DISCIPLINARY DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN THE CONTEXT OF EPISTEMOLOGY

(Source: Ercan,F (1995) “Disciplinary Definition Of Economic Geography In The Context Of Epistemology”, M.U İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol X, number 1-2, pp:29-52

Abstract:The current emphasis on space, time and agent as formed in the economic geography, l argue it, has evolved over the last two decades from the an early emphasis more reductionist space relations followed by an emphasis on space-social relation as a historical-agent dimension. In this paper aim to show how economic geography evolved and has possibility of grasping social reality more real than before. To begin with, discipline of economic geography is defined, The aim second section is to give brief arguments about scientific development. Then competing school in the economic geography reviewed as a critically and finally some theoretical possible consequences is presented.

1- IntroductionTime, space and agent are three provocative concepts in the social sciences. lt is also clear that social reality is formed on specific place, time and agents and hence all these factors interconnected in the social structures. In other words social reality can be define as a social totality of these factors. In spite of this reality, social reality is shizophrenically divided in the academic division of labor. Almost all social sciences ignored spatial dynamics, as Foucault described process that did it start with Bergson or Before? Space was treated as the dead, the fixed, the undialectial, the immobile. Time, on the contrary was richness, fecundity, life, dialectically (Foucault,1980,70). Special social sciences focused social reality on their shortening framework, for example, in economics; economic actions take places in its own separate places but only represent ‘one aspect of society’. Conceptual structures of economics developed in the a-spatial world what Isard argued that modern equilibrium theory concentrated their efforts on attacking the problem of time to the exclusion of that space. Hicks, Mosak, Lange and Samuelson have all treated an economy in which all factors and producers, commodities and consumers are in effect, congregated at one point (lsard,1956,25). Moreover not only economics as Foucault put emphasis above, nearly all social sciences have not mentioned space in their theoretical structure, what is essential point that social space is ignored. Harvey’s idea more clear that issue of space and geography is a sadly neglected stepchild in all social theory in a part because its incorporation has a numbing effect upon the central propositions of any corpus of social theory. Marx, Marshal, Weber and Durkheim all have in common; they prioritize time and history over space and geography and, where they treat of the latter at all, tend to view them unproblemetically as the staple context or site for historical action (Harvey,1990,l41).On the other hand, geography and geographers assuming that behind every spatial pattern lies a spatial cause, there was a world a purely spatial there were spatial laws, spatial relationships, spatial process (Massey,1988,10). While spatial emphasis, geography had not dialectical term of time, it offer (as all conventional social sciences) a time which logical construct; a time where yesterday is the same as today, and today is the same as tomorrow. The effect of the introduction of logical time is to ensure that the knowledge on which decisions are based does not change (Curry and Barnes, 1988, l46-147). Agency is another problem, conventional economics, sociology and also geography take agency as a analytical and agents are rational beings, that rational agent chooses an action which is not only means to his end but the best of all means which he believes to be available (Callinicos,1989,14) In this individualists methodological explanation of agency is dominant form in the social science, thus social agents isolated its social environment. It would seem that traditional social sciences fail to grasp whole dynamics the one framework because of functional shizofrenically job demarcation and ideological tendencies in academia. Giddens advocated our idea that with the exception the recent works of geographers, of which more, in a moment-social scientists have failed to construct their thinking around modes in which social systems are constituted across time-space (Giddens,l996,265) In spite of specialized and conventional social sciences, after the 1970s a number of significant tendency has made appearance. New tendency was caused by new historical realities of capitalism. New realities heavily based on some spatial dynamics and spaces become important for understanding development process. It nearly verified Foucault’s futurism, what he put idea that “present epoch will perhaps be above all the approach of space”. What Massey argued that space is very much agenda these days(Massey,l992) Dynamic development and facts’ values broke previous schizophrenic division of academic labor and strict a spatial, a historic, asocial universal scientific rule. New or revitalized same theories take a social agent in the historical-spatial dimension without reductionist view. Thrift took a fragment from Parfit who describes the consequences of changing from reductionism to non-reductionism view of the subject which gives us more clear picture of tendency in the social sciences;” My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving foster every year, and at the end which there was darkness when I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my life and more concerned about the lives of others (Thrift quoted from Parfit, l991,457). Like changing view of Parfit, social sciences enter the process which reconceptualization of theory structure. I believe/argue that there are two sub-disciplines which economical sociology and economic geography carried more emancipator form of social reality. Agent and time put into social realities and historico-spatial forms. Economic sociology extended area in which real active man in their concrete social surroundings, it may be necessity encompasses a much broader set of actions and actors than mainstream economic theory (Swedberg, Himmelstrand and Brulin,1990,70). A similar argument can be stated for economic geography, last one decade, economic geographers produced more valuable idea which could unified space,time and agent in their theory. Massey’s last article constructed unified theory, she explain that seeing space as a moment in the intersection of configured social relations (rather than as an absolute dimension) means that it cannot be seen static. There is no choice between flow(time) and ‘flat’ surface of intenteneous relations (space). Space is not a ‘flat’ surface in that sense because the social relations which create it are themselves dynamic by their very nature. It is a question of a manner of thinking. It is not ‘the slice through time’ which should be dominant thought but the simultaneous coexistence of social relations that cannot be conceptualized as than dynamic. Moreover and again as a result of the fact that it is conceptualized as created out of social relations, space is its very nature full of power and symbolism, a complex web of relations of domination and subordination of solidarity and cooperation (Massey,l992,l3). In this article, I argued that economic geography has potential for grasping social reality more real than other social disciplines, however its development progress started more reductuonist more segmented and more depended, it also faced with competing Idea., methodology moreover ideology. My main concern is to give brief critical review of economic geography. The focus is essentially on epistemological and methodological development or revolution in this area. As will be made clear below, economic geography developed more rapidly and its frameworks present more dynamic theoretical apparatus which combine almost all social dynamics; space,time and agent. Article can be divided two sub-section. To begin with, area of economic geography is defined. Then, various approach of economic geography is analyzed from their space-time and agent concept as a view of its epistemological structures and finally some argument is presented.

