Journal of Economic Geography 3 (2003) pp.

109116

The relational turn in economic geography

Jeffrey S. Boggs* and Norma M. Rantisi**

1. Introduction
For almost two decades, economic geography has become increasingly populated with
texts concerned with the ways in which social interactions between economic agents
have shaped the geography of economic performance. This literature has ranged from
identifying the cultural norms or conventions underpinning social relations (Storper,
1995, 1997; Asheim and Isaksen, 1997; Cooke and Morgan, 1998) to documenting the
geographic extent of these relations (Scott, 1988; Dicken et al., 2001; MacKinnon et al.,
2002) to analysing how dierent socio-economic processes can generate similar
landscapes of restructuring (e.g. Massey, 1984, 1995; Glasmeier, 2000). Likewise, it has
looked to disciplines outside of economic geography, most notably economic sociology
with Granovetters (1985) notion of embeddedness and Colemans (1988) social capital
but also the work of institutional economists (e.g. Hodgson, 1988; Lundvall, 1988), to
integrate the social into economic analysis.
As a whole, this tendency represents a theoretical orientation where actors and the
dynamic processes of change and development engendered by their relations are central
units of analysis an orientation we term here a relational turn in economic
geography. In this introductory article, we take stock of the key attributes that
constitute this turn by examining the context in which it has emerged, and the
implications that such a turn has for three analytical tensions: the structure agency
debate, the macro- versus micro-unit of analysis and the geographic scale of the
analysis. The four papers included in this special theme issue speak to those tensions,
and by so doing, contribute to our understanding of the present limitations and
potentials of a relational approach as well as suggest new directions for research. Some
of the key contributions (though most certainly, not all) are reviewed here.

2. Situating the relational turn: a new approach for a new reality?

The rise of a relational approach has coincided with a major shift in the organization of
economic activity in late capitalism. In response to extensive restructuring in mass
markets and mass market production in advanced economies, economic actors
(primarily entrepreneurs and corporations) have sought new forms of economic
coordination (Piore and Sabel, 1984; Florida and Kenney, 1990). These new forms
generally have entailed a specialization of core tasks and capacity within lead rms and
the externalization of peripheral tasks and capacity to contractors or other economic

* Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 90095, USA.
email <jboggs@ucla.edu>
** Department of Geography, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec
H3G 1M8 Canada.
email <nrantisi@alcor.concordia.ca>

& Oxford University Press 2003

110 x Boggs and Rantisi

organizations and institutions. Linkages (both formal and informal) between these
segmented labor markets socialize the costs of production, as rms benet from internal
economies of scale (particularly with respect to knowledge production) and external
economies of scope through the newly constituted relations. These relations, however,
are more than mere arms-length, contractual exchanges (or traded dependencies) for
the purpose of minimizing cost (Maskell, 2001). Inter-rm and rm-organization
linkages are also about the creation of value-added as a means for competitive
advantage through the sharing of knowledge, expertise and resources. They often have
implied collaboration (and in some cases, trust), underpinned by shared norms and
conventions for how business is done, i.e., untraded interdependencies (Storper,
1995). And the informal nature of many of these relations aord rms the exibility to
adapt their economic ties as needed to respond to shifting competitive pressures.
Indeed, rich empirical research, to date, has illustrated that the quality and nature of
ties are critical determinants for economic prosperity, and that dierent forms of socio-
economic coordination often lead to divergent levels of performance (see for example,
Saxenian, 1994; Cooke and Morgan, 1998; Braczyk et al., 1998). Yet past theoretical
models in economic geography have not been able to account for the micro-level
dynamics that characterize these emergent forms. Neo-classical economic geography,
with a focus on the self-regulating market and tendencies toward inter- and intra-
regional convergence, evade questions of why some regional economies have remained
persistently underdeveloped. While political-economic approaches explain under-
development in terms of the contradictions inherent to capitalist accumulation, they
oer limited explanatory power for understanding how some regional economies (e.g.
the East Asian Tigers) are able to move out of their underdeveloped state. In both
cases, the models share a teleological bent; they assume that capitalism is acting on or
spreading over an isotropic plain and therefore neglect the range of socio-political
constellations with which economic forces engage and by which varied outcomes
develop.
Accordingly, the relational turn in economic geography can be viewed as a response
to these limits, i.e. as a means for overcoming the teleological and undersocialized
nature of past approaches. The precise ways in which this response addresses the central
analytic and methodological challenges posed can be illustrated through a discussion of
the three tensions listed below.

