemony.Here,though,somethinglikean
impassehasbeenevident.Tellingcritiquesdevelopedbyfeministandpoststructuralist
scholarshavecalledintoquestionthepresumedcentralityofadvanced-capitalistdynamics,
aswellastheanalyticalpriorityconventionallyassignedtoproduction,towage-labor,and
totheformalsphereofeconomicrelations.Thechargeisthatsprawlingtheoriesof
capitalistrestructuringareovergeneralized,constraining,andunproductivemetanarratives—yieldingtotalizingconceptionsthattendtolook“down”fromwhatarecastas
commandingheightsor“out”fromapresumedcenterofdrivingprocesses—essentializing
18
visionsthataredeemedequallyproblematicinconventionalglobalizationtheoriesand
neoMarxistformulations.ItwasGibson-Graham(1996,3)whofirstarticulatedthe
complaintthat“depictionsofcapitalisthegemonydeserveaparticularlyskepticalreading,”
notablyforthewaythatthesetendtorelegatenoncapitalistoranticapitalistworlds,lives,
andvisionstothemarginsofthebarelyvisible,credible,andperhapsevenbelievable,
whileactingasaself-applied“brakeontheanticapitalistimagination.”ThisistheextracapitalistuniversethatissubmergedunderthewaterlineofGibson-Graham’snow-famous
icebergmetaphor,adiverseandfecundunderseaworldthatlanguishesoutofsightinsocalled“capitalocentric”readings.Thesetendtoassignvitality,centrality,anddynamismto
therationalitiesofcapitalaccumulation,enterprisecompetition,andclassstrugglearound
the(waged)workplace,itisargued,inamannerthatdevaluesorobliteratestheactually
existingdiversityofeconomicprocessesandpractices,renderingsubordinateandinertthe
noncapitalisteconomy.
Havingportrayed“thebeast”—ofarapaciouslyomnipresentcapitalism—inthis
way,Gibson-Grahamcouldseelittletonopurposeineffortstotameordomesticatethe
creature,tobedistractedbytheelaborationofitstaxonomicvarietiesandadaptive
mutations,ortobetakeninbysuperficiallysophisticatedaccountsofitsconfoundingand
contradictorybehavior.Theyhavesoughtinsteadtostarvethebeast,deprivingitofthe
oxygenofattention,“muzzl[ing]andsilenc[ing]it,”andthenprettymuchexitingthejungle
altogetherinordertoengageinalternativeformsofcultivation.Theychose,inother
words,toaskdifferentquestions:
Whatdifferencemightitmake[to]allowananticapitalisteconomicimaginarytodevelop
unrestricted?Ifweweretodissolvetheimagethatloomsintheeconomicforeground,
whatshadowyeconomicformsmightcomeforward?Inthesequestionswecanidentify
thebroadoutlinesofourproject:todiscoverorcreateaworldofeconomicdifference,
andtopopulatethatworldwithexoticcreaturesthatbecome,uponinspection,quitelocal
andfamiliar(Gibson-Graham1996,3).
Asastrategyforrecognizingandworkingwitheconomic-geographicaldifference,thisis
notonesatisfiedwiththeextensionorrefinementofconventionalregistersof(capitalist)
diversity;itseeksinsteadtooccupynew(orreconstituted)positionsbeyondandoutside
thepoliticaleconomyofcontemporarycapitalism,rejectingreceivedframesof(critical)
19
analysisfortheirallegedconflationof“capitalism”and“economy,”andforanendemic
anddebilitatingcapitalocentricity.(Theanalyticalsinofcapitalocentricityattributedto
radicalpoliticaleconomycanbeconsideredanalogous,inprinciple,tothatofmarketcentricityinorthodoxeconomics,sincetheseareeachworld-readingdevicesthatassign
priorityandpertinencetoasystemicnexusofpredefinedforcesandrelations.)
Gibson-Graham’salternativestrategy,sinceadoptedastheprogrammaticethosof
thecommunityeconomiescollective(CommunityEconomiesProjectn.d.),hasbeento
constructnewframesandformulasforeconomicvisionandactionaroundalternative
modelsof(andfor)ethicalliving,aroundexperimentsinneocommunitarianism,and
aroundactsofwilfulself-organization(seeGibson-Graham2006;Gibson-Grahametal.
2013).Thisisaboutmorethanestablishinganewproject-positionwithinthealwaysemergentheterodoxythatiseconomicgeography,orraisinganawningalongsidethebig
tentofgeographicalpoliticaleconomy.Rather,itrepresentsaninternallydeliveredbut
virtuallyexternalcritique(ifnotrepudiation)ofsignificantelementsofthetheory-culture
ofeconomicgeography.Theseriouscharge,leveledespeciallyatthediscipline’spoliticaleconomiclumpers,isthattheirexpansive,system-like,andintegrativecategoriesof
analysis—suchascapitalism,financialization,orneoliberalism—areirresistiblyproneto
slidedowntheslipperyslopetototalizing,over-encompassingmodesofanalysis;by
accidentordesign,theytendtotemperortrivializeextracapitalistdiversity,imposingselflimitingmethodologicalconstraintsandstuntingthepoliticalimagination.A
preoccupationwiththelumpycategoriesofcapitalistrestructuringisseentoobscurethe
actuallyexisting,granulardiversityofeconomiclife.Accordingtothiscritique,thereisa
pricethatmustbepaidforaprocess-orientedworldview—forvisualizingfinancializingand
neoliberalizingcapitalismasagridor“matrix”offorces,rules,anddynamics—intheform
ofatruncatedanalyticalandpoliticaloutlook,variouslymarkedbyintellectual
conformism,incrementalreformism,andpre-emptiveclosureorfatalism.Those
transfixedbythematrixareunabletoseebeyondit,ortothinkoutsideitscategories.
Worsestill,inrecountingtalesoftheprodigiouspower,menacingrationalities,and
tentacularcapacitiesofthebeast,analystsriskbecomingcomplicitinthereproductionof
20
extant(orimagined)structuresofdominance.Inthisvein,Gibson-Graham(2008,619)
equatethecriticalstudyofneoliberalizationwith“anethicalchoicetoparticipatein
constitutingneoliberalism.”
Thestockdefense,suchthatithasbeenfullyarticulated,isthatpolitical-economic
geographersaretosomedegreeinoculatedagainstthediseasesoftotalization,
homogenization,anduniversalization,byvirtueofadeeplysocializedrecognitionof
sociospatiality,unevendevelopment,variegation,path-dependency,andembeddedness.