2-Object of Economic Geography; From Subordination to What ?

Economic geography can be define as a bridge between time and space or economics and geography. Economic geography have one important characteristics which always followed economics. Economics developed largely in a spaceless world and then geographers have translate spaceless world into spatial world. Conventional economics and economic geography, both of them focused on allocation however economics has been concerned with allocation over time, geography with allocation over space (Hampton, 1987,106) According to E.J.Taafe economic geography define as a overlap between geography and spatial periphery of economics. At the core of economics, of course, is economic theory. Closer to the spatial periphery of economics are such subfields as international trade and economic development (Taaffe,l974,7)Figure:-1;The overlap zone between the spatial periphery of economics and theoretical periphery of economic geography. ECONOMICS

-International Trade Economics -Development Economics -Regional Economics -Locational Economics -Theoretical Economic Geography

Þ

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Source: (Taaffe,l974,9)

Can Economic geography be define as only the spatial implications of some parts of economics? Chisholm argued that the question Where? and Why there? are of central importance to geographic studies, whether the questions relate to human or inanimate phenomena on or near the surface of the earth (Chishol.m,l966,4). Initial stages, as Hodder and Lee states that this is more complex and difficult tasks than examination of economic forces per se, so spatial implications of some parts of economics provide an empirically based introduction to some major principles of economics of particular relevance to the spatial organization of capitalist economy (Hodder and Lee,l974,l7). Economic geography has been most strongly influenced by economics because economics is dominant science after the capitalism. It provides with not only explanation of economic structure but it also main ideological apparatus of capitalism. The other essential point economics, as D.Harvey argued that economics has, perhaps, been the most successful of the social sciences in developing formal theory (Harvey,1988 6) Like other social sciences, economics and its formal theoretical structure caused economic geography heavily, again Harvey put idea that many of the postulates and theorems of economics have been observed into geographic theory. In the particular the whole of location theory can be related to economic postulates. From the information it can be seen that object of economic geography depended on object and method of economics. It can be argued that development of conventional economics is also give us object of economic geography. Erikson gives more large of list which geographers followed economist and adapted their theory into spatial world; for example ,economist concerned with the process of economics growth and development (Hirschman, Myrdal, Perrooux, Lewis, Rostow, and Kuznets etc) and geographers also focused spatial process of economic growth (like Berry,Hall and Semple). As well known example location theory; it developed initially by economist and ,subsequently be geographers. Early pioneers of location theory Weber’s cost minimizing production of location and other with spatial prize theory, geographers try to examined patterns of Weberian location theory hypothesis for several types of industries which used raw materials ( in Smith’s studies). Hotelling’s uncertain and risk factors of location were examined by Webber. Hoower’s transportation and agglomeration analysis translated numerous principles which served to structure freight rates. Again market area analysis started with from economist, 0ther geographers developed central place theory (Port, Milligan and Griffith studies, ) Erikson presented more than these lists from translation Keynesian income analysis to regional spatial multiplier and from Walrasian/Leontief input-output model to geographers using it to explicate the nature of industrial complex (Hewings study) Schumpeter and Kondratieff’s business cycle were translated spatial structures (studies of Hall, Adams). ln the production and consumption analysis were translated spatial structures, utility concept was translated “place utility” (Wolpert) or utility of urban space consumption (Lentrek). As a result of this information it is apparent that economic geography has been significantly influenced by the discipline of economics. Many fundamental concepts and theories, ways of measuring phenomena and methodologies have been borrowed either directly or indirectly from Economics (Erikson,1989,239-241). M.J.Webb’s argued that economic geographers used two main tecnics which are called geo-econometrics and geostatistics. (Webb,1970,4). Formal neo-classical based economic geography became dominant type of explanation in economic geography until the 1970. D.Harvey’s book (l973) and D.Massey article (1973) important stage of economic geography, because economic geography examined and criticized was not only its some particular items, but also its whole structure questioned, as an ideology, conceptual structures, and epistemology. This critical process also started new argument which based on marxian conceptual structure. Like M.Castell’s argument, D.Massey argued that location theory ( I extending it whole economic geography) does not have an object of its own, and in that sense there could never be an autonomous dynamic theory of industrial location theory (Massey,l978, 181 but original it published in the 1973). What she argued that all economic geography (location analysis) derives very directly from neo- classical marginalist economic theory, sharing its ideology and consequently its epistemological approach (Massey, l978, 182). As a consequence of marginal concept structure, conventional economic geography based on (or hard core) general equilibrium, and it also ideological because of its question and answers and thus “objects” of traditional economics geography excludes the concrete power-relations of society. Moreover object of traditional economic geography was defined as a a-historical and most of characteristics of object were based on its mode of abstraction which the dynamic of system as a whole ignored. As we will mention below, agents of traditional economic geography are utility maximize units which firm(based on A,Weber firm and its minimax units problem-Hamilton) households (Alonso’s farmer household) or individual (Alanso’s urban land consumers). Agent in the traditional economic geography was an abstract and isolated from dynamic social relations Arena of agent action takes place in the full competitive market and agent adapted Lioned Robinson’s formal world in which agent is concerned with the disposal of scarce goods with alternative uses. Economic action is defined rational and rational agent always maximizes own utility. Moreover, results of rational economic action create conditions that can be define equilibrium state. Time is also problem in the traditional economic geography because it is stylized and stationary logical time. All these characteristics define objects of conventional economic and it borrowed nearly all geography characteristics from neo-classical economics. Epistemological structures also depend on marginalist economics what is called theoretical- deductive method (Harvey) or radical abstraction (Storper). It is constructed exclusion of certain features that are present in any actual situation either they are the more variable or because they are quantitatively of lesser importance determining the course of events. Such abstraction as a necessary and justifiable structural simplification of reality (Massey quoted from Dobb,l978,l84). After the establishment of radical Marxist geography, objects of economic geography changed radically from neo-classical based economic geography. In spite of this new theoretical framework, it does not mean (as a Kuhnian sense) conventional economic geography disappears in the science. However, there was born other type of explanation spatial side of economic activity and traditional view continued own channel/framework. Marxist geography has not static object in the economic geography because it more related to social context of theory. Like other objects of Marxist analysis, object of economic geography is approached in terms of specifying its existence as the site of overdetermined contradictions and thereby explaining both its dynamic and its relations of complex mutual effectively (e.g. , mutual constitutive), with all other objects of marxian theory (Resnick and Wolpe,l989,86). M.Dunford and D.Perrons’s well design study give us object of economic geography; geographical space is both historical and social and is completely inscribed in nature ,but geography is neither history nor economics, nor natural science. Geography is the study of spatial forms and structures produced historically and specified by nodes of production (Dunford and Perrons,l987,78). Area of Marxists geography developed rapidly in the shorter time among 1970 to now. In spite of fact that radical economic geography has been growing various channels, I will give some arguments wide range of objects of radical economic geography. Richard Walker and Michael Storper developed industrial location theory as against to traditional view. Then they put emphasis on labor as a dynamic factor that reduced in the traditional analysis as an only one input among several that obtained from a market. Lipietz, Hirsch and Davis all suggest unified structure that includes economics, culture and politics and spatial/social relations as a whole organization of society which take different coherent structure