读书会 03期 | Economy: Critical Essays in Human Geography 总结2

A: This paper by Amin and Thrift (1992) introduces Neo-Marshallian nodes and further, critiques deficiencies of the industrial district theory in explaining the local industrial, economic development driven by global corporate networks. Centres of the global economy “guide” market demands and “supply” innovations, for example in Finance, to other nodes by asymmetric power of representation and local social interaction among specific groups of ‘knowledgeable’ people.

Neo-Marshallian nodes indicate that industrial districts as prominent nodes are flexibly specialised in a specific industry where different actors support local entrepreneurship with fiscal incentives, supportive institutions as well as infrastructure, various know-how, local networks among suppliers and consumers in the era of post-mass-production and customisation (pp. 577). This Neo-Marshallian node is different from conventional Marshallian industrial districts since the former unfolds by the process of vertically disintegrated production with low transaction costs among different, local firms. These local firms are flexibly and collectively engaged in various parts of production in an industry (i.e., the social division of labour at the local level (pp. 579)). This Neo-Marshallian node has several advantages, for instance, quick response to market signals, lower costs for small-scale entrepreneurship, and articulate divisions of labour (pp. 578-579). This new Marshallian theory was a new trend back in 1990s, which is different from vertical integration production managed by specific, large enterprises along the entire production chain. In sum, this industrial atmosphere of Neo-Marshallian districts fosters a culture of social interactions and the formation of knowledge structures of specialised skills/know-how in local contexts over time, for example, Santa Croce in Italy. However, demand shocks from international markets influence detrimentally these Marshallian districts specialised in a specific industry. In addition, the globalisation process of slicing global value chains and divisions of labour by global capitalism contributes to another perspective of conceptualising economic space.

Vertical integration in the global economy manages industries through global networks of increasingly oligopolistic corporates. This globalisation process is realised by subcontracting, joint ventures, strategic alliances or merger & acquisition based on “flattened hierarchies” of enterprises. However, these multinational enterprises may not devolute power and control while other companies at lower ends of production chains seem to be ‘autonomous’ but not ‘free’ agents. In addition, it is difficult for a specific national policy to intervene the global economy unless uniting fragments of states, particular industries and firms in this global corporate network.

B: This paper critiques traditional development models of industrial districts centered on vertical integration and mass production, noting their limitations in today’s post-Fordist economy. Modern products are increasingly complex and differentiated, requiring industrial districts/cities to adopt specialized, flexible, and integrated approaches. The paper outlines four reasons why traditional Marshallian agglomerations are insufficient today. First, production increasingly depends on global cities for support in finance, management, innovation, and other key areas. Second, a city’s production tends to evolve over time, often focusing on specialised components within product chains. Third, specialisation calls for a highly skilled workforce that may not be readily available locally. Finally, local conditions vary significantly across regions, making it essential to account for geographical diversity.

The paper then examines the benefits of global cooperation, identifying four characteristics of the global economy. First, multinational enterprises (MNEs) have established global branch networks. Second, global industries are now concentrated in the hands of a few powerful firms with influence beyond national boundaries. Third, MNEs are decentralized, with operations spanning multiple locations. Fourth, cross-national challenges have increased due to the instability of short-term corporatism and fragmented states. These characteristics introduce several issues. First, there is a need for expert knowledge systems to interpret and navigate the complex landscape. Second, social interaction is crucial for gathering information and making decisions.

Despite economic decentralization, central places remain essential, and the paper identifies four reasons for this. First, central locations function as hubs for generating, collecting, and disseminating information. Second, they facilitate interactions. Third, they serve as spaces for developing innovations. Finally, centers are well-positioned to evaluate the success of these innovations. To illustrate the ongoing relevance of central places in a decentralized global system, the paper presents two examples: Santa Croce, which hosts numerous small, specialized firms focused on leather tanning, and London, which relies on global networks for economic growth. Despite their apparent differences, the paper identifies five similarities between these examples. The conclusion of case studies is that Santa Croce will continue to thrive as a design center for leather goods due to its established industry roots. Regarding London, through its historical agglomeration, it has transitioned to an innovation-oriented, service-based economy that relies on global connections.

In conclusion, besides underscoring the importance of global connectivity in enabling cities to compete in global markets, successful centers still call for agglomeration, which includes ‘a critical mass of know-how, skills and finance in rapidly evolving growth markets, a socio-cultural and institutional infrastructure capable of scripting and funding a common industrial agenda, and entrepreneurial traditions encouraging growth through vertical disintegration of the division of labour.’

Note: Industry districts in this paper (Markusen, 2017) are defined as networks connecting firms in industries rather than predefined geographic boundries.