(Theyworkwithsmallerlumps,atleast.)Thisdoesnotreallywashwiththosewhohave
leveledthechargeofessentialism.Thecritiqueofcapitalocentrismstands,apparently
itselfassomethinglikeatotalone.Defenses,suchastheyhavebeenmountedatall,tend
toberegardedasmanifestlyinsufficient(orevendelusional),onthegroundsthat,for
political-economiclumpers,differenceisstilloftengatheredatthemarginsorin
concession,underthesmotheringsignsofglobalconnectivityorcapitalistarticulation,and
typicallyintheshadowsofdominanceorhegemony.Thepluralizationofcapitalism,for
example,isseenasasleight-of-handmethodof“represent[ing]capitalism’schameleon
qualitiesasanaspectofitssameness”(Gibson-Graham1996,9),merelystretchingthe
samebig-lumpcategoryintosubtypes,ratherthantranscendingortrashingthetotalizing
categoryitself.Furthermore,antiessentialistcriticsmaintainthattheingrainedhabitof
equatingcontext-spanningpolitical-economicprocesseswithpower,dynamism,and
agencyfunctionsinevitablytoprivilegesomesites,spaces,sinews,andsubjectsover
others,thereforeservingtoresurrecthierarchiesofrecognition,pertinence,andvaluation.
Againsttheseoppressivestructures,antiessentialistandanticapitalistalternativesrequire
bothanalyticalandpoliticalautonomy.
Consistentwithbasicpreceptsofheterodoxy,theanti-essentialistprogramhas
establisheditsowncodesofperformanceandcommunitiesofpractice,alongwithlargely
independentcriteriaforevaluation,critique,andprogress,accordingtointernally
validatedprinciplesoflocalizednormalscience.Assuch,theprogramexistsinaspaceof
intellectualself-determination,alongsidebutnotanswerabletoothers.Thisisnot,
however,areceiptforpassivecohabitation.Theantiessentistprojectreciprocates,asit
21
were,theallegedlyimperial(over)reachofcapitocentrism(whichbydefinitiondoesnot
keepitselftoitself,butblundersintootherdomains)byprojectingitscritiqueacrossmuch
oftheextantfieldofeconomicgeography,oratleasttheexpansivedominionthatwould
begeographicalpoliticaleconomy,raisingmostlyunansweredquestionsaboutthevery
foundationsofits“heterodoxyasorthodoxy.”Inasfarasitispossibletosummarizethe
responsestothiscritiqueacrosseconomicgeography’sheterodoxmainstream,onemight
saythatthesehavetypicallybeenaccommodative,absorptive,oradditive.Therehasbeen
somedegreeofincrementaladaptationacrossthefield,atleastintermsofcommon
languageandframings,runningthespectrumfromquiteprofoundpoststructuralistturns,
andtherepudiationofbig-picture,big-storycategories,tothemoresuperficialadoptionof
lessdeterministicterminology.Therehavealsobeeneffortstoextendthespectrumofthe
economicallyvisible,andtovalidateanexpandedarrayofalternative,community,social,
andnon-capitalisteconomies,inaction-orientedinterventionsandperformativeprojects
aswellasinmoreconventionalresearchinitiatives.Sotherehasbeensome
accommodationandadaptiontoantiessentialistcritiques.Butthereremain,nevertheless,
basicandquitestubborndifferencesbetweenthose(lumpers)thatareconvincedthatthey
canseethematrixofpolitical-economicpowerrelations,evenifitworksinmysterious
ways,andthose(splitters)thateitherdonotrecognizethematrix,orprefertofocustheir
attentionandenergieselsewhere.
Whiletherehasbeenafairamountofsplittingandrefinementofreceived,bigprocesscategoriesofanalysis(fromglobalization,capitalism,andneoliberalismondown),
andsomedegreeoflateralaugmentationofthese(inanincremental,“and/also”fashion),
itisundeniablythecasethatthecategoriesthemselvesarestillverymuchincirculation.
ForGibson-Graham(2008,618),thisrepresentsmorethanmethodologicalinertia,buta
troublingattachmenttodebilitatingversionsof“strongtheory”;theirdiagnosisofthis
situationgoesbeyondthesuggestionofastubbornreluctancetochange(ortolisten),to
themoredisconcertingclaimthatpartsofthefieldmayhavesuccumbedtoakindof
intellectualparanoia,symptomizedbythe(bad)habitofmarshaling“everysiteandevent
intothesamefearfulorder[suchthate]verythingcomestomeanthesamething,usually
22
somethinglargeandthreatening.”Here,therecognitionofamatrix-likeorderbecomesits
owndisorder.Appropriatelyenough,theRorschachtest(whichhasitsownplaceinthe
annalsofrudimentarypsychodiagnosis)hasbeeninvokedasaheuristicdevicebyGibsonGrahametal.(2013,7-8),aschemeofpatternrecognitionthatinthiscontextservesasa
metaphorforthepropensitytoperceivethe(same)economicworldineitherforeboding
oremancipatoryways:theparanoidsubjectremainsinthethrallofdarkshapesofdevilish
connection,whilethoseabletoseewithneweyesaredrawntothewhitespacesof
economicpossibility.
Ineconomicgeography…thedominanttopicofresearchoverthepastdecadeormorehas
beenneoliberalismandneoliberalcapitalistglobalization.Thishasbeenrepresentedas
needingstudyfortheapparentlyself-evidentreasonthat“itisthemostimportantprocess
ofourage,transforminggeographiesworldwide”…Inthefaceofwhathasbecome
“normalscience”foreconomicgeography—studiesofneoliberalthisandthat—many
geographersaremakingotherchoices,contributingtonewperformancesbybringing
economicdiversitytolight…Throughdevotingacademicattentiontohiddenand
alternativeeconomiestheyhaveconstitutednewobjectsofstudyandinvestigation,
makingthemvisibleaspotentialobjectsofpolicyandpolitics(Gibson-Graham2008,61920).
Astark(indeedbinary)choiceisdulypresented,betweenthenumbingdarknessofthe
neoliberalnight,withitsfatalisticanddeterministicembraceofstrongtheoriesof
corporatehegemonyandmarketrule,andthesunlithorizonofexperimentalalternatives,
withitsleft-libertarianethicofself-realization,supplementedbydeliberately“small,”
autonomous,orlocalcategoriesofanalysisandpractice.Relativetoeconomic
geography’slooselyarticulatedpluralism,withitslaissez-fairecultureoflive-and-let-live
cohabitation,thisrepresentsanotableimpasse,ifnotatheory-culturalsplituniverse—a
two-solitudescondition.
