ABSTRACT
Throughout this book thus far, space has performed two distinct roles in models and theories: (a) the role of a physical barrier – or of a spatial friction – against economic activity, taking the form of the physical distance between input and output markets conceptualized by models as a generic transportation cost;1 (b) that of a ‘physical container’ of development, a simple geographical area often associated with the administrative region by aggregate macroeconomic theories – but also with smaller local areas (simple geographic agglomerations within a region, as envisaged by the more microeconomic theories examined in the previous chapter). In both cases, space plays no part in determining the development path of a local economy. The same economic logic explains the development of regions, metropolitan areas, or more generally, densely-populated industrial areas. The export-base theory can be applied just as well to a region as to a country, with no change in the logic of its underlying reasoning. The Harrod-Domar model, too, and likewise the neoclassical growth models, fit both regional cases and national ones, which testifies to its aspatiality.
