ABSTRACT
It is therefore possible to conclude that there are no longer grounds for any dichotomy to be drawn between theories of convergence and divergence, between optimistic theories and pessimistic ones. However, the problem in and of itself is still very much present, and it is much more complex than was believed in the past. The neoclassical model, elegant in its formulation and consistent in its economic logic, has been frequently criticised as unsuited (in its original formulation) to interpretation of constant and persistent regional disparities. The Keynesian model, in its turn, has been faulted for being unable to foresee territorial limits to the evolution of the cumulative process, although these limits have substantial effects on territorial development paths. But if the ‘theories of divergence/convergence’ dichotomy is abandoned, the explanatory capacity of each theory can be recovered, to produce a broad array of conceptual tools with which to interpret the complex processes of territorial development. Moreover, I submit, it is much more interesting, as we shall see in the next section, to divide theories according to other and more meaningful features – the defi nition of space and the goals implicitly pursued by each theory.