called fordism or postfordism or neofordism. There is one other dominant tendency in the marxian economic geography which is called capital logic school (Harvey, Edel, Hill. etc.). This type of analysis argued that object of economic geography is rooted in the production, reproduction, circulation and over all organization of the capital accumulation process in a capitalist society (Gottdiener quoted from Hill, l987,87). Marxist urban geography also developed as a class-conflict side which developed by Gordon, Mallenkopf and Katznelson, they explain spatial forms as a product of a class struggle. After the 1980s, Marxist economic geography and its objects and methodology started with evolution or criticized and it was formed more heterogen ideas and thus area/object widened. n the new historical social realities/concrete new structuration led to renewed of theoretical structure. For example, D.Massey extended her idea from structural level analysis to micro level analysis(sector studies or localization studies) in order to overcome radical abstraction of Marxist conceptual structure or overcome of reduction tendencies of Marxist methods. It can be said that Massey’s study(l978) provide more dynamic and dialectical theoretical structure from macro level analysis to micro and reverse (Massey,l978). More theoretical and epistemological critics and development of object came from M.Storper’s article ‘Big Structures, Small Events, and Large Process in Economic Geography‘. He criticized both of Marxist and neo-classical economic geography as a more high level of abstraction. He continues that Marxist mode of production and other more structural abstracted concepts fail to grasp dynamic concrete forms of spatial-social life. He argued that some mesolevel analysis which joins small events to global outcomes, and give emphasis small events. Hence he reached historically specific and geographically specific systems of agency. Storper’s aims break marxian functionalism and formalism, both of them obstacle for understanding spatial-social dynamics. E.Soja and Gottdiener revisited Lefebvre’s concept of space which represent as a multifaceted nature,space cannot be reduced merely to a location or the relations of property ownership-it represents as a multiplicity of sociometral concern (Gottdiener, 1987,123). One other counter attack came from Fahrenkog, he developed Marxist economic geography on the class division of society, and critics D.Massey and D.Harvey’s conceptual structure. He argued that when we speaking about spatial division labor, in the Marxist discourse, we are referring to the socially differentiated agents at any given moment of the development of a social formation; thus to a condition of the agents. Fahrenkog continue that production, consumption and distribution and exchange concepts have to dismisses from spatial analysis because these concept came from bourgeois discourse and they are the basis of the class relations within the society (Fahrenkop,l984,l4-16). Of course these not exhaustive lists of Marxist economic geography’s object because objects and conceptual structure more dynamics as it mentioned before. Althusserian side, object of theory related to concrete contradiction and it overdetermined. On the other hand, Marxist theoretical structure what Perry Anderson argued that Marxist dialectical concept structure is self-determined and self-criticized, all environment of economic geography has been changing as a represent of changing economic,cultural spatial changing process. In spite of changing and widening objects of radical economic geography, its methodological and epistemological structure, l believe, are not radically change. It continues same discourse and same channel and same epistemology that is define as twofold analysis, deductive and inductive, logical and historical. It’s represent of the unity of these methods (Mandel). In this method of radical economic geography, agent is define as in the context of historico-materialist condition which working class or capitalist’s class or new middle class, and heterogeneous agents carried own reality on space/place. Moreover both of space and agent are determined by social reality but also social reality can be changed by agent and space condition. Hence all concept is not define as a passive but active. Time in the historica-materialist economic geography is socio- historical time and space is not only container as like neo-classical economic geography. Analysis economic geography can be widened from postricardian framework or post-Keynesian framework which accepted last one decade. Main conceptual structure of neo-ricardian or post-sarrafian analysis critics of neo-classical homogen production factors and perfect knowledge of agent in the market. Basic objects of post-sraffian economic geography focused on heterogen production factor and gives mention uncertain future. Initial study came from Wolpert, he criticized those location theories that were predicted on the assumptions of ‘economic man’. In place of utility maximization and perfect knowledge, he argued that most farmers were satisfies and that the spatial diffusion of knowledge through communication channels discriminated between producers (Sunley quoted from Wolpert, l992,58). Sunley put forward idea that Wolpert’s analysis developed as a Post-Keynesian framework reappeared in the economic geography, especially
Clark used similar themes as both uncertainty and actors’ expectations which have a significant and unavoidable impact on economic activity (Sunlop,l992,58). Besides of post-keynesian economic geography, Post-srafian(neoricardian) economic geography developed last ten years, its pioneers are Allen J.scott and Rowesises, Gottdiener labeled as a neoricarodian economic geography, overcomes the limitations of marxist economic geography. A.J.Scotts’ essential task has been to ascribe an epiphenomenal status to such concepts as rent, wage, price, and interest in connection with the built environment by demonstrating that all market relations of production and reproduction specific to capitalism. As a consequently Scott’s unique contribution is that he has demonstrated the inexorable nature of uneven development by an economic model of location which integrates the neoricardian approach of Sraffa (Gottdiener, 1987,102). However both of Gottdiener and Pandyopadhy argued that Scott’s analysis is closest to Marx’s own (Gottdiener.1987,103).In the past few years, every social science has been influenced about postmodernism. Economic geography ,like other social sciences, faced with postmodernist imagination and destruction of previous objects. Their last books of D.Harvey and E.Soja addressed directly postmodernism. They refute more irrational nature of post modern concept but some others rethinking both of conceptual and epistemological levels of whole geography and specifically economic geography. Post modernist oriented economic geography criticized economic geography several aspects; first critics focused on meta narrative structures of discipline. Second critic is based on essentialist aspect of modernist economic geography. They give emphasis on agents/actors which are active participants. Cultural dimension of social life is added to economic geography as an important variable. Micro-level analysis, like locality studies, became important in the economic geography after the post-modernist oriented approaches.. Space became central part of postmodern analysis however Barnes(1992) and j.wolfs clearly show that there is not more radical change in the context of analysis. B.Barnes and M.R.Curry compare two studies which one is modernist (Keeble’s studies)and other postmodernist view (Cook study). They put more interest conclusion that “our argument will be that although Keeble and Cook ostensibly appeal to two separate grand metaphors, respectively modernism and postmodernism, we find striking similarities between the two (Barnes and Curry, 1992,62). Ýmportant contribution of Barnes and Curry, they argued that geographers’ subject mater seems to have become more flexible (Barnes and Curry,l992). I argued that postmodern analyses of economic geography or other sciences have more flexible objects and ‘loosening language’ because of its irrational and eclectically structure. Thus object of science distorted in the postmodern agenda. R.Paul. Resch’s analyses of E.Soja’s book give its eclectically structure of its object. Soja influenced and used more differ reference points which Late Modern Marxism and Postmodern ‘Critical Social theory’, the psedo-Hegelian dialectic, ‘dialectical’ progression of social theory via ‘a (Post Modernist) critique of the (Marxist ) critique of the (modernist) critique’ of empiricist geography, culminates all to self-servingly in the triumphal appearance of Soja’s own Postmodern Geography (Resch,l991,l46).
Harvey claim that both of othernesses and regionalism that postmodernist politics emphasize can flourish in particular place . “They are all too often subject to the power of capital over the co-ordination of universal fragmented space and the march of capitalism’s global historical time that lies outside of the purview any particular one of them” (Harvey,1990,239). All these brief analyses show that space-time and agent varied different type of explanation or schools. It is clear that until the 1970 traditional economic geography was dominant school in the economic geography. However after the 1970’s it can be already shown that increasing number of explanation appeared in the economic geography. Hence new and multi dimensional analysis and approaches provide with potential power for overcome of schizophrenically segmented academic labor division problem. It also supplies possibility of grasping reality in the almost all dynamics; space, time and agent.