Allheterodoxiesarecontested,ofcourse,andthisiscertainlynottheonlylineof
fracture(orcommunicationfailure)intheheterogeneousuniverseofcontemporary
economicgeography,inwhichthedegreeofinter-referencingandmutualdependency
betweendifferentintellectualprojectsmaybeerodingovertime.BarnesandSheppard
(2010,194),afterall,describedaconditionof“multiplesolitudes,”markedasmuchby
detachedmonologuesasbygenuinelyresponsivedialogue.Butifeconomicgeography’s
23
almost-absentcenterliessomewherebetween,orattheconfluenceof,variouspoliticaleconomic,poststructuralist,evolutionary,feminist,andinstitutionalistcurrents,thenthis
apparentstallintheconversationmayhaveconsequencesforthefield’sheterodox
theory-culturemoregenerally.Thereisarguablylittletobegainedbyreiteratingwhatby
nowarefairlywell-articulatedpositions—between,ontheonehand,thatvariantof
qualifiedlumpinginwhichdiversityisrecognizedaroundadominantaxisofrelational
difference(whatmightbecalledtheproblematicofvariegation),andontheother,that
versionofprincipledsplittinginwhichextracapitalistdifferenceisvalidatedandvalued
moreunilaterallyandonitsownterms(thepostureofalterity,perhaps).Butinstead,
mighttherebedifferentwaysofstagingthisconversation,drawingondifferent
methodologicalaxioms,andcallinguponadifferentgrammarofheterodoxdialogue?
Mightitbepossible,inotherwords,foreconomicgeography’slumpersandsplittersto
engageindifferentways?
Thesubstantivistimaginary
Whateconomicanthropologistscallsubstantivismcanbeseenasamodeof
methodologicalframingthatis,atoneandthesametime,broadlyconsonantwith
prevailingpatternsofpracticeineconomicgeographyyetalsoaprovocationtothinkand
dothingssomewhatdifferently.TheoriginsofsubstantivismgobacktoKarlPolanyi’s
protestagainstwhatheperceivedasthe“economisticfallacy,”thetendencyto
(super)impose,asanormalizedanalytic,“themarketshapeofthings”(Polanyi1977,xl).1
Theeconomisticfallacyisanactofselectiveseeing,carryingwithitadiagnosticand
normativeprivilegingofmarketrationalitiesandforces.Bythesametoken,itisalsoa
formofmyopia—relegatingnon-market(or“irrational”or“cultural”)phenomenatothe
blurrymargins.Polanyisawtheeconomisticfallacyas
1
IntheGrundrisse,Marx(1973,105)wassimilarlycriticalof“thoseeconomistswhosmudgeoverall
historicaldifferencesandseebourgeoisrelationsinallformsofsociety.”Polanyi’srelationshipwithMarxism
isacomplexmatter.Hecanbereadasacreativepostmarxistorasamutedantimarxist,amongstother
positions(seeBurawoy2003;Dale2010;BlockandSomers2014).
24
thepracticeofanalyzingalleconomicsystemsthroughatheoreticalgazethatpresumes
thatthehorizonsoftheeconomyarefullycomprehendedbyamapthatincludesonly
marketexchangeandthecalculativebehaviorcouplet…[G]iventhemethodologicaland
ontologicalstandpointthatitembraces,theneoclassicaltheoryconstitutesthe
paradigmaticcaseoftheeconomisticfallacy,analyzingasitdoesbothmarketandnonmarketeconomicactivitiesindiscriminatelythroughaformalchoice-theoreticframework
builtuponthepostulateofrationalindividualcalculativebehavior(AdamanandMadra
2002,1046,emphasisadded).
This,inotherwords,istoquestiontheindiscriminateprojectionofthemarketpattern
(andpresumptionsofmarket-likebehavior)ontoalleconomies,pastandpresent,a
problemcompoundedbyasingularrelianceonmethodologicalformalism(basedona
choice-theoreticframeworkthatprivilegeseconomizingbehaviorunderconditionsof
scarcity,governedbyprices).Polanyididnotbelievethattheapparatusofmainstream
economicswasinherentlyandnecessarilyproblematic;hispointwasthatitsdomainof
applicabilitywasfarmorecircumscribedthanwasconventionallyacknowledged;that
perhapsitmade(some)senseforactuallyexistingmarketeconomies,butcertainlynotfor
alleconomies.2Polanyi’swide-rangingexplorationsofancientandcontemporary
economies,includingso-called“primitive”societies,hadconvincedhimthatthemarket
wasneitherauniversalphenomenonnorthecivilizationalfutureofsociety,buta“special
case”(seeFusfeld1957;LeClair1962).Inhismorepolemicalmoments,Polanyirailed
againstthedevastatingeffectsofcommodificationandmarketization,ofcourse.His
quarrelwasnotwiththerecognitionofthesystemofregularizedexchangeasone(albeit
onlyone)variantofeconomicorganization,butwithimplicitorexplicitclaimstoanalytical
universality(“marketcentricity,”ashemighthaveputit),andpolitically,withtheelevation
ofthelogicandethicofthemarkettothestatusofagovernmentalprogramandreigning
socialprinciple.ThismarkedthebirthofwhatPolanyicalled“marketsociety,”the
2
Thisqualifiedconcessiontomarketrationalitywouldlaterattractcriticismonthegroundsthatthe
applicabilityofneoclassicaltheoryoughttobequestionedinnominallymarketeconomiestoo,although
therewereperhapscircumstantialreasons,relatingtotheMcCarthyiteclimate,forPolanyi’sacceptanceofa
provisionaldivisionoflaborbetweenhisinsurgentheterodoxyandorthodoxeconomics(seePeck2013c).As
iftounderlinethepointthatcontemporaryborrowingsfromPolanyirequiresomecarefulreinterpretation,
heonceremarked(problematically)thatthe“lasttwocenturiesproducedinWesternEuropeandNorth
Americaanorganizationofman’s(sic)livelihoodtowhichtherulesofchoicehappenedtobesingularly
appropriate[consistingof]asystemofprice-makingmarkets”(Polanyi1957,244),havingpreviouslydeclared
(polemically)themarketmentalitytobepractically“obsolete,”thelegacyofafailedhistoricalexperimentin
liberalcapitalism(Polanyi1947,109).
25
historicalthresholdafterwhichthe“formerlyharmlessmarketpatternexpandedintoa
sociologicalenormity”(1947,113).Polanyimaybemostfamousfortheelusivemetaphor
ofembeddedness,whichdespiteitslimitationsasarigorousanalyticneverthelesssignals
inabluntfashionthatmarket-exchangesystemsareneverexclusiveorautonomous,since
inpracticetheirexistencedependsonlegalandinstitutionalframeworks,whiletheir
operationsarealwaysandeverywhereinfusedbyculturalpredispositionsand
preconditions.Itismorethanironicthatactuallyexistingmarkets(must)coexistwith,are
codependenton,andareenabledbyothersocioeconomicformsandmodesofregulation,
evenasthelatterarecommonly(mis)represented,inmarketideologies,asanathema,as
alien,inferior,andanachronistic,asmeddlinginterventions,andas“interferences”with
otherwisefreelyandefficientlyfunctioningsystems(seethediscussioninHodgson2015).
