ABSTRACT
The chapter’s title is deliberately provocative. First, it sets ‘theory’ about globalisation in relation to a field of ‘practice’ known as local (or regional) economic development1 and so highlights learning as much as we can about globalisation and local economic development together. Second, it positions globalisation and local economic development in relation to other processes – especially earlier trends and trajectories when state intervention was a hallmark of capitalist economic development and the contemporary conditions of a globalising world where governing capitalist economic development involves far more than the state. The conditions under which ideas about globalisation and local economic development are developed must be taken seriously. This view challenges the idea that local economic development is a pre-given, homogeneous and timeless set of practices. The practices of local economic development are likely to alter, according to context and conditions. Pressures to promote local economic development come from at least two main sources: on the one hand they are expressions of uneven and inequitable outcomes in the economic landscape and on the other hand they reflect variability in the aspirations and concerns of actors about the pace and extent of local investment. Both sources are arguably heavily influenced by capitalist dynamics. Third, the title acknowledges that there will be many encounters with globalisation and local economic development. Where one lives and works (and reads this chapter) will make a difference to experiences of
globalisation and local economic development and interpretations that are placed on the particulars of developments. What the main title does not readily capture is that local economic development constantly involves the local grounding of capital, labour and land. This trilogy is central to local economic development, regardless of how it is approached and understood. Finally, the subtitle indicates that in attempting to comprehend our situations and acting locally we need to be open to re-assessing and re-developing our frameworks. Indeed Appadurai (1999, p. 230) forcefully reminds us of the unstable character of knowledge formation when he drew attention to the interdependencies now arising between ‘knowledge about globalisation and the globalisation of knowledge’. How do we deal with this situation of complexity and all change as we approach globalisation and local economic development?