3. The structure vs. agency tension

At an ontological level, the relational turn enters the structure-agency debate by
ascribing a greater role to agency as opposed to structures in analyses of economic
behavior. Structure-oriented interpretations, associated with the theoretical models
highlighted above, have focused on general laws, regularities, and patterns in an eort
to understand how markets reproduce themselves or are stabilized over time. The
merits of such an emphasis is that it allows for the identication of the key dierences
(e.g. in terms of capital markets, labor markets, corporate governance, etc.) that
characterize distinct economic contexts and can help to establish whether certain
patterns are correlated with certain levels of economic performance. The downside is
that it does not provide insight into the dynamic processes by which these dierences
are formed and transformed. To the extent that the agents of transformation are
included in these approaches or their choices and strategies analysed, they are done so
 The relational turn in economic geography x 111

ex post facto. Choices are understood to follow naturally from the identied patterns.
Even Williamson-inspired institutional approaches such as transaction cost analysis,
which make greater eorts to account for the interrelation between action and context,
fall victim to these limitations. Individual and rm actions are viewed as a form of
utility maximization, and the outcome of this behavior as the result of a trans-historical
production function. Causation in this context is uni-directional and the system of
relations between the structures and agents is a closed (or self-referential) one.
Yet, in an age where competitive advantage is based less on resource endowment or
traditional factors of production and more on the creative use of productive inputs, the
process by which this creative knowledge and economic learning occurs is an ever-more
important element of economic development and one that is not lost on relational
economic geographers. In a relational approach, the interactions of key agents are the
central focus of analysis. As the rst three papers in this issue illustrate, the extent and
nature of interactions are not assumed but are analysed and documented. Both the
paper by Bathelt and Gluckler and the paper by Ettlinger draw attention to the open-
endedness of outcomes due to the multiple, extra-economic inuences that shape the
nature of economic relations and practices. And the third paper by Murphy empirically
illustrates how extra-economic as well as economic factors in Mwanza, Tanzania
have enabled the formation of social spaces within which key economic linkages and
assets are developed. The central tenet which cuts across the papers is that actors are
not pre-ordained to take on structurally determined roles, but that actors, their inter-
relations and consequent practices themselves carry explanatory weight.
The integration of agency into economic analysis however is not without
qualication in the approaches presented here. Actors are not given free reign. They
are still viewed as operating within a context of institutions, norms and rules which
condition their choices and relations, i.e. within a broader system which is constituted
by both structures and agents.
In Bathelt and Glucklers conceptualization of a relational approach, for example,
they emphasize the contextuality and path-dependent nature as well as the
contingency of economic decisions. Murphys paper validates the structure-agency
link both directly, by illustrating how institutions (e.g. business routines and social
practices) are co-constituted by the agents participating in them, and indirectly, by
illustrating how some practices (e.g. negotiation scripts) emerge due to the absence of
regulatory structures, such as nancial institutions.
In contrast to structure-oriented approaches, however, the system of inter-relations is
an open one, and subject to random disturbances. Relations are far from xed, and
the resulting economic actions cannot be explained away or subsumed under the logic
of capital.

4. The macro- vs. micro- level of analysis tension

The relational turn in economic geography also opens up the possibility for a
methodological shift, as a focus on economic contingency implies a shift from the
macro-level (i.e. institutions and regulatory frameworks, such as anti-trust policy,
monetary policy, labor laws, etc.) to the micro-level (i.e. agents and their inter-
relations). At the micro-level, the agent specied in relational studies is generally the
rm. Following from evolutionary economics, the rm is viewed as the locus of
innovation and learning, constituting a coherent set of competencies. These
112 x Boggs and Rantisi