Somarkets—quaregularizedsystemsofexchange—areoutthere,eveniftheyare
noteverywhere.Andtheymaybedominantundersomecircumstances,buttheycan
neverbecoterminouswith“theeconomy”andneitherdotheydefine,teleologically,an
ultimatestage.Formalisticmethodsmaygraspsomeofthepertinentfeaturesofmarkets,
evenastheytendtounderstandtheseinmethodologicallyreductiveand
socioinstitutionallyimpoverishedterms.However,inwhatamountstoanorthodox
versionoftotalization,essentialism,or“economicsimperialism,”themarketopticis
oftentimesrenderedasauniversal,afirstandforemostsourceofcausality,anallencompassingdiagnostic,orasaone-size-fits-all“map”of(rational)economicbehavior.
Inanthropologicalterms,thisprojectionofthemarketmodelrepresentsakindof
ethnocentricityanalogoustothestudyofcomparativereligionsfromtheperspectiveof
Christianity,orthejudgmentofalternativepoliticalsystemsaccordingtosomeidealized
templateofWesterndemocracy(Dalton1969;Halperin1994;Gudeman2001).Italso
amountstoaprofoundlyinaccuratereadingoftheethnographicandarcheologicalrecord,
whichdisplaysaqualitativelyrichgeographyofsocioeconomicformswhilegivinglietothe
“mythoftheindividualistsavage”assomedirectancestortohomoeconomicus(Polanyi
1947,112;Sahlins1972;Rosser2005).“Inthebeginning,thereweremarkets…”willnot
do;neitherwillmarketteleologies,orcontemporaryconceptionsofblanketmarketization.
26
Ratherthanhewingtowardsamonistinterpretationoftheeconomic—basedona
deductiveandsingularmodeloftheperfectmarketandrationalcalculation—the
substantivistalternativeisconstructedbetween,andacross,groundedreadingsofreal
economies,leveragingtheactuallyexistingheterogeneityofeconomicsubjectivities,
cultures,institutions,andstructuresasconcretelyrevealedtimeandspace,“thefountof...
substantiveconcepts[being]theempiricaleconomyitself”(Polanyi1959,166).
Substantivismisameansofbringingintothefieldoftheanalyticallyvisiblethefull
spectrumof(institutionallystabilized)socialmeansthathavebeendevelopedforthe
satisfactionofmaterialneeds(thisiswhatPolanyicalledtheothermeaningofthe
economic—itshuman,material,andsubstantivemeaning).Itisareceiptforan
analyticallypolycentricandempiricallygrounded“cross-culturaleconomics”(Fusfeld1957,
354),asearchingandcreativeprogramof“comparativeeconomy”(Dalton1968,xi),or
whatfromaslightlydifferentanglemightbecalledeconomicgeography.
Theheterodoxgroupofeconomists,anthropologists,andhistorianswithwhich
Polanyisurroundedhimselfinthepostwarphaseofhiscareer,someofwhomwouldlater
stylethemselvesas“comparativeeconomists,”weremotivatedbythe(negative)question
ofwhetherthepostulatesofeconomicformalism—withitsunderlyingscienceofchoice—
wererelevantfortheso-calledancientandprimitivesocieties.3Theirextensive(if
necessarilyexploratory)surveysofthehistoricalandethnographicrecordconvincedthem
otherwise.Theyknewmarketswhentheysawthem,buttheyalsoencounteredmany
othersociallydurablewaysoforganizingeconomiclife.AstheyoungscribeAbeRotstein
wroteintheintroductorynotetothePolanyigroup’sTradeandMarketintheEarly
Empires,
Itisanimpoverishedeconomichistorythatnarrowsitsconcerntomarketsormarket
antecedents,forthesemayonlybefragmentaryaspectsoftheeconomy.Theeconomy
wouldthenseemtobeinunilinealevolutiontoourownday,whereasinfactother
3
Aninstitutionalmanifestationofthecomparativeeconomists’positiveprogramwastheestablishmentin
theearly1960softheAssociationofComparativeEconomics(latertheAssociationofComparativeEconomic
Studies),whichwouldlaunchthejournalsComparativeEconomicStudiesandtheJournalofComparative
Economics.PolanyiapostleGeorgeDaltonwaspresidentofthisgroupinthelate1960s,workingtocapitalize
onthe“theoreticalaffinitybetweeneconomicanthropologyand[thestudyof]comparativeeconomic
systems”(Stanfield1980,594;Dalton1968).
27
economiesneednotbeminiaturesorearlyspecimensofourown,butmaybesharplyat
variancewithit,bothastoindividualmotivesandorganization(Rotstein1957,xviii).
YetthePolanyiansweredeterminednottogetboggeddownbyindigestiblelevelsof
complexity,ortodropdownanempiricistrabbitholebyconferringunique,suigeneris
statusoneachandeverylocalizedsocioeconomicformation.
Thecomparativeeconomistswerelumpers,yes,butcertainlynotofan
indiscriminatekind,sincetheysawavitalmethodologicalpurposeinsplittingtoo:they
endeavoredtoworkacrossrevealedeconomicdifference,carefullyformulatingtheir
categoriesinrelativelysmalllumps,inordertodevelopandreviseoperationalconcepts
alongwithappropriatetoolsofanalysis.4Havingrejectedthemonismofmarketontology,
theirleverwouldbetheexpresseddiversityofeconomiclife,nottocapturethis
photographically,insomefixedandfinalway,buttoworkacrossandrelativizeeconomic
differenceasacombinedempiricalandtheoreticalstrategy:
Inorder…toseewhatisanalyticallyimportantinTrobriands’economy,[we]mustfirst
understandthestructureofindustrialcapitalism;tounderstandthespecialusageofpigtuskandcowriemoney,[we]mustfirstunderstandtheorganizationandusageofdollars
andfrancs(Dalton1968,x).
