{"title":"两极化的经济发展:1950 - 1980年代研究的方法论折衷主义","authors":"","doi":"10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’","PeriodicalId":54733,"journal":{"name":"Networks & Spatial Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polarized Economic Development: Methodological Eclecticism of Research in the 1950–1980s\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’\",\"PeriodicalId\":54733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Networks & Spatial Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Networks & Spatial Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Networks & Spatial Economics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Polarized Economic Development: Methodological Eclecticism of Research in the 1950–1980s
The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’
期刊介绍:
Networks and Spatial Economics (NETS) is devoted to the mathematical and numerical study of economic activities facilitated by human infrastructure, broadly defined to include technologies pertinent to information, telecommunications, the Internet, transportation, energy storage and transmission, and water resources. Because the spatial organization of infrastructure most generally takes the form of networks, the journal encourages submissions that employ a network perspective. However, non-network continuum models are also recognized as an important tradition that has provided great insight into spatial economic phenomena; consequently, the journal welcomes with equal enthusiasm submissions based on continuum models.
The journal welcomes the full spectrum of high quality work in networks and spatial economics including theoretical studies, case studies and algorithmic investigations, as well as manuscripts that combine these aspects. Although not devoted exclusively to theoretical studies, the journal is "theory-friendly". That is, well thought out theoretical analyses of important network and spatial economic problems will be considered without bias even if they do not include case studies or numerical examples.