Talk:Economic geography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • note: please subsection comments

article cleanup[edit]

I'm currently studying Economic Geography at my University. I'll clean this up and add to it, if I see fit, when my exams are out of the way. --Scarfo 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes on 3rd April. It needs improvement (also in spelling, english is not my first language). But I think is much better than it was. Huntington theory is is relevant from historical point of view (I mean the period of environmental determinism). I agree it is not much relevant today. I fyou have some time please improve the article.GeoW 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As a former student of economic geography I recall no teaching of the Huntington-theory, nor does it seem relevant. Also the article direly needs some cleaning, as it is in its current state not very well written (perhaps due to cut and paste). 10.04.2006

more cleanup[edit]

Glad to see that some geographers have been working on this. I added some links to retail geography and industrial geography, two variants of economic geography (however unsexy and out-of-date that may be perceived). I think Huntington is probably relevant if we begin to discuss the evolution of the sub-discipline, though I tend to think of it as being something that might be found in older versions of cultural geography from the days before even Carl Sauer walked the earth. Glad to see the more recent references to scholars(e.g., Doreen Massey)and scholarly journals. 18 May 2007. jboggs

As an economic geographer trained in geography but also with coursework in economics, I would suggest that this post in its current form has little to do with the contemporary field of economic geography, and instead seems to be dealing in part with what is sometimes called geographical economics, and in part with debates nearly a century old. Most professors appointed as economic geographers in Geography Departments would more or less agree with Rubenstein, and disagree mightily with Extro.

I am fairly certain that Landes is an economic historian and not an economist. By geographers trained in geography departments, Hungtington is considered an environmental determinist, regardless of Jeffrey Sachs attempts to rehabilitate Huntington's work in discussions of Africa's peripheral position in the world economy.

I take it you wouldn't mind if some actual _geographers_ contributed something here?

User:jboggs


I restored what you removed. You can add more issues to the page, or edit what is there, but Huntington's ideas are relevant to the to the topic (he appears to have been correct about the influence of climate on economics). I will add that some economists find Huntington's ideas uncomfortable.

User:Extro


I removed the following from the article:

He noted that the Northern, cold regions like the U.S., Britain, Europe and Japan had large, well-developed economies while the hot, tropical countries were less well endowed—the so-called equatorial paradox. Huntington ascribed the differences in economic performance to differences in climate.
According to Huntington, these differences in economic performance also affected political structures—tropical states tend to have unstable political histories.
Other factors in this model affecting economic performance are access to the sea and the presence of raw materials like oil. Singapore, for example, occupies a key position as a seaport, while the wealth of Saudi Arabia depends almost entirely on oil.
These aspects of economics were noted by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations and have also been studied by modern economists like David Landes at Harvard University.

Here is why I deleted it: it is not "Economic Geography." Indeed, virtually all of Economic Geography is a reaction against Huntington, who is better labeled an "environmental determinist" and not an economic geographer. There is a real sibdiscipline of geography out there called "economic geography," and this article ought to introduce readers to that subdiscipline – and not instead provide an argument that economic geography dismisses. Slrubenstein

i studied Huntington in my intro to econ geog course. that was back in 1993 but it was at Clark U in worcester, ma--well known for geography. but we also discussed Malthus who isn't mentioned in this article.50.11.84.238 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)kathryn

Economic geographies[edit]

Certainly but there are many 'Economic geographies' rather than an 'Economic geography' so I think there needs to be an emphasis on the plural as do many other geographers. Supposed 07:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there's one economic geography. You can also divide the discipline thematically, for e.g. into geography of agriculture, geography of industry, geography of transportation, geography of services ... and so on, but there are always disputes if these (sub)disciplines are parts of economic geography or also parts of other geographical disciplines or stay on their own. There's no need to divide this from theoretical point of view because transportation, agriculture, industry, services are all part of a spatial system that theoretical (economic) geography tries to understand. For e.g. the theory(ies) of core and periphery or central place theory.
BTW, this discussion is quite a mess (some contributions are written from top to bottom some reversely). We should better delete it and start anew (if it does not break some Wikipedia rules).Deuce 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"for e.g. into geography of agriculture, geography of industry, geography of transportation, geography of services". There are geographies of services etc hitch then may be economic geographies, health geographies etc , it's ok to use the term 'geography' to refer to a discipline but the correct usage of the term should at least be stressed in the article or at least somewhere on Wikipedia. Supposed 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean the meaning of the term geography as an ordered arrangement of constituent elements (definition from a thesaurus)? Actually a map showing some kind of distribution of particular phenomena? Geography deals not only with distribution of things, it examines also linkages with different environments and also processes and principles that apply in the world and create actual arrangement of things. I'm not Native English speaker. What you mean exactly by geographies of services? I have many times seen to use the term geographical as a synonym for spatial, but it is not quite the same. It is more apparent in physical geography than in human geography where maps are much broadly used. Deuce 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubs![edit]