Onthebasisofawildlyambitiousattempttodocumenttheprincipallinesofdiversity
across“alloftheempiricaleconomiespastandpresent”(Polanyi1957,244),the
comparativeeconomistsidentified,verified,andtheninterrogatedthreeorfour
organizationalspecies(orwhattheytermedmodesofeconomicintegration),which
alwaysincombinationoccupiedasociallycontingentifinstitutionallystabilizedpresencein
theaccumulatedrecord:exchange,reciprocity,redistribution,and(lessconsistently)
4
ThePolanyigroupmayhavebeenmoresecurethantheyshouldhavebeenintheirunderstandingofthe
“facts”ofeconomicdiversity,althoughsuchdeclarationsofempiricalcertaintywereusuallyadvancedinthe
serviceoftheoreticalreflexivity:“Oneofthepeculiaritiesofeconomicanthropology,”Dalton(1968,xxxviii)
wrote,isthat“neitherthefactsnorthefolkviewsofprimitive(sic)economiclifeareindoubt.The
ethnographicrecordislargeanddetailed.Whatisindoubtisthemostusefultheoreticalapproachto
organizethemanydescriptiveaccounts.”Polanyi(1947,112)wasinclinedtoreportthe“facts”inasimilarly
baldmanner.Mattersofpresentationaside,thisraisesthequestionofwhatonemightventuretosay,well
overhalfacenturylater,aboutthereceivedconditionoftheaccumulatedgeographical“record,”andits
theoretical“organization.”Howfarfromexhaustive,really,havebeenthediscipline’smanifestlyincomplete
effortsatmappingexpressed-geographicaldiversity?Howdoprevailingtheoreticalframeworksencounter,
organize,andexplainthosenodesandcoordinatesofdiversitythathavebeendocumented?
28
householding.Forpresentpurposes,thedetailsofthisparticularschemaarelessrelevant
thantheepistemologicalprinciplesuponwhichitisbased,including,first,therecognition
ofenduringandirreduciblediversity(substantiveeconomicsystemsareunderstoodas
compoundsofdurablydistinctiveforms,foundsidebyside,inmanysomewhatinterdependentcombinations);second,anappreciationofthehistoricallyand
geographicallycontingentnatureoftheresultinghybrids(oneorothermodeof
organizationmaybedominant,buttheseareneverthelessconstitutedrelationally);and
third,theabsencepresumptionsofhistoricalteleology,universalcentrality,orincipient
homogenization(allsuchhybridformationsbeingsociallymadeandopentopolitically
guidedchange,notstructurallypreordained).
Onthisbasis,Polanyiandhisfollowerscanbecountedamongsttheoriginal
theoristsofthehybrideconomy,theconstitutiveelements(ormovingparts)ofwhich
weredefinedandrefinedthroughtransductivedialoguebetween,ontheonehand,an
extremelywiderangeofconcretecasesidentifiedfromthehistoricalandcontemporary
record,andontheother,creativeformsofmidleveltheorybuildinginvolvingthe
continuousinterrogationofcategoriesandconcepts.Exchange,reciprocity,redistribution,
andhouseholdingwereidentifiedastheprincipalsourcesofeconomicdiversitytowhich
thecomparativeeconomistsrepeatedlyreturned,asthebasicorganizationalbuilding
blocksofrealeconomies.IthasbeensaidofthePolanyianstyleofqualified,principled
lumping,whichdirectsattentiontowardsinstitutionalizedpatternsandsociallystabilized
formsofcoordination,that
Alleconomies,thatis,allthematerialaspectsofhumancultures,involvetheprovisioning
ofhumanpurposesbythetechnologicalinteractionandtransformationofnature.Inall
butthemostprimitive(sic)societies,thereisalsoadivisionoflaborwiththeconcomitant
necessityofintegrativeinstitutionstocoordinateeconomicactivities.Theseinstitutions
haveatleastsuperficialsimilarities—marketplaces,trade,monetaryobjects,and
accountingdevices(Stanfield1980,595).
Similarprinciplesofsubstantivediversitymightjustaseasilyapplytootherwell-known
schematics—suchasmarkets,hierarchies,andnetworks;capitalist,altcapitalist,and
noncapitalisteconomies;state,market,andthirdsector,andsoforth—allofwhichought
tobedeemedrevisablethrough“lateral”interrogation,amidstandinrelationtotheir
29
others,andindialoguewithculturallyandanalyticallysituatedinterpretationsofthefacts
ontheground(seeAdamanandMadra2002;Peck2013c).
Now,aquitereasonableobservationwouldbethatsomeaspectsofthiskindof
approachcanbefoundincurrentsofextantpracticeineconomicgeography,especially
thoseinvolvingtheformulationandrefinementofmidlevelconcepts,attunedtobroader
theoryclaims,throughcase-studyinvestigations.Thisispartlytrue,butwithanimportant
qualification:substantivistepistemologiescallforprogramsofinquiryandresearch
designsthataredemandinglycomparativeinadoublesense.First,thereisaminimum
requirementforcross-cultural,cross-contextual,cross-site,orcross-localcomparisons,as
meanstorenderthenear-familiarnewlystrange,asameansofmovingrecursively
betweenmomentsoflumpingandsplitting,andasaguardagainst(implicitlyorignorantly)
ethnocentrictheorization.Withineconomicgeography,normsoflone-scholarproduction,
sometimesextendingtosmall-groupcollaborations,raisesomeobviouspracticalproblems
inthisregard—perhapsonereasonfortheongoingpaucityofcomparativeworkinafield
thatotherwise(andsomewhatparadoxically)trumpetsitscommitmenttogeographical
contextualizationandspatiallysensitiveexplanation—butthemethodologicaland
interpretivepointneverthelessstands.Theinjunctionisboldlytoworkacrosseconomicgeographicaldifferencewiththeaidofresearchdesignsthatembrace,problematize,and
provideapotentialbasisforexplainingthatdiversity.Thereareagreatmanywaysof
doingthis,includingtheclassicmodelofside-by-sidecomparisonof(likeorcontrasting)
economies,butanyhonestassessmentwouldhavetoconcludethattheproductive
executionofsuchresearchdesignsinthefieldhasbeensporadicatbest.5Inexplanatory
terms,economicgeography’s“island”hasbeensmaller(andsociologicallycosier)than
somemightliketothink(Peck2012).
Ifthisfirstdimensionofcomparativity(comparingplaces),whiledemanding,isat
leastconventionallyunderstoodandoccasionallyrealized,butotherwiseworkedaround
orcompensatedfor,thesamecannotbesaidofthesecondsubstantivistaxiom:thisisan
injunctiontoextendanalysesacrosstheheterogeneous,diverse,hybrid,andvariegated
5
Forsuggestiveexamples,seeSaxenian(1996),Gertler(2004),andMcDowell(2011).Seethediscussionin
Barnesetal.(2007).