competencies are institutionalized through a rms habits and routines, which in turn
help to enhance and further develop a rms learning capabilities (Nelson and Winter,
1982; Maskell et al., 1998). The raison detre for the rm is that, through its acquired set
of competencies, it is equipped to respond to and contend with market uncertainty.
Indeed, the centrality of the rm in economic geography has recently been upheld by
studies proclaiming/touting the rediscovery of the rm (see Taylor and Asheim, 2001,
for an excellent review of the economic geography literature on the rm). This position
is also endorsed by Bathelt and Gluckler through their selection of the rm as the key
actor in their relational economic geography.
More recent research, however, has tried to challenge the reication of the rm by
opening up the black box of innovation. In these studies, the rm is not viewed as a
single, coherent actor but rather as a unit embodying multiple, potentially conicting,
interests. The focus of these analyses therefore is on the individuals within rms, how
their interests coincide with or diverge from the material interests of the rm, and the
implications this has for rm practices (Schoenberger, 1997; ONeil and Gibson-
Graham, 1999). For example, Amin and Cohendet (1999) explore how individuals can
form networks (or communities of practice) within and outside their rms to achieve a
set goal that routinely advances the material interests of their employers. In a study of
the multi-media industry, Christopherson (2002) illustrates how in some contexts
employees will forge links with employees in other rms, placing their own materials
interests and those of others within their network over those of their employer. In this
issue, Ettlinger provides the justication for looking at individuals and not just rms by
suggesting that individuals frequently participate in numerous networks (social,
economic, political, religious) at a given time, each with their own logic. Therefore,
the logic or logics that inform workplace practices can not be understood solely in
narrow economic terms (e.g. in terms of utility maximization) or in terms of one single
rationality, and accordingly, can not be unconsciously equated or conated with those
of the rm.
Moreover, regardless of whether relational studies tend to privilege rms or
individuals, it is important to qualify that the focus of analysis is not solely on actors
per se. Relational geographers do not resort to methodological individualism by
viewing actors as atomistic units. Rather, they view actors as interdependent subjects
whose identities and resource capabilities i.e. the very assets that enable them to
act are co-constituted by their relations with other actors. Thus, the appropriate
focus of analysis for understanding what Yeung (2002) has termed the socio-
organization of production can be said to be actors networks or inter-relations, i.e.
what Storper and Salias (1997) term the meso-level.

5. The issue of geographic scale: the local vs. global tension

Many works focusing on this meso-level privilege if not the local, then at least the
region as the site where these interactions most frequently and intensely lead to
innovation. This privileging of the local scale as the dominant site of innovation follows
from treating the local as the most eective site in general for the coordination of socio-
economic activity. Conceptually, this follows from a host of claims pertaining to traded
and untraded interdependencies. Local proximity enables the pooling of resources,
generating cost-savings through capacity sharing, optimal capacity utilization, and
reduced search costs generating localization economies. Not only does this proximity
 The relational turn in economic geography x 113

increase the chance of knowledge spillovers, it furthermore enables the formation of

