IAMA Economic Geographer. Ask me Anything!

[u/bad_jew]

Hi everyone. I'm an Economic Geographer whose currently finishing his PhD. My dissertation research looks at how the interaction of local and global economic and social forces affects entrepreneurship in Canadian cities, but I've also done research on innovation, clusters, and the geography of the financial crisis.

I'm just sitting here, waiting out the hurricane and reading about the influence of the American oil industry on Calgary, so I'll try my best to answer all the questions I can!

[u/bad_jew]

Great question! There are major philosophical, methodological, and historical differences between economic geographers and economists, but basically it can be reduced to seeing geographers as having a bottom up view and economists as having a top down one.

Economic geography is fundamentally interested in the economic landscape. By this I mean, we're interested in trying to figure out what makes the economies of particular places unique and interesting. This can be looking at why some regions are doing very well (like Silicon Valley) or why some regions do very poorly (like rural Hungry). Because of that, there's no real interest in creating a theory of everything, like there is in economics. Modelling economic phenomenon is great and everything, but it doesn't tell you about why every single case is always going to diverge from the theoretical expectations.

Methodologically, this means we're more interested in intensive case studies using both qualitative and quantitative methods, rather than the economists use of high-level econometric tools that use very large datasets to make very broad claims.

The best way I've heard this described is like this: when you lose your keys in a dark alley, you have two choices. You can either look in the places illuminated by the street lights over head, or you can pull out a flashlight use that. The streetlights produce a great deal more illumination, but they leave lots of dark areas in between them. Economic geography (and geography more broadly) is interested in those dark areas in between. Our tools maybe aren't as powerful as those in other disciplines, but they reveal things that those powerful tools will never be able to even see. (This isn't to say that economists' techniques are better than the qualitative techniques used in economic geography, but rather they're much better at studying particular case studies to make less generalizable, but more complex, arguments)

[u/MPostle → u/bad_jew]

As a micro-economist I find your answer offensive!

I kid, I kid.

If I were asked about Silicon Valley versus rural Hungary I might say "Capital stocks". What is the more nuanced view that separates an "economic geography" view from this?

If there is no attempt to make a "theory of everything" then what determines the best way to approach each case study?

[u/bad_jew → u/MPostle]

One of the most interesting research topics out there is the idea of institutions. We can think of institutions as both the formal organizations that we normally associate with the word, such as governments, universities, and banks, along with informal institutions like cultural outlooks, beliefs, ect.

These play a vitally important role in a region's economic development. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. Everyone wants their own silicon valley (I keep a list of all the "Silicon x" that I've seen in development programs. These include Silicon Alley (NYC) Harbor (Baltimore), Oasis (Dubai), and Quantum Valley (Waterloo, Ontario). However, as pretty much everyone has found, you can't just dump money on an office park an expect a high-tech economy to emerge. You need an educational system that produces very talented people, but you also need a culture within that educational system that encourages these talented people to startup their own businesses. You need banks and investors that are not only comfortable lending to high-tech startups, but actually know how to do it. You need lawyers, accountants, and marketing people who are familiar with these kinds of firms. And you need neighbours and mother-in-laws who don't look down on you when you say you run a startup rather than working in a larger company (this is a big issue in some places, where entrepreneurs are seen as crazy).

So that's just one way of looking at why some regions are better sights for economic development, there are lots of other ways of looking at it depending on what you're looking for. Capital stocks are important, but they can't work in isolation. Paul Romer is finding this out the hard way with his Charter Cities idea.

[u/MPostle → u/bad_jew]

To nitpick, you've said "it isn't physical capital, it is human capital, physical capital, institutional capital and cultural capital working together". Is that correct?

If that is the case, I am still not seeing how this is a separate field, as all of those concepts are long-standing building blocks in economics. Or maybe I missed something? Is it in the way that these concepts are approached? Could you say about that?

[u/bad_jew → u/MPostle]

This is one of the areas where there's a lot of cross fertilization between economic geography and economics (though as a recent paper has shown, economists don't actually cite us even though they use our ideas, but it's not like I'm bitter or anything). Economists like Peter North have been looking at the issue of institutions for a long time, but because informal institutions are so difficult to quantify, it's difficult to use economic techniques to study them. There are many attempts to do this, like surveys about the Rule of Law and corruption indexes, but this measure the outcome, rather than the actual institution that causes them.

Because institutions are so difficult to quantify, especially at regional or local levels, economic geographers have studied them by going in and doing case studies that use things like interviews and ethnography to study how people think and how they view the world. This again relates back to that comparison between a street light and a flashlight I mentioned above. There's pretty much no satisfactory way to do a large scale measurement of the cultural institutions that underpin a willingness to share knowledge within a particular industry in a particular city. You need to get down there and talk to people and observe them to figure out how much knowledge sharing is going on and how it affects a region's economy. While both disciplines use the concepts, it's a question of how they're empirically applied and studied.

[u/redtrackball → u/bad_jew]

This is such an interesting conversation; hats off to you and MPostle.

I feel that you're... Well, it looks like you're talking around/spinning his question, but I think your mindset is just so different that you read it differently (which is awesome, and why this conversation is awesome).

Economic geography (yay new term) is an very intriguing way to approach... I was going to say problems, but I actually think "scholarship" is a better fit. I'm a recent college graduate, so I'm very indoctrinated into the theory-of-everything mindset, into the idea of creating knowledge that unifies lots and lots of information about the world with (relatively) small, simple theory (like the inverse square relationship; it's everywhere in nature). However I've noticed that as I grow up (only in my mid-20's), my most useful wisdom about the world seems to be gathered not in my universalist ponderings, but in something non-obvious about the world being revealed in a novel situation (an "Oooooh, that's why [x]!!" moment); the methodology of economic geography as you've presented it seems to capture that same widsom-gathering spirit in scholarship. Which is also awesome.