30
economyitself—insitu,asitwere.Thismeansworkingattheintersticesof,aswellas
betweenandacross,revealedeconomicdifference,forinstance,betweencommunity
economiesandthestate,orfirmsandhouseholds,coexistinghowevercontingentlyand
asymmetricallywithinthe“same”economy,nomatterhowthatmightbedefined.It
meansstrivingtoexceed,say,“marketonly”or“networkonly”methodologicaloptics,and
transcending(oratleastthoroughlypositioningandcontextualizing)modesofanalysis
thataregroundedinasingleexplanatorysite,suchasthewage-laborprocess,thebanking
sector,thestate,orthecooperativeeconomy.InthePolanyianlingo,itdemandsan
analyticalreachacross,aswellasintothevariouscreasesandcrevicesof,whatwere
determinedtobethebare-minimumsignifiersofeconomicdifference(redistribution,
reciprocation,exchange,householding).Asamatterofmethodologicalprinciple,theseor
otherdimensionsofdurableeconomicdifferenceshouldbeaffordedparityofanalytical
esteem,sansbindingoraprioriexpectationsofhegemonicdominance,functional
centricity,orprevailingtrajectory.(Thisisapre-emptivecautionagainstbuilt-inandselfaffirmingassumptionsofcapitalocentricityormarket-centricityorstate-centricity,orthe
dominanceoffinanceortheefficacyofproductionnetworks,orthesocialintegrityof
communityeconomies;instead,itistobeexpectedthatasymmetricalrelations,political
autonomy,orhegemonicdominance,whereevident,shouldbedocumentedempirically,
notpresumed.)Thereisaconcern,inotherwords,tospecifyboththe“shiftingplace”and
theshifting,multifacetedformofthealways-compound,always-hybrideconomy(cf.
Polanyi1959,168),bywayofresearchdesignsthatbringtolightandproblematizeinternal
diversityandgeographicaldifference,andthatexposeandexplaintherelationally
interconnected,heterogeneousmakeupofactuallyexistingeconomies.Itentailsa
maneuverthatislesslike“addingdiversityon”andmoreakintoembracingdiversityasa
methodologicalobjective—andthenverifying,stress-testing,andaccountingforthat
diversity.
Thegoalofexposinganddiagnosinghybridity,ofworkinglaterallyacrossdiversity
withinaregionaleconomy,neednotalwaysentailexhaustive,holus-bolusmodesof
inquiry,butataminimumthereisacallformore-than-monologicalencounters,suchas
31
thosethattravelinfrom(oroutto)theconstitutiveoutsidesofmarket-exchange,the
state-governancenexus,orcorporate-hierarchicalsystems;oralternatively,thosethat
problematizeinterstitialformationsorboundaryobjects,likevarietiesofmarketregulation
associatedwithdifferentstateforms,orthosethird-sectororsocial-economyexperiments
thatexistsomewhatoutside,butnotexactlybeyond,themarketandthestate.Aguiding
principlehereisthateachandeveryeconomicsite,institutionalformation,patternof
subjectivities,andsuchlike,isunderstoodnotassomehermeticallysealeddomainbut
throughitsrelationalconnectionsto,andhybridblendswith,otherspheres,nearandfar,
andaccordingtotheirrelativepositioningwithinconstitutivelydiverseeconomic
landscapes.Onceagain,researchdesignsthatexplicitlyworkacrossdifferencewithin
regionalorlocalsettingscanbefoundineconomicgeography,althoughtheyarehardly
commonplace.6
Economicgeographerstendtofindthemselvesworkingamidthicketsof
contingent,contextual,andconjuncturaleffects,manyofwhich—notablythosedeemed
tobeconnectedtospace,place,andspatiality—areassignedhigherlevelsofexplanatory
significancethanwouldotherwisebethecaseinotherbranchesoftheheterodox
economicsciences.However,itisnotablethatonlysporadicallyhaveresearchdesignsin
thefieldbeensufficientlycompellingtopersuadeotherheterodoxeconomistsofthe
“differencethatspacemakes,”a(defining)featureofeconomicgeographer’sownbelief
systemthathaswonnomorethanlimitedrecognitiononthe“outside”(cf.Peck2005).
Diversity-embracing“Polanyiancomparisons”representonewaytoaddressthis.
Exhortationstoengageinmorecomparativework,evenoftheconventionalsort,areliable
tobetreatedinthesamewayasothervarietiesofeat-your-greensadvice,being
recognizedasalmostuncontestablya“goodthing”andyetoftenoutofreachforpractical
reasons(seeBarnesetal.2007),butbeyondtheircontributiontohealthymethodological
lifestylestheyserveamoreparticularpurposeinsubstantivisteconomics:difference6
Forsomeearlycontributions,seeBagguleyetal.(1990)andHansonandPratt(1995).Foracreatively
complementaryresearchagenda,seePollardetal.(2011).Foranexploratoryapplicationinexplicitly
Polanyianterms,seePeck(2013b,2013d).
32
spanningcomparisons,eitherbetweenspatiallydiscretesitesoracrosstherealmsand
registersofeconomicdiversitywithinheterogeneousformations,necessarilyplacean
analyticalpremiumonrobustmethodologicaldesignsandlucidexposition,andthe
simultaneousparsingofbothevidentiaryandtheoryclaims.Furthermore,thepromiseof
substantivelycomparativeeconomicgeographiesisthattheymightsetup,constructively,
adifferentkindofconversationbetweenlumpersandsplitters,courtesyofademanding
repertoireofrelationalmethodologiesinwhichtheutilityandreachofcategoriesof
analysisispersistentlystressedandalwaysopentorevision.
Bywayofaconclusion:comparativelyproductiveeconomicgeographies?
Economicgeography,thispaperhassuggested,alreadypossessesaheterodoxtheoryculture,perhapsasmuchbyaccidentasbydesign,onethattendsproductivelytofavorthe
experimentalandtheemergent.Morethanthis,thedisciplineplacesapremiumon
movingwiththeshiftingtidesandcurrentsoftherealeconomy,whichisproperly
recognizedasasourceofbothvitalityandrelevance,andwhichwithmoremixedresults
fostersapersistent“churn”acrossmuchofthefield.Thesearesurelyaspectsofour
socializedandevolvingtheory-culturethatmanyinthefieldwillwanttopreserve.Atthe
sametime,ifthereistruthintheobservationmadebyTrevorBarnesandEricSheppard
(2010)thatintensifyingdynamicsoffragmentationanddissipationareatworkinthe
discipline,inwhattheyinterpretasaless-than-productiveformofcentrifugalor
disengagedpluralism,thenthoseconcernedwiththecombinedorsocialproductivityof
thefieldquafield,itsmore-than-the-sum-of-the-partscontributions,havenogroundsfor
complacency.
