Resisting Globalization through Services? A View from the Diverse Economies Literature

DOI Web Site

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • サービスはグローバル経済化の抵抗拠点になりうるか
  • サービスはグローバル経済化の抵抗拠点になりうるか : 「多様な経済」論との関連において
  • サービス ワ グローバル ケイザイカ ノ テイコウ キョテン ニ ナリ ウル カ : 「 タヨウ ナ ケイザイ 」 ロン ト ノ カンレン ニ オイテ
  • ―「多様な経済」論との関連において―

Search this article

Description

<p>    This paper introduces the emergent body of economic geographic literature on “diverse economies” most prominently fostered by J.K. Gibson-Graham, and uses this perspective to engage in conversation with the theoretical inquiry into the service economy advanced by Kazunobu Kato. Rather than simply assuming the mounting importance of services, relative to primary and secondary industries, in heavily industrialized economies from its quantitative growth alone, Kato has been able to articulate the far-reaching significance of a service-oriented economy for theoretical inquiries in economic geography, which are still heavily influenced by the logic of goods-producing sectors.<BR>    In particular, the author focuses focuses on the intriguing implication of Kato's work that the growing importance of services may facilitate resistance to market fundamentalist, or neoliberal, globalization. The diverse economies literature also aims to counter such economic globalization by redefining the meaning of “the economy” and by recognizing the process of subjectivization of economic actors. Thus, there appears to be fertile ground for critical engagement between the two bodies of literature.<BR>    This paper argues that, building on the arguments advanced by Kato, it is essential that non capitalist-market activities be seen as a legitimate subject of economic geographic inquiry. Also, an assessment of such a mid-range theory as Kato's spatial organization (kukanteki soshikika) theory must always involve the awareness of its limitations as well as its strengths. One of such limitations, in the authorʼs view, is that Kato's theory has an implicit emphasis on regional formation rather than regional sustainability. Furthermore, Kato's arguments about empirical research on the service economy demand that we pay close attention to the agency of research subjects, even at the level of the conceptual framing. The diverse economies perspectives further develop this point. Finally, this paper addresses the potential concern that the diverse economies perspectives may regress economic geography to a “mere” theory of subject formation.<BR>    This paper finds the most significant difference between Kato's work and Gibson-Graham's work lies in an epistemological difference between the former's focus on “dominance” and the latter's on “difference.” This contrast can be the basis for fertile debate and conversation since there is a basic agreement on the problems of market fundamentalist globalization.</p>

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top