3-Conceptual Development or Counter Development? Epistemological Review

It is more difficult question how scientific developments occur, scientific knowledge continuos construction or not. ln the history of science, empiricist or positivist philosophy of science as a whole dominant tendency which was widely held that to constitute the methodological ideal to which the social sciences should aspire (Outhwaite,l987) Positivist philosophy rely on scientific theories consist of sets of highly general universal statements. Truth or falsity of universal statements can be assessed by means of systematic observations and experiments can be known either with total certainty or at least with a far greater degree of certainty than anything else, including the theories which are evaluated by reference them(Keat and Urry,l982,l3). In spite of fact that positivist philosophy primarily oriented to physical sciences, all social science was influenced from it. Whereas all social sciences were caused by positivist methodology, geography followed of principle of, idiographic, exceptionalist German tradition. Principle aim of geographical scholarship during this period was seen to be construction of a synthesis of the characteristics of a region. Each region has assumed to be unique and geography’s method was characterized as ‘idiographic’ that is the intensive study of an individual case (Paterson,1984,21). Geography faced with positivist epistemology from Schaefer’s attack on exceptionalism. Positivist explanation also translated object of geography. New definition of object in the geography was a study of spatial distributions and space relations. After the 1950’s, there were more spectacular development of geography, Geographers used new technology, statistics and econometrics, mathematics, in this transformation called quantitative revolution. Quantitative revolution produced more new hypothesis, generalization and all these led more law oriented explanation. D.Harveys define this transformation as an implication of the logical empiricist philosophy of sciences on the geography. Central to the logical empiricist approach was the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanations and the hypotetico deductive review of scientific theory (Paterson,1984,20). As a contrast general geography, economic geography more early faced with logical empiricism because of its economics based structure. A.Weber, Christaller and Von-Thunenn early framework based on logical empiricism (Taafe,l974,7). Especially economic geography biased to build models of people perception of and respond to environmental hazards, found they had to abandon many of the neo­classical economic assumptions implicit in most contemporary geography model building (Paterson,1984,22).Leslie A.King gave more basics characteristics of positivist economic geography, in her analysis of positivist economic geography is defined by three suppositions; i)Economic geography followed methodological procedures of natural sciences and thus phenomenal studied in economic and urban geography may be treated in the same way its objects in the natural world, and social scientists define as an observer of social reality,ii)The goal of analysis in economic and urban geography can and must be to derive laws and theories such as have been formulated in the natural sciences,Iii)Most important one another characteristic that geography as a social science has a technical character and generates knowledge that is supposedly free of any implications for the pursuit of values. Thus social scientists assert always value-free characteristics research and neutrality. All three characteristics command geographers or economic geographers to establish the spatial connections between sets of facts by finding spatial laws (which are statements of the order in the world). But they go even one step further and try to establish the connections between laws themselves, by constructing spatial theories, which are the patterns or systems in the domain of spatial problems (King,1976,300­301). Production of knowledge in this methodology can be divided several subtitles (Harvey’s analysis)
Harvey focused on Hemple’s covering-law model in order to show how explanations occur in the geography.
Harvey’s analyzed law-covering model in two subsections; deductive predictive which way of constructing a scientific explanation and deductive nomological which refers to two sides of explanation. First of all; the type of logical inference used in the model is that of deduction. That is, given set of initial conditions and a set of appropriate laws, it is possible to deduce either that a particular event has happened or that it will happen. Second aims of deductive-nomological provide with set of laws that depend on one of the premises of the deductive inference.
Harvey also defined laws as two types; fact like and laws like; less general a statement the more fact like and more general a statement, the more laws like. Divisions of fact like and law like or fact and laws represent ranges along the scale of generality. Thus theory defines the terms used in the law and ensures that law statements used in explanation are consistent regarding each other. All these systematic organizations of scientific knowledge as a hypothetic deductive system in which a set of hypothesis formed a hierarchically ordered deductive system, high level hypothesis serving as premises (Summarized from
Paterson, l984,37-40). 0rganization of theory structure is given figure 2.

Figure 2. The Origin, Structure and Verification of Scientific Laws and Development of Scientific Knowledge(Paterson produced from Harvey,1969,41)