local conventions and institutions which further reduce the costs of information,
including those related to the principal agent problem, thus enhancing trust.
While conceptually sophisticated arguments justifying this position exist, these
sometimes overlook the fact that the local is only contingently the optimal site for
socio-economic coordination; this conation takes place during the translation of the
meso-level concept from a network into a scale. While the works of Bathelt and
Gluckler and Murphy invoke explanations that privilege the local, they also
acknowledge that processes constituted at other scales impinge on the local forms of
socio-economic coordination. Bathelt and Gluckler make reference to the national
context in shaping the conventions, formal and informal institutions inuencing the
expectations and time horizons of relational actors. While Murphy foregrounds the
creation and maintenance of trust within a particular urban context, he nonetheless
explicitly draws attention to the internationally peripheral position of all of these actors
negotiating the local dance of trust.
Other papers in this issue highlight a role for global networks in shaping economic
practices. Ettlingers micro-space conceptualization of networks explicitly recognizes
that actors belong simultaneously to numerous networks in and outside of the
workplace. She provides a framework for conceptualizing how and why some (not
necessarily local) non-economic networks could be more eective than others in
enhancing performance and coordination in the workplace. Sturgeon elaborates on the
role of modular production networks in coordinating the priced transactions of goods
and services within the electronics supply chain. This successful global coordination is
in part a byproduct of attempts to remove tacit knowledge from the system through the
creation of industry standards that arise from local best practice and stopgap solutions.
Of particular interest is his observation that manufacturers in the electronics industry
see face-to-face contact as a problem to be solved, and not as an opportunity to
innovate an observation that problematizes some economic geography gospel.
On some level, all of these papers resonate with the literature on communities of
practice (e.g. Amin and Cohendet, 1999). This literature, in part taking its cue from the
conation of social embeddedness with geographical embeddedness, emphasizes the
importance of relational proximity over spatial proximity for coordinating a division
of labor. Grabher (2002) in his work on projects as temporary constellations of goal
directed social relations likewise makes a similar distinction, though he recognizes that
while projects are completed by temporary teams, its members come together again and
again in various congurations in later projects. Through the projects, the individual
members gain or lose trust and reputation while building their stock of competencies.
This community of peers also provides a dynamic eld of markers of success, though it
generally lies outside the boundaries of any one rm. But this dynamic eld is still
created somewhere, even if its material somewhere is only temporarily created before
being dissolved at projects end. Gertler (2001), among others suggests the importance
of a home base in enabling the articulation of a rms global network. This notion that
going global still requires a local base is emphasized by Sturgeon, though as noted
above, Sturgeons treatment of the local is not just to tap into agglomerations of
competencies arising from untraded interdependencies, but also a site where the local
repository of tacit knowledge is codied to loosen dependence on face-to-face problem-
solving and in turn those problematic localities. Through this he illustrates the
importance of global and local networks in coordinating production in leading sectors.
114 x Boggs and Rantisi

This tension regarding scale then reveals that relational economic geography does not
privilege one scale a priori, but instead considers their inter-relations in such a way that
forces us to problematize space. Rather, as Bathelt and Gluckler suggest, space should
be viewed as a perspective for examining social relations instead of the object of
analysis.

6. Being relational in theory, practice, and method

In this piece, we have tried to highlight some key themes that are addressed by a
relational turn and elaborated in the papers included in this special issue through a
discussion of three broad tensions associated with economic analysis. We propose the
tensions cited above as discrete categories, yet in actuality, we acknowledge that the
boundaries between them are blurred. Empirical reality is too complex to be
compartmentalized; it dees single paradigms. As the four papers as a whole illustrate,
a relational economic geography can suggest multiple types of arrangements and a role
for various geographic scales. The objective for us therefore is to try to get at this
complexity with new theoretical tools and methods. Bathelt and Glucklers conceptu-
alization of space as perspective and Ettlingers eorts to combine a microspace (i.e.
workplace-level) with a relational (i.e. multiple logics) approach oer a promising
start. And the empirical analyses provided by Murphy and Sturgeon illustrate that both
the subtle and overt links between structures and agents are contingent relations that
must be investigated and documented rather than assumed in analyses of the
contemporary dynamics underlying innovation.
The papers in this issue also draw our attention to areas that require further research
in an on-going relational economic geography project. One of the themes raised
implicitly or explicitly in all four papers in the central role of power in shaping the
nature of actors inter-relations. Focusing on networks enables the researcher to
identify dierent governance structures. A further elaboration of how power is
inscribed in these constellations rather than a focus on how power resides in either the
individual agent or structures will enable us to better account for the contingency of
economic behavior, as actors and structures may be positioned dierently in distinct
contexts. The concept of relational geometries recently introduced by Yeung (2002)
provides one means to begin to address this challenge. Empirical analyses which employ
such conceptualizations are still wanting. Another signicant issue posed by the papers
in this issue and one which has also attracted the attention of other researchers (see for
example, Dicken and Malmberg, 2001) is a better understanding of the nature of the
relation between the rm and space. While space is no longer viewed as the container in
which actions occur, it still plays a role in dening the eld of opportunities and
constraints. Over time, certain institutions become intermeshed with a geographic
landscape and these are institutions which give life to economic action (Amin, 2001).
Therefore, the precise nature of how space and actions are co-constituted needs further
elaboration in analyses of the rm or of individual agents within economic geography.
Finally, the papers in this issue as well as other recent initiatives with the eld have
posed methodological challenges for how a researcher should go about doing relational
economic geography. Clearly, a relational methodology is one that requires an
openness to outside elds and perspectives. Approaches in economic sociology and
management have proven useful for network analysis and for an examination of agency
and entrepreneurship. As a focus on dynamic processes and relations entails rich, case
 The relational turn in economic geography x 115

