Abstract

In the lifetime of the Journal of Economic Geography geographers and economists have followed diverging paths to the study of the location of economic activity which, paradoxically, have resulted in very similar spatial configurations: a world dominated by large metropoli, where intermediate and peripheral spaces tend to matter less and less. These similar outcomes hide, however, different explanations and lead to different and contradictory policies. Such a situation raises both important questions and highlights the limitations of narrowly-defined disciplinary approaches, calling for a greater interaction between the two disciplines.

You do not currently have access to this article.