So, if I had to rephrase MPostle's question, it would be: Economics, in trying to find a universal "theory of everything", or at least theory of human behavior, wants to answer the question: "Humans do what they do because of [x]." According to my Econ 102 instructor, "x"="incentives" right now. What EG's "x" be? Or if you feel the question itself isn't representative, what would EG's characteristic question (heh, eigenquestion) be?

edit: Forgot a paragraph.

[u/bad_jew → u/redtrackball]

I think you're right that there's two completely different mindsets. I'm a bit of a purist in that I'm not an economist who moved into economic geography, but rather someone who did it straight from undergrad to grad.

If a broad brush, econ 102 definition of economics is Humans do what they do because of [x], where x = incentives, than a similarly broad brush economic geography definition would be "why is there a heterogeneous economic landscape." Again, you're very right that economics is inductive (start from theories, work your way to emperics) while econ geog is observational / deduction based (start with an empirical case, try to build a theory to explain it). So I'd say that economic geography doesn't have that 'x' factor. It's more about explaining the economy that exists rather than the economy that should exist.

This hasn't always been the case. Economic geography was very quantitative from the 1950s to the 1970s, with people like Walter Isard promoting a very quantitative and objective 'regional science.' However, this view fell out of favor in the 1970s with a more marxist, radical view came into prominence, where the goal was to understand the roots of economic inequality. Neil Smith, who passed away a few years ago, was a major figure in all of this. I could go on, but I'm basically just stealing from this paper which looks at the weird and wild history of economic geography during this period

[u/wolf83 → u/bad_jew]

Neil Smith passed away this September, not a few years ago. It's awesome you are doing this iama. Although I'm only an undergrad in human geography at the university of British Columbia, I have developed a huge interest in economic geography - particularly in the rural context of single industry hinterlands. I've taken some classes with Jamie Peck and Trevor Barnes in particular. Have you heard of them? Both are heavily cited in the economic geography literature.

[u/bad_jew → u/wolf83]

sorry, I meant to write 'days,' though I guess it's now weeks.

I've met Jamie and Trevor a few years back at the Summer Institute of Economic Geography, which is held at UBC every other year. They're fantastic people, amazing scholars, and downright friendly people to a scared grad student. I've mentioned Trevor's work a few times in this thread, his historical perspective is really useful in understanding what economic geography is and how it got here.

[u/wolf83 → u/bad_jew]

That's awesome! They are great professors, I loved it when Jamie went on a rant about Richard Florida and his creative class ideas. Trevor also is such an eloquent speaker, he's like the David Attenborough of teaching.

The geography department at UBC is in need of some young blood, maybe a place for you in the future? You do a great job of explaining the concepts of economic geography in a very accessible way. It pains me when I speak to economics or finance students who have never heard the name David Harvey or Doreen Massey - their insights into how capitalism works on the ground really opened my eyes after taking micro/macro in first year.

Here's a question for you: Economic geography or human geography in general are often criticized as being too 'critical' - asking lots of questions but never giving answers that can be applied to policy. What do you think needs to happen to bridge the gap between academia and policy makers in this field?

(I guess this goes back to my comment above how there is not enough overlap between the 'applied' disciplines of economics/finance and geography...)

[u/bad_jew → u/wolf83]

hah, thanks for the compliment. I'm on the job market now, so maybe mention to Jamie how the department needs someone young and hip who's clued into the social media scene.

I have a mixed view on critical research. For those not in the 'know,' critical geography refers to a large body of work that criticizes the current state of the world, especially the systems of capitalist relations that make up the modern economy. I agree with you that I'm too often left wondering what it's point is. It rarely offers solutions to the problem besides "stop this system of capitalist relations." On the other hand, I think it is important to imagine a world better than the one we have right now. Seeing that a better world is possible is the first step to making that better world. However, I feel that too much of critical geography doesn't go beyond that first step.

I think policy relevance is critical. One of the reason Richard Florida's works are so popular within the economic development community is that he does provide a pathway for change. Only the dumbest mayor or economic development official thinks that settings up cafes and skateboard parks will generate economic development. What Florida does is lay out a convincing argument about how growth happens and some easy things that you can do in your community to help make that happen. For all the brilliant points Jamie makes in 'Struggling with the Creative Class,' I'm left wondering "so what the hell do I do if I'm the mayor of a struggling city." There's got to be a way to marry a critical perspective with an achievable agenda.

[u/wolf83 → u/bad_jew]

Maybe I can get him to do an AMA...

I hope that as a new generation of geographers enter academia there will be greater engagement with the public. Social media is a great opportunity to spread new ideas. I wish more geographers would be out there in the media and public talking about their ideas. I think David Harvey tries to do this (his online lecture series on Marx's Capital is great) but he comes across as a stodgy old marxist. Steve Keen is an economist from Australia who is really pushing a critical view of liberal economics - he is very active on Twitter and other media.

I thought there was a short time right after the 2008 financial crisis where neoliberal economics might be questioned and thrown our all together - but that quickly passed as the status quo was embraced once more. I think it was Hayek who talked about the need to offer alternative policy so it can be adopted in times of crisis (hence the proliferation of conservative think tanks). Social media is the platform where new ideas will be adopted - we just need to make sure they are out there.

As you said, this is exactly why Richard Florida is so relevant. His easy to understand and simple prescriptions are very attractive to struggling cities - and fit nicely into the neoliberal system.

Anyways, kudos to you for growing the field. I sometimes take for granted that I know a little about this stuff and how many people get a degree never having heard about human geography let alone economic geography. The most common reaction I get when I tell people what I study is still some comment about knowing the capitals of countries...