ABSTRACT
The argument thus far suggests that it is fallacious to use spatial equilibrium as a norm to identify ‘imperfections’ and as a basis for policy prescription. But the abandonment of equilibrium thinking does not imply that ‘imperfections’ cannot be identified at all, for it is possible to evaluate spatial patterns as problems using other norms. And in fact, the technical case for regional policy, when it is explicitly stated, usually does not talk in terms of spatial disequilibrium, but rather the efficiency and equity of spatial distributions.