Now let us return our basic question is scientific knowledge of cumulative development process. ln the positivist methodology thus nearly during the 1960’s,positivists tend the characterize the historical development of human knowledge as a process in which various types of pre­scientific explanations of natural phenomena are eventually replaced by properly scientific ones(Keat and Urry,l982,24).As we witnessed some sociological idea that argued that number of stages in the human history in which scientific knowledge triumphing over theological, animistic or metaphysical explanations. It can be said that scientific knowledge always tends to overcome unscientific explanation in the logical positivism. What Popper makes distinction between science and non-sciences demarcation. Initial demarcation in the science and non­science is induction, however Popper followed Hume’s induction problem and he argued against to inductive demarcation from point of view; there is absolutely no quarantine that what we have so far experienced will persist in the future. This is famous problem of induction (Blaug,1983,12) Popper stated his book’s first sentence; l think that I have solved a major philosophical problem; the problem of induction: and he argued new theoretical framework which based on adduction followed by deduction(l put emphasize).Thus, Popper suggested new way of demarcation science from non-science is falsifiability. Falsifiability and deductive model again based on belief of evolutionary epistemology of scientific knowledge. What he claim that own words; I belief be looking at progress in science from biological or evolutionary point view. In this view science view science or progress in science ,may be regarded as a means used by the human species to adapt itself to the environment; to invent new environmental niches (Popper, 1985, 78). These ideas based on instructions and selection concepts. He also divided progress as a scientific, behavioral and genetic level. Adaptation process starts from an invented structure that is basic. In the scientific level, inherited structures rely on dominant scientific conjectures or theories. And structures always transmitted by instruction and instruction also come from within the structure. Process also formed by elimination or selection. For these reason, he suggest that progress in science, or scientific discovery depends on instruction and selection; on a conservative or traditional or historical element, and on a revolutionary use of trial and elimination of error by criticism, which includes severe empirical examination or tests; that is, attempts to probe into the possible weakness of theories, attempts to refute them (Popper,1985,84). We again faced with same scientific rules which command neo­classical economic geography.This methodological side can be observed in the economic geography. Economic geography and geographers believe/assumed that scientific knowledge about spatial structures only developed as a rules/laws because, as figures show that, scientific law derived more objective way and it is testified in the process. ln spite of positivism among other social science, economic geography more tended to use mode which provide formalize theory using tools of logic, set theory and mathematics and to set out a theory’s assumptions and hypothesis in a logical framework so as to eliminate any possible inconsistencies (Paterson Quoted from Harvey, l 984,27). Models, thus, provide secular and certain world and reduced all risks. In the neo-classical economic geography is used model which almost all centrally concerned with the single task of attempting to decipher the decision making process which basis of a general theory of optimum-seeking economic behavior, and, in particular, of utility maximizing consumer choice behavior (Scott,1980,72). Also in the model, human agency, in spite of individual preferences, human cannot, in any important way, affect sequencing of social life. Thus, they cannot affect the path of development of large process in any non trivial way (Storper, l988,166). Economic geography and its model also are a universal; all act in all places and in all times follows the strictures of economic rationality (Barnes, 1988, 476). Thus, universal characteristics of model reduced the complexity of economic events of any time or place to the universal trait of rational choose making; it also clearly argued that we can find more study in this epistemological point of view. Now economic geography is reviewed more scrutiny. Predohl used substitution principle in order to utilized a principle by means of which general equilibrium approach could be systematically applied to location analysis. Predohl’s assumes all locations fixed except that of one enterprise. Thus enterprises as a Homo economics optimized her/his economic activity that capital and labor outlays are substituted for land-use outlays. Pioneering study of neo-classical economic geography comes from A.Losch, he presented set of elementary equation highly simplified and reduced world a static model of space economy operating under conditions of monopolistic competition. Isard found that some more strict rules for market area form and producer simple assumption competition lead to market area hexagon shape which represent the ideal economic form of market area because it provides minimization transport expenditures in supplying a given demand or expressed differently. Maximizes the demand of the population of a given area (lsard, l956, 44). The model based on universal form, because it was valid for both produces and consumers and the agricultural as wall as the industrial sectors and all agent to aim profit maximizing as means of rational enterprise behavior, economics man. Loschian static model was developed into dynamic model but again based on same epistemological rules by Isard. lsard used substitution principle. Substitution is determined by the transport and labor costs. and substitution also shaped boundaries of production fields and profit maximization condition, and spatial Equilibrium, in other words, lsard’s general theory based on multi-ideal system And last example, Alonso’s well known formulation is based on positivist methodology of neo-classical consumer behavior theory. It focused on the equilibrium situation both for individual households and for the business firm (King,1976,297). Alonso recognized his