To read the comparable chapter on economic geography in Geography in America is to recall a world, and a way of viewing that world, that seems remote. For one thing, that chapter was called Industrial Geography. There were good reasons why industrial geography was so prominent in the last report. The 1970s and 1980s were a period of fundamental industrial change in Western economies involving deindustrialization and lay-offs, restructuring of methods of production, the emergence of new manufacturing and service sectors, and new forms of international economic organization supported by innovations in telecommunications, transportation, and corporate organization and management. All those substantive issues remain important, and in some cases central, to present economic geographical research. Changed, though, is the conceptualization of those issues. In particular, newer approaches tend to blur the boundary between the economic part of economic geography, and other social, cultural, and political geographical practices. Some have labeled this move “the cultural turn” (Crang 1997; Thrift and Olds 1996; Barnes 1996b), but this description is too narrow because more than just the cultural is at stake. Rather, the very idea of the economic is being reconceived. The economic is no longer conceptualized as sovereign, isolated, and an entity unto itself, but porous and dependent, bleeding into other spheres as they bleed into it. To use Karl Polyani’s (1944) term, which is often deployed in this literature, the economy is “embedded” within broader processes. There are at least two reasons for the reconceptualization of the economic by economic geographers. One is internal to the academy, and is bound up with a broader intellectual shift in the social sciences and humanities that is increasingly suspicious of essentialized entities such as “the economy” (Barnes 1996a; Gibson-Graham 1996; Lee and Wills 1997). A second source of change is the actual geography of economic activities. The economic geographical landscape of the 1990s seems quite different from the one written about in the last report, and thereby demands a new theoretical vocabulary in which to be represented. In the last report, for example, there was no mention of Fordism or post-Fordism, flexibility or economies of scope, localities or local modes of regulation, growth coalitions or territorial complexes, or glocalization or even globalization.
Developing Positive Employment Relations: International Experiences of Labour–Management Partnership