Heterodoxdisciplinesareintheirnatureundisciplined,unsettled,andresistantto
unification.Yetiftheyaretoflourishasheterodoxcommunities,theymustdevelopways
activelytocultivate,andperiodicallytoreinvigorate,internalcodesandmodesofdialogue
anddebate,sustainedacrossdifference.Ithasbeensuggestedherethatadistinctivefacet
ofeconomicgeography’stheory-cultureisthealways-unresolvedtug-of-warbetweenits
33
lumpersanditssplitters,betweenthestakingofgeneralizedtheoryclaimsandthesearch
fortellingexceptions,betweentheconstructionofumbrellaconceptsandoverarching
frameworksandtheirpurposefulcritiqueandcontestation.Thediscipline’slumpers
habituallyengagewithprevailingcategoriesofanalysis,workingtowardstheirrefinement
andreconstruction,whileitssplittersprefertoworkagainst(oroutside)suchtacitly
acceptedcategories,oftenentailingtheirdeconstructionanddisplacement.Ifthereisa
necessaryrelationattheheartofeconomicgeography’stheory-culture,itisthatlumpers
andsplittersneedoneanother.Theyeachdoandseethingsthattheotherdoesnot,and
thepresenceofeachisacheckonthepotentiallywaywardtendenciesoftheother.One
oftheoccupationalhazardsoflumpingisthatofsingularism,theshortcuttakento
monocausalexplanation(anextremeexpressionofwhichisuniversalism);anoccupational
hazardofsplitting,ontheotherhand,isthatofseparatism,andthedeadendof
idiosyncraticexplanation(theextremeformofwhichisparticularism).Thecontested
explanatoryspacesinbetweenareinvariablymoreproductive.
Perhapsitistruethatlumpersandsplittersareneverentirelycomfortableinone
another’scompany,butneithershouldtheybeallowedtoliveapart.Unsettled
cohabitationseemstobeafeatureofeconomicgeography’stheory-culture.Hencethe
relevanceofcallsfor“engagedpluralism,”andforthedevelopmentof“newvocabularies”
forcommunicationacrossdifference,includingthemakingofcreolelanguagesaroundsocalledtradingzones(cf.BarnesandSheppard2010).Beyondthis,thefieldmayalsoneed
toworkonthecollaborativedevelopmentofnewmethodologicalrulesandroutines,
especiallywherethesehavetopotentialbreakdownsomeofthewallsaroundthose
explanatorycomfortzonesthatunderstandablytendtogrowuparoundparticular
researchprogramsandapproaches,whichcanbecomeself-affirmingiftheyendup
privilegingtheirown,sequestered,modesofinquiryandobjectsofanalysis.
Substantivism,withitscultureofsituatedtheorizingandengagedcomparativism,mightbe
onewaytodothis(amongothers),onethatresonateswithextantpracticeinsome
respects,butwhichalsodrawsoutbothlumpersandsplittersontothealways-contested
terrainofconnectivityanddiversity.Thefieldwoulddowellnotjusttoacknowledgebut
34
toactivelyengagethisheterodoxtheory-culture,andtomakeavirtueofthefactthat,as
Darwinputit,“Itisgoodtohavehair-splittersandlumpers.”
References
Adaman,F.,andMadra,Y.M.2002.Theorizingthe“thirdsphere”:Acritiqueofthepersistenceof
the“economisticfallacy.”JournalofEconomicIssues36(4):1045–78.
Anon1894.Defencenotdefiance.CornhillMagazineMarch:286-96.
Bagguley,P.,Mark-Lawson,J.,Shapiro,D.,Urry,J.,Walby,S.,andWarde,A.1990.Restructuring:
Place,class,andgender.London:Sage.
Barnes,T.J.,andChristophers,B.2016.EconomicGeography:Acriticalintroduction.Oxford:Wiley.
Barnes,T.J.,Peck,J.,Sheppard,E.,andTickell,A.2007.Methodsmatter:Transformationsin
economicgeography.InPoliticsandPracticeinEconomicGeography,eds.A.Tickell,E.
Sheppard,J.Peck,andT.J.Barnes,1–24.London:Sage.
Barnes,T.J.,andSheppard,E.2010.“Nothingincludeseverything”:Towardsengagedpluralismin
Anglophoneeconomicgeography.ProgressinHumanGeography34(2):193–214.
Block,F.,andSomers,M.R.2014.ThePowerofMarketFundamentalism:KarlPolanyi’scritique.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Brenner,N.,Peck,J.,andTheodore,N.2010.Variegatedneoliberalization:geographies,modalities,
pathways.GlobalNetworks10(2):182–222.
Brown,W.2015.UndoingtheDemos:Neoliberalism’sstealthrevolution.NewYork:Zone.
Burawoy,M.2003.ForasociologicalMarxism:ThecomplementaryconvergenceofAntonio
GramsciandKarlPolanyi.PoliticsandSociety31(2):193–261.
Clark,G.L.1998.Stylizedfactsandclosedialogue:Methodologyineconomicgeography.Annalsof
theAssociationofAmericanGeographers88(1):73–87.
Colander,D.,Holt,R.P.,andRosser,J.B.2004.Thechangingfaceofmainstreameconomics.Review
ofPoliticalEconomy16(4):485–500.
CommunityEconomiesProjectn.d.Communityeconomies.
http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home(lastaccessed2August2015).
Dale,G.2010.KarlPolanyi:Thelimitsofthemarket.Cambridge:Polity.
Dalton,G.1968.Introduction.InPrimitive,Archaic,andModernEconomies:EssaysofKarlPolanyi,
ed.G.Dalton,ix-liv.GardenCity,NY:Doubleday-Anchor.
________.1969.Theoreticalissuesineconomicanthropology.CurrentAnthropology10(1):63–102.
Darwin,C.1857.DarwintoHooker.DarwinCorrespondenceDatabase,1August.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2130(lastaccessed16August2015).
Dow,S.C.2000.Prospectsfortheprogressofheterodoxeconomics.JournaloftheHistoryof
EconomicThought22(2):157–70.
Fourcade,M.,Ollion,E.,andAlgan,Y.2015.Thesuperiorityofeconomists.JournalofEconomic
Perspectives29(1):89-114.
Foster,J.,Muellerleile,C.,Olds,K.,andPeck,J.2007.Circulatingeconomicgeographies:Citation
patternsandcitationbehaviourineconomicgeography,1982-2006.Transactionsofthe
InstituteofBritishGeographers32(3):295-312.