study narratives, the eld of anthropology will most certainly be a source of fruitful
techniques. Indeed, Yeung (2002) has recently suggested the method of participant
observation as central for a relational analysis, as the researcher themselves must
assume a relational position relative to their object (or subject) of study. Thus, being
relational implies not only an ontological shift, but also a shift in practice and method.
The papers presented here provide guideposts on how one can begin to envision such
shifts. And their diverse approaches and orientations are a testament to the fact that a
relational economic geography, like the empirical reality it seeks to analyse, is an
approach that is sensitive to particular contextual constraints and yet remains open and
contingent to respond to the problematics at hand.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the participants and discussants of the special sessions on
The Relational Turn in Economic Geography at the 98th Annual Meeting of the Association
of American Geographers, Los Angeles, California, March 1923, 2002, and Meric S. Gertler and
Jennifer D. B. Lackey for their helpful comments.

References
Amin, A. (2001) Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography. Environment and Planning
A, 33: 12371241.
Amin, A., Cohendet, P. (1999) Learning and adaptation in decentralized business networks.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17: 87104.
Asheim, B., Isaksen, A. (1997) Location, agglomeration and innovation: towards regional
innovation systems in Norway? European Planning Studies, 5: 299330.
Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M. (eds) (1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of
Governance in a Globalized World. London: UCL Press.
Christopherson, S. (2002) Project work in context: regulatory change in the new geography of
media, Environment and Planning A, 34: 20032015.
Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94 (special supplement): S95S120.
Cooke, P., Morgan, K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, Innovation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dicken, P., Kelly, P. F., Olds, K., Yeung, H. W.-C. (2001) Chains and networks, territories and
scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy. Global Networks, 1:
89112.
Dicken, P., Malmberg, P. (2001) Firms in territories: a relational perspective. Economic
Geography, 77 (4): 345363.
Florida, R., Kenney, M. (1990) The Breakthrough Illusion: Corporate Americas Failure to Move
from Innovation to Mass Production. New York: Basic Books.
Gertler, M. (2001) Best practice? geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong
convergence. Journal of Economic Geography, 1: 526.
Glasmeier, A. (2000) Manufacturing Time: Global Competition in the Watch Industry, 17952000.
New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Grabher, G. (2002) Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context.
Regional Studies, 36: 205214.
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481510.
Hodgson, G. (1988) Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional
Economics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
116 x Boggs and Rantisi

Lundvall, B. A. (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the

national system of innovation. In G. Dosi et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory.
London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Chapman, K. (2002) Learning, innovation and regional
development: a critical appraisal of recent debates. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 3:
293311.
Maskell, P. (2001) The rm in economic geography. Economic Geography, 77 (4): 329344.
Maskell, P., Eskelinen, H., Hannibalsson, I., Malmberg, A., Varne, E. (1998) Competitiveness,
Localized Learning and Regional Development: Specialization and Prosperity in Small, Open
Economies. London: Routledge.
Massey, D. (1984/1995) Spatial Divisions of Labor: Social Structures and the Geography of
Production (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.
Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
ONeil, P., Gibson-Graham, J. (1999) Enterprise discourse and executive talk: stories that
destabilize the economy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 24:
1122.
Piore, M., Sabel, C. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York:
Basic Books.
Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schoenberger, E. (1997) The Cultural Crisis of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Scott, A. J. (1988) New Industrial Spaces: Flexible Production Organization and Regional
Development in North America and Western Europe. London: Pion.
Storper, M. (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of
untraded interdependencies. Revue dEconomie Regionale et Urbaine, IV: 605644.
Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York:
Guilford.
Storper, M., Salais, R. (1997) Worlds of Production. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, M., Asheim, B. (2001) The concept of the rm in economic geography. Economic
Geography, 77 (4): 315328.
Yeung, H. W. (2002) Towards a relational economic geography: old wine in new bottles? Paper
presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Los
Angeles, USA, 1923 March 2002.