agents; economic man who is reduced to that uninteresting individual economic man (Barnes quoted from Alonso,l988,478). These economic man/agents sets about the task acquiring a residential location at which the aggregate utility function is maximized. Alonso’s analysis completely developed from neo-classical economics consumption theory and it translated urban structure which presents more static analysis.Maximization process or equilibrium solution for Alonso show tendency which in general individuals or activities with the steeper bid-price curves world be closer to the center of the city, but he was unable to determine an overall market equilibrium in which the distributions of land prices and population densities as continuos function of distance from the center world be specified (King,l976,297).Briefly, it can be argued that economic geography formulated same strict rules but it does not refer to concrete spatial structures, it based on radical abstraction (A.Sayer) or empirical generalization (D.Massey). In this vein, it can be argued that cumulative development of scientific knowledge in the economic geography realized, however it must be emphasized that after the Isard’s and Alonso’s work, new economic geographers have clearly beyond the their model and positivist abstract empirical still plays a pivotal role but it developed as a within the of own framework and in this development occurred mostly developing application more new complex static and econometrics what it before called geostatics and geo-econometrics. All this development of more complex tools does not provide representation socio­spatial dynamics because its knowledge production procedures reduced more generalized reducing dynamics, ceterus peripus. Neo-classical economic geography increasingly faced with anomalies after the increasing level of new historical-social events. After the 1970s, establishment of Marxist economic geography and its new conceptual how can explained; is it simply joined previous conceptual structure or was it define as revolutionary way.Dismiss of belief, which scientific knowledge appeared to be continuos construction, came from Gaston Bachelard who shoved that teach science arises from an epistemological break; this calls into doubt the evidence of perception and constitutes the object on which scientific reasoning can attach itself (Claval, l981, 229). Bachelard’s idea rapidly spread in the scientific area. Kuhn developed own formulation which all disciplines were thenceforward condemned to ask questions about their past, to trace the discontinues which made them possible (Claval,l981,229). Kuhn’s basic concept is paradigm and the later it replaced by two other terms’ disciplinary matrix’ and ‘exemplar’. Disciplinary matrix is composed of, among other things, a number of exemplars and sets of shared values, symbolic generalization and models and exemplar is a standard example of a concrete problem and its solution which may be applied to a many of other as yet unsolved, scientific problems (Paterson, l984,13). Kuhn distinguished two of explanation of science normal and revolutionary science. Normal science is conducted within the framework of a ruling disciplinary matrix, refining its research methods and measurement techniques and achievements of the disciplinary matrix. Revolutionary science is that activity accompanying the revolutionary overthrow of one disciplinary matrix by another (Paterson,1984,14).Can it be said that Marxist economic geography defines as a revolutionary science as a Kuhnian sense after the 1970s, or neo-classical economics define as a normal science. There are several points that have to mentioned, first essential point which after the 1970s, neo­classical economic geography continued as a main channel of economic geography. Thus, two or more framework (or paradigm) lived same time, however it is true that both of neo-classical and Marxist economic geography have own disciplinary matrix and development occur around the this matrix or in Lakatos term ‘hard core’. It essential point must be emphasis that neither Popperian, nor Kuhnian, nor Lakatosians (I do not mention here because of limited space) have potential for explanation of scientific development. There are some critical points why they fail led to grasp explanation of scientific development.First and essential point, scientific development or mechanism of scientific knowledge is viewed as a product of a socio-economic base and cultural/ ideological context. Furthermore it is not internally and independently generated by rational thought and academic enterprises (Paterson quoted from Aay, l984, l2). Neo-classical economic geography is isolated of analysis objects from its social and economic and ideological context. But scientific development is not neutral, value-free. R.Peet argued that there is no such thing as objective, value-free and politically neutral science, indeed all science ,and especially social sciences, serve some political purpose; in its function of conventional social system, in fact, to enable it to survive”. Peet continue that scientist also not isolated the social system, he/she plays leading role in laying down ideological strata which disguise the causal process behind societal problems (Peets,l978,6). Advocating of Peet’s argument, it can be argued that Marxist economic geography provide alternative framework against to traditional economic geography in order to not only explanation of social problems at the surfaces and deep societal causes, and encourage to engage in their own theory of construction (Peet,1978,7).
Harvey argued that in this context Kuhn provides an idealist interpretation of scientific advancement, while it clears that scientific thought is fundamentally geared to material activities.
Harvey followed D.Bernal’s explanation of material activity which involves the manipulation of nature in nature in the interests of man, and scientific understanding cannot be interpreted independently of that general thrust (Harvey,l988,l22).D.Hillel Ruben present us more real epistemology of Marxist framework which can be summarized that;

i-)external world is not reduced one or two assumption and external world have to be accepted,

ii-)it have to include social structures,

iii-)human agent have to define active which affect external world and is affected it,

iv-)it must be dialectical,

v-)it is not accepted world as it seen us.