All the articles regarding Economic geography, Regional science, Urban studies, Regional economics are either of very poor quality or are stubs. Moreover, there is no categorization and cross-linkage. Citations are almost totally absent, and the whole discussion revolves around the question if Mr. Huntington--a supporter of single factor fallacies about climate and culture--has a place in the article. So far there has been no clear-defined project and nobody knows where to contribute. I'll try to have those articles nominated for help pick next week's article. Donnerstag 16:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As a practicing economic geographer, the current entry is a farce. It sounds like it's written by an economist wanting to colonize the sub-discipline. The material on Huntington is absolutely irrelevant.

Organization[edit]

The sections on "Approaches to Study" and "Subdivision" are very bizarre. It's not that no one has written on the "Geography of Agriculture", but this is not a way that economic geography is usually broken up. The Approaches to Study include some real things that sort of conform to approaches that I know of, and some, like "regional economic geography", that I've never seen broken out into a distinct area of study. Again, it's not that no one has ever done the economic geography of a particular region, but this is not a defined sub field.

I think the subdivisions section should be removed, and Approaches to Study should be substantially reworked with expanded definitions. It is currently little more than a list. Leehach (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • In Europe the economic geography (where I come from) is usually divided thematicaly: geography of agriculture, geography of industry etc. On the other hand Approaches of study division is taken from the point of view of methodology used in research. I think it's OK this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.234.179 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What is up with the section "Economists and Economic Geographers"?[edit]

What is up with the section "Economists and Economic Geographers"? Is this a page about economic geography as a discipline itself, or a page about economic geographers and how they're not economists? Is it accurate to presume that whereas in the 1950s geographers worried about being perceived as 2nd-rate geologists, they now worry instead about being perceived as 2nd-rate economists? I deleted some of the unsourced nonsense about economists only caring about GDP, but even what remains doesn't strike me as NPOV at all. --C.Adam.Bee (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, the part has no real place in the article, and if it should be there, why not make it more objective and educating. Now it is more an text about China, or so it feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkCrows (talkcontribs) 09:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV, Economics and Economic Geographers[edit]

This section seems largely concerned with describing the shortcomings of the economists' approach. Ideally, we should have a neutral comparison of the two discipline's approaches to econ geography/geographical economics. Blowfish (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://world-geography.org/202-economic-geography.html
    Triggered by \bworld-geography\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Anderson's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Anderson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Moreover, economists and economic geographers differ in their methods in approaching spatial-economic problems in several ways. An economic geographer will often take a more holistic approach in the analysis of economic phenomena, which is to conceptualize a problem in terms of space, place and scale as well as the overt economic problem that is being examined. The economist approach, according to some economic geographers, has the main drawback of homogenizing the economic world in ways economic geographers try to avoid.[6]

Add "The economist approach of simplifying geography has the advantage of allowng analysis of economic interaction in space."

With the rise of the New Economy, economic inequalities are increasing spatially. The New Economy, generally characterized by globalization, increasing use of information and communications technology, growth of knowledge goods, and feminization, has enabled economic geographers to study social and spatial divisions caused by the arising New Economy, including the emerging digital divide.

The first sentence is false in essence. Global inequality has decreased with hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian peasants lifted from poverty by globalization.

The new economic geographies consist of primarily service-based sectors of the economy that use innovative technology, such as industries where people rely on computers and the internet. Within these is a switch from manufacturing-based economies to the digital economy. In these sectors, competition makes technological changes robust. These high technology sectors rely heavily on interpersonal relationships and trust, as developing things like software is very different from other kinds of industrial manufacturing—it requires intense levels of cooperation between many different people, as well as the use of tacit knowledge. As a result of cooperation becoming a necessity, there is a clustering in the high-tech new economy of many firms.

The new economic geographies consist of a reallocation whereby manufacturing is relocated to lower wage countries and service sectors expand in higher wage countries at a greater rate than in low wage countries. The paragraph above is concentrated on only a small slice of the economy, even with the service sector part of the economy.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Anderson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2008. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 698, Boston College Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)