A: This research investigates why certain places manage to anchor productive activities while others do not and examine issues of slippery space. Slippery space occurs increasingly in advanced capitalist economies due to footloose global capital. For instance, multinational enterprises relocate plants as well as production lines to less developed regions with lower costs. Against this backdrop, many researchers study New Industrial Districts (NID), especially flexible specialisation in mature industries in the Emilio-Romagna region of Italy. Furthermore, this study proposes three new types of industrial districts or sticky places different from NID, for example, a Hub and spoke district (中心辐射), a satellite industrial platforms (类似卫星城) and the state-anchored district (公共非盈利主体主导，如军事基地，大学和研究机构). "Stickiness connotes both abilities to attract as well as to keep, like fly tape, and thus, it applies to both new and established regions." These districts facilitate firms to stay, expand and attract newcomers into the region. However, it is not clear how these industrial districts enhance the level of 'Stickiness'. Conclusions point out the original limitation of NID research, which intensively studies particular localities extracted from their embeddedness in a larger global economy (关系经济地理).

B: The author approaches the study from a perspective of stickiness, suggesting that a region needs to maintain its attractiveness to capital and labor, and subsequently outlines three new types of industrial districts. However, it seems that the author does not fully address how a region can enhance its stickiness. What factors are related to stickiness? In what contexts do these types of industrial district models develop? What explains the formation of these development patterns? Do these different development models have a positive or negative impact on the regional economy? Is it possible for different industrial district models to transition into one another, and what consequences might such transitions bring? The conclusions of this study are based on two premises: 1) The case study regions selected are areas within the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil that are above the average level of development, ensuring that they meet the standards for superior growth performance; 2) The author defines a broad scope for industrial districts, focusing the research on the metropolitan scale.

C: What are mechanisms behind the formation of industrial districts in specific localities? How are industrial districts embedded into the global corporate network? How do industrial districts improve the 'Stickiness'? How do local/regional governments apply this theory to promote regional development?

This paper defines conceptually the process of globalization and global production networks, explores the production network of multinational companies driving the regional development in specific territories, and provides case studies about the investment of an automobile manufacturer (i.e., BMW) in regions of Germany and Thailand. The first innovation of this paper is to put forward the concept of "strategic coupling", emphasizing the interaction between global production networks and regional economies. Strategic coupling functions not only at the economic but also social, political and cultural levels. This coupling process promotes the creation, enhancement and acquisition of values, which further facilitates the regional development. Secondly, this paper emphasizes the multi-scale of regional development, pointing out that regional development is affected by global, national, regional and other geographical scale factors. This multi-scale analysis contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of regional development. Reading through this article, we have a deeper understanding of the concept of "strategic coupling", and have a great inspiration to carry out the relevant research of industrial innovation networks and enterprise cooperation and development.

This paper then, presents an illustrative case study of the German car manufacturer, BMW, and its interactions with processes of the regional development in Eastern Bavaria, Germany and Rayong, Thailand. This case study shows the strategic coupling of a region’s assets with strategic needs of trans-regional actors (i.e., multinational enterprises). In the case of Eastern Bavaria, the main drivers of regional development are extra-local, based on BMW’s production strategy and investment, while previous policy decisions and subsequent capital flows from the Bavarian and Federal Governments helped kick-start regional development. In the case of Rayong, the BMW linked production networks in the Rayong/Samutprakarn area, on the other hand, currently shows comparatively few regional linkages. Investment as well as technology transfer to Thai suppliers has so far been rather modest. Additionally, the future of a prospering automotive cluster at Thailand’s Eastern Seaboard depends largely on supra-national free trade negotiations, making the international dimension of regional development ever more promising.

This paper discusses the situatedness and specificity of influential theories of economic geography and offers some constructive suggestions for an intellectual agenda for developing new theories in economic geography.

First, Yeung and Lin (2003) pointed out that there is a phenomenon in current economic geography research in which economic geography theories grounded on the industrial landscapes of a few advanced industrialized economies are dominant, while research in other regions is marginalized. Then, the authors reviewed the changes in mainstream economic geography theories since the 1960s, from location theory, to the spatial division of labor, flexible specialization and new industrial spaces, networks and embeddedness, regional agglomerations and clusters, regulation theory and governance, and the cultural economy. They argued that the dominant theories emerged from particular historical and geographic contexts are not universalized, and that new theories are needed explaining the diversity of experience and transformations in the global economy.

Secondly, the authors illuminated that while social science studies on Asia had developed many important theoretical insights, it had not yet made a significant impact on the development of mainstream economic geography at the beginning of 21st century. Then, they analyzed this phenomenon in relation to three groups of geographers: (1) those who were engaged in mainstream enquiry, (2) those who were engaged in area studies of Asia, and (3) those who interrogated mainstream theories on the basis of the Asian experience.

Finally, the article advocated economic geographers to engage more with mainstream theoretical (re)constructions and interrogations through detailed research on economic geographies of Asia. Asia becomes more important in terms of flexibility, globalization, social capital, the cultural turn, the institutional turn and the relational turn in economic geography. The rapid and dramatic transformations in the economic landscapes of Asia in more recent decades may yield new theoretical insights and empirical analyses, such as Japan’s rapid post–World War II economic development, China’s institutional processes and rural industrialization, Hong Kong’s regime of accumulation. These examples mark the beginning of a new intellectual era for global economic geographies.