In spite of various tendency in the Marxist epistemology, the aim of theory in the historico- materialist epistemology is continuos development and elaboration of concepts that correspond as closely as possible both to representation in thought of some real object or concrete historical process and to what actually goes in reality, while its development is based on analytical and experimental procedures that can be used to investigate and changed to concrete world (Munford & Perrons,1987,40). Dialectical relation between thought and reality is understood in Althuserian interpretation of Marxists theory as a process of knowledge production in which concepts function as raw material, means of production and outputs. This process, thinking, is one among the many process comprising the social totality, it is an affect of all process other than itself, the site of their interaction it is constituted as a process by the particular interaction of all other process and thus thinking process is overdetermined by all other social process, as, is every other distinct social process (Resnick and Wolf,l989,87).These two sides of production of knowledge define as a series of opposition. Colleti’s framework divided two main processes that are real process and logical process, ratio essendi and ratio cognescend, and the concrete by the abstract. Colleti continued that ratio essendi is an instance of efficient or material causality, where it is the empirical or sense data which condition and thought which is determined whereas the second one is an instance of the inverse process, refereed to as final or ideal causality where the notion instead of appearing as a result of elaboration of perception and representation into concepts is an apriori condition for the acquisition of knowledge about reality (Munford quoted from Colleti, l987, 41). Dunford and Perrons states that the identification of these two causal process leads to a methodology that recognizes the role of theory in the construction of our knowledge, that is the contribution of thinking mind to what call knowledge (Munford and Perrons 9,l987,41). In this process, scientific category is not only instrumantalistic way of production but they produced an abstraction from concrete and real subject. Briefly process more dialectic, moving from to concrete to the abstract and abstract to concrete and thus analytical process of formation of knowledge moving empirical reality to its most general and abstract elements or deductive and inductive, logical and historical. What Mandel argued that a twofold analysis represents the unity of these methods. These difficult processes have to occur because as Marx stated that essence and appearances never directly coincide. The historico-materialistic epistemology translated into economic geography carried potantiel alternative to neo-classical economic geography. It does not sense of Kuhnian and Lakatosian, but it set up on heterogeneous historical interest and shows us ideological context of neo­classical economic geography. Marxist economic geography developed framework that unified space,time and agent in the context of social reality. Hence essence and appearance are analyze as a dynamic relations network.. However Marxists economic geography still is not dominant explanation (A.Sayer) and it have shorter history for developed conceptual structure, during the 1970s, Marxist economic geography and its conceptual structure developed more rapidly. Development of marxist economic geography started with various stands but Harvey’s analysis can be define first and most important starting point of radical economic geography. Harvey spatilizied Marxist economic concepts. He put idea that “all dynamics of capital has ineluctable dynamics to move over space and thus processes of capitalism are materialized in the space”. In this type of definition of space as a mode of production, Soja followed Lefebvre and argued that the social nature of space and spatial practices as well as the pivotal role played by the struggle over space in the extended .reproduction of contemporary capitalism are incontrovertible. Thus space concept extended more deep structure of society and in contrast to materialist base, Soja opened the possibility of a complex socia-spatial dialectic operating within the structure of economic base (Soja,1990,80-92).D.Massey’s last articles take place a politic form of space because she argued that the spatial is integral to the production of history, and thus to the possibility of politics (Massey,l992). Space evaluated in the Marxists geography from more reduced sense to more dynamics sense which lived practices and symbolic meaning. This development represents dynamic structure of Marxist economic geography, if theoretical apparatus does not enough for understanding new social-spatial structures, self-criticism process started for developed conceptual structures. Like space concept, agent in the Marxist economic geography developed more rapidly. In the initial structural Marxist theory, Massey criticized classical location theory because of its not include concrete and heterogen struggle agent dynamics what she said that we learn certainly, of producers and consumers, but not of capitalist, workers (Massey, 1978a, 184). In the previous Marxist economic geography, agent and its action are structurally determined. As it already given, Fahrenkop criticized Massey and Harvey, he put forward idea that socially differentiated agents at any given development of social formation; in these social formation determined agents specific place and all action occur over the space agent produced and reproduced own condition but this not means a stable, class position of agents have not passive meaning but more active for changing social-spatial dynamics (Fahrenkop,1984). In spite of Fahrenkop’s dynamic heterogeneous agent space, A.Sayer criticized this approach as an actor is reduced struggle (Sayer,l988,82). Sayer concepts have to revitalized in the lived relationships in the structural dynamics. Last important point that has to mentioned here; marxist radical abstraction which barrier to understand social concrete (Storper,1988 / Sayer, 1988). However D.Massey present more dynamic framework to grasp lived practices, micro-macro link presented more micro level area studies as like location and sectors’ studies. Her analyses about United Kingdom electronics sector give possible dynamic theoretical oriented tools. She started analysis more abstract level; capital and its dynamics and move its specified movement area; electronic sector and developed capital dynamic is not equal distributed over the specified sector and space.

