Political Economy in Geographic Research: Institutionalist versus Marxist Approaches

Since the rise of radical geography in the early 1970s, political economy has been crucial in examining the spatial dynamics of capital in economic geography. Marxist and non-Marxist (particularly institutionalist) economic geographers use political economy to challenge non-political economy approaches that ignore the relationship between microeconomic processes and their spatial manifestations and structural (economic and institutional) power dynamics in capitalism. Since the 1980s, however, Marxist political economy has been increasingly sidelined in favor of the institutionalist approach, which contends that the Marxist focus on systemic features of capitalism in shaping spatial relations is overly structural. Instead, the institutionalist approach emphasizes the “particular,” and highlights the importance of examining geographical difference through variegated modes of exchange and analyzing underlying rationalities of inherently heterogeneous real economies. This shift poses analytical challenges, particularly during the current phase of de-globalization, highlighting the need to revisit the "general" laws of capitalist production. Given rising inter-regional competition in the emerging tri-polar world economy, a solid grasp of long-term economic forces is crucial. We contend that a modified Marxist approach remains relevant precisely for its ability to explain capitalism’s general and systemic features. In 1985, David Harvey suggested integrating two viewpoints from Marx’s Capital, volumes one and two, for a fuller understanding of the spatiality of capitalism. We argue that incorporating a third viewpoint on competition from Capital, volume three, along with more systematic empirical engagements with Anwar Shaikh’s theory of real competition, is essential for a comprehensive analysis of the spatiality and temporality of capitalism.