ABSTRACT
This chapter deals with what is considered a primary and widespread inadequacy, namely the uncritical adoption and derivation of concepts and theories from other social sciences and their mechanistic application in geographical studies. It presents three other fundamental inadequacies in the geographical and related literature. They are the failure to make the vital distinction between regional growth and regional development; the neglect of class structure and contradictions; and the failure to incorporate an explanation of spatial structures of underdevelopment into an examination of the political economy of imperialism. The chapter describes three modes of spatial analysis, namely, spatial differentiation, spatial diffusion and spatial integration. If the geography of underdevelopment is to be transformed so that it can contribute to the understanding of uneven spatial structures and to the formulation of realistic spatial planning programmes. The geographic significance of spatial relationships is most appropriately evaluated in the context of spatial integration.