Conclusion

Scientific development of economic geography started with dominant schools of neo-classical based analysis and its analysis object isolated from its socio-spatial and historical/ideological context. Neo-classical economic geography as a formal structures is more coherent and clear theory because application of model reduced uncertainty and risk factors and it create more secular world in which there are not any surprising factors, but problem this more clear theoretical world not coincide with real/concrete and more dynamics world. Neo-classical economic geography developed as a mostly quantitative method as a static, econometrics and developed new apparatus for developed radical generalization to reduced surprising factor of real dynamics. In this development is cumulative and it was not break after the development alternative theories (Marxist, neoricardian etc.) Neo-classical geography also ideological and value- depended theory, its all assumption relies on capitalism and its future exception. Neo-classical economic geography and geographers aid to reproduction of capitalist social relations. It is still vivid and developed beyond more technical apparatus because capitalist relation is lived and well, moreover as a social system it needs production knowledge to continuity own entity.Marxist economic geography developed as an alternative view of neo-classical economic geography as a not sense of Kuhn or Lakatos’s framework, but it developed as a represents other side of theory after the 1970’s. Its development process is not simple but complex and varied into different tendency because of concrete lived world. Radical economic geography and its bias toward production of unified theoretical structure that consists of space, society and agent. Economic geography, l believe that, will have more important area of Marxist theory due to its dynamics; process started full economic level explanation and it spread of all dimensions of social reality. After the 1970s, new social/historical reality led to the marxist theory expanded its border as a redefinition space (as more dynamics social totality) agent (not homogeneous and determined) and time (historical concrete dimension). All three concept gives possible unified framework of marxist economic or general theory. In spite of fact that post modernism’s eclectic and irrational development, marxist economic geography translates new reality/concrete structure to coherent social theory. After the all these arguments, it can be said that critical economic geography has potential power abandoned strict academic division of labor and job demarcation. Social reality is total structure and it only and only understand into coherent/unified theory.

REFERENCES

Barnes,T.J(1988) “Rationality and Relativism in Economic Geography” Progress in Human Geography, vol. 12,Number 4.

Barnes,T,J and M,R,Curry (1992) “Postmodernism in Economic Geography: Metaphor and the Construction of alterity”, Society and Space,vo1.10/1

Blaug,M(1983)The methodology of Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ.Press,pp.l-55.

Chisholm,M,A.(1966)Geography and economics, London, G.Bill& and sons ltd,pp.l-47

Claval,P(1981)”Epistemology and the History of Geography Thought in ed.D.R Soddart, Geography,ldeolog and Social Concern,
Oxford, Basil Blackwell

Curry,M and T.Barness(1988) “Time and narrative in Economic Geography” Environment and Planning A,vol.�

Dunford,M and D,Perrons(1987)The Arena of Capital, London, Mac Millan.pp.l-90,

Fahrenkrog,G(1984)”Questions of Methodology in Regional Analysis” in ed, 0′Keefe, Regional Restructuring under Advanced capitalism ,London, Crom Helm.

Gottdiener,M(1987)The Social Production of Space, London, Hutchinson,pp.70-157,

Harvey,D(1985)”Geopolitics of capitalism” in ed. D.Gregory and J.Urry, Social Relations and Spatial Structures, London, Mac Millan.

Harvey,D(1988) Social Justice and City ,Oxford,Basil Blackwe

Hampton,P(1987)”Economy and Human Geography”, Progress in Human Geography, vol.ll/1

Hodder,B,W and R,L,Lee(1974)Economic Geography, New york, St Martin Press,pp.l-23,

Isard,W(1956)Some general Theories of Location and Space Economy,Mit Press,pp.25-54,

Keat,R and J.Urry(1982)Social Theory as Science, London&Kegan, London,

King,L,J(1970)”Alternatives to a Positive Economic An.of Ass.of American Geographies,vol.66/2

King,L,J(1974)”Approach to Location Analysis: An Overview” in ed. Dors,F, Economic Geography, New York

Massey,D(1978a)”Towards a Critique of Industrial Location Theory” in R.Peet, Radical Geography, London,

Massey,D(1992) “Politics and Space/time” New Left Review, numb.l96.

Peet,R(1978)”The Development of Radical Geography in the U.S”, in ed. Radical Geography, Metheun,London.

Popper,K(1985) “Evolutionary Epistemology” in der. Popper Selection ,Princ ton, Princton Press.

Outhwaite,W(1987) New Philosophies of Social Scieces,London,MacMillan

Paterson,J.C(1984) David Harrvey’s Geography, Croom Helm, London.

Resnick,S,A and R,D,Wolff(1989) Knowledge and Class,Chicago,Chicago Press.

Ruben,D,H(1989)Marksizm ve Materylizm Marksist Bilgi Kuramý Uzerine Bir Çalışma” Ankara, Verso .

Sayer,A(1988) “Explanation in Economic Geography”, Progress in Human Geography, vol.6/1page 37

Scott,A,J(l980)‘The Urban Land Nexus and The State, London, Pion Ltd, pp. 65-86,

Soja,E(1989)Postmodern Geography, London, Verso, pp.l-94.

M, Storper,M(1988)”Big Structures, Small events and Large Processes in Economic Geography”,Enviroment and Planning, vol.16/1

Swedberg,R and V,Himmelstand and G.Blulin (1991) “The Paradigm of Economic Sociology” in ed. S.Zukin and P,D,Maggio, Structures of Capital, ,Cambridge, Cambridge Univ.

Taaffe,J.E(1974) “The Spatial View in the Context”, Amm. Association of Annual Geography, vo1.64,Numb.1

Webb,M,J(1970)”A Framework for Disciplinary Definition of Economic Geography” in ed.F.Dohrs and Saurs,L, Economic Geography, New York, Thomas Camp