Fusfeld,D.B.1957.Economictheorymisplaced:Livelihoodinprimitivesociety.InTradeandMarket
intheEarlyEmpires:Economiesinhistoryandtheory,eds.K.Polanyi,C.M.Arensberg,and
H.W.Pearson,342–56.Chicago:HenryRegnery.
35
Galbraith,J.K.1971.Economics,Peace,andLaughter.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Geertz,C.1973.InterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gertler,M.S.2004.ManufacturingCulture:Theinstitutionalgeographyofindustrialpractice.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Gibson-Graham,J-K.1996.TheEndofCapitalism(AsWeKnewIt):Afeministcritiqueofpolitical
economy.Oxford:Blackwell.
________.2006.APostcapitalistPolitics.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
________.2008.Diverseeconomies:Performativepracticesfor“otherworlds.”ProgressinHuman
Geography32(5):613–32.
Gibson-Graham,J-K.,Cameron,J.,andHealy,S.2013.TakeBacktheEconomy.Minneapolis:
UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Grabher,G.2006.Tradingroutes,bypasses,andriskyintersections:Mappingthetravelsof
networksbetweeneconomicsociologyandeconomicgeography.ProgressinHuman
Geography30(2):163-89.
Gudeman,S.2001.TheAnthropologyofEconomy.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
Halperin,R.H.1994.CulturalEconomiesPastandPresent.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress.
Hanson,S.,andPratt,G.1995.Gender,Work,andSpace.NewYork:Routledge.
Hodgson,G.M.2015.ConceptualizingCapitalism:Institutions,evolution,future.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Jones,A.2015.Politicaleconomicgeographies:apluralistdirection?ProgressinHumanGeography
xx-xx.
Kindleberger,C.P.2000.Lumpersandsplittersineconomics,anote.AmericanEconomist44(1):88–
92.
Lawson,T.2015.TheNatureandStateofModernEconomics.London:Routledge.
LeClair,E.E.(1962)Economictheoryandeconomicanthropology.AmericanAnthropologist
64:1179-203.
MacKinnon,D.,Cumbers,A.,Pike,A.,Birch,K.,andMcMaster,R.2009.Evolutionineconomic
geography:Institutions,politicaleconomy,andadaptation.EconomicGeography85(2):129–
50.
Marx,K.1973.Grundrisse.NewYork:Vintage.
McDowell,L.2011.RedundantMasculinities:Employmentchangeandwhiteworkingclassyouth.
Oxford:JohnWiley&Sons.
Peck,J.2005.Economicsociologiesinspace.EconomicGeography81(2):129–75.
________.2012.Economicgeography:Islandlife.DialoguesinHumanGeography2(2):113–33.
________.2013a.Explaining(with)neoliberalism.Territory,Politics,Governance1(2):132–57.
________.2013b.ExcavatingthePilbara:APolanyianexploration.GeographicalResearch
51(3):227–42.
________.2013c.ForPolanyianeconomicgeographies.EnvironmentandPlanningA45(7):1545–
68.
________.2013d.PolanyiinthePilbara.AustralianGeographer44(3):243–64.
Peck,J.,andTheodore,N.2007.Variegatedcapitalism.ProgressinHumanGeography31(6):731–
72.
Polanyi,K.1947.Ourobsoletemarketmentality:Civilizationmustfindanewthoughtpattern.
Commentary3:109-17.
________.1957.Theeconomyasinstitutedprocess.InTradeandMarketintheEarlyEmpires:
Economiesinhistoryandtheory,eds.K.Polanyi,C.M.Arensberg,andH.W.Pearson,243-69.
Chicago:HenryRegnery.
36
________.1959.Anthropologyandeconomictheory.InReadingsinAnthropology,Volume2,ed.
M.F.Fried,161–84.NewYork:Crowell.
________.1977.TheLivelihoodofMan.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Pollard,J.,McEwan,C.,andHughes,A.eds.2011.PostcolonialEconomies.London:Zed.
Romer,P.M.2015.Mathinessinthetheoryofeconomicgrowth.AmericanEconomicReview,
Papers&Proceedings105(5):89–93.
Rosser,J.B.2005.Acomparisonofcomparativeeconomicanthropologies.HistoryofEconomics
Review23(1):96-107.
Rotstein,A.1957.Introductorynote.InTradeandMarketintheEarlyEmpires:Economiesin
historyandtheory,eds.K.Polanyi,C.M.Arensberg,andH.W.Pearson,xvii-xviii.Chicago:
HenryRegnery.
Sahlins,M.D.1972.StoneAgeEconomics.Chicago:Aldine.
Saxenian,A.1996.RegionalAdvantage:CultureandCompetitioninSiliconValleyandRoute128.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Scott,A.J.2000.Economicgeography:Thegreathalf-century.CambridgeJournalofEconomics
24(4):483-504.
Sheppard,E.2011.Geographicalpoliticaleconomy.JournalofEconomicGeography11(2):319–31.
________.2016.Heterodoxyasorthodoxy:Prolegomenonforageographicalpoliticaleconomy.In
TheNewOxfordHandbookofEconomicGeography,eds.G.L.Clark,M.P.Feldman,M.S.
Gertler,andD.Wójcik,xx-xx.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sheppard,E.,Barnes,T.J.,andPeck,J.2012.Thelongdecade:Economicgeography,unbound.In
TheWiley-BlackwellCompaniontoEconomicGeography,eds.T.J.Barnes,J.Peck,andE.
Sheppard,1-24.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
Stanfield,J.R.1980.TheinstitutionaleconomicsofKarlPolanyi.JournalofEconomicIssues
14(3):593–614.
Strassmann,D.L.1994.Feministthoughtandeconomics;Or,whatdotheVisigothsknow?
AmericanEconomicReview,PapersandProceedings84(2):153–58.
Sussman,A.L.2015.Q&A:PaulRomeron“mathiness”andthestateofeconomics.WallStreet
Journal15August.http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/08/17/qa-paul-romer-onmathiness-and-the-state-of-economics/(lastaccessed2November2015)
Swyngedouw,E.2009.Politicaleconomy.InDictionaryofHumanGeography,eds.D.Gregory,R.
Johnston,andG.Pratt,547-49.Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
Tarrow,S.2002.Fromlumpingtosplitting:Specifyingglobalizationandresistance.InGlobalization
andResistance:Transnationaldimensionsofsocialmovements,eds.J.SmithandH.
Johnston,229-49.Oxford:RowmanandLittlefield.
Vidal,M.,andPeck,J.2012.Sociologicalinstitutionalismandthesociallyconstructedeconomy.In
TheWiley-BlackwellCompaniontoEconomicGeography,eds.T.J.Barnes,J.Peck,andE.
Sheppard,594-611.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
37