Regional Growth Revisited

About two years ago I wrote a book titled Regional Growth Theory (RGT for short) which has aroused some strong reactions, both for and against. This paper provides me with a good opportunity to take a critical look at the analysis, and to see whether it can be taken any further. There are several pretexts for such introspection. First, some of the reviewers misunderstood the argument, and to answer them would clear up some important points. Second, the mystery of the regional growth process is such a vital question for spatial analysts that it is hardly necessary to justify giving more time to it. Third, I have cherished—and still cherish—a wild ambition to develop a theoretical framework for spatial growth analysis that is independent of level of spatial disaggregation, stage of economic development and institutional environment. Realistically, this goal is likely to remain frustrated. Nevertheless, there are at least two directions worth a little exploration. One is to extend the analysis downwards to the intraurban level, touched upon but not developed in RGT. Such a step might help to reconcile theories of regional development with urban development, and reinforce the claim that this is one field rather than two. The other is to examine whether the model is capable of application to the developing world. The search for a general theory that can straddle the three worlds is a just and worthy crusade. Western economists must be rather tired of the third world jibe that they travel with capitalist models in their pockets. In any event, the problems of regional development are much more serious in the developing world than in either North America or Western Europe, and the argument that theory should be responsive to policy needs has much in its favour.