Reexploring the interface between economic and transport geography

Mobility and economy The relationship between the movement of goods and people, and economic and social development appears to be stronger than ever. Indeed, the assumption of a `postmodern' or `postindustrial' economy and society has intensified the focus on different forms of mobility (Creswell, 2001). A general hypothesis in this respect is that the significance of flows of goods, people, and information is rising, based on changes in scale (Dicken, 2003) and driven by the latest innovations in information and communication technologies (Janelle, 2004). As new scales are constructed and as new technologies become more widely adopted, both virtual and physical transactions contribute to what is often described as a shrinking globe, indicating significant changes in spatial and temporal relations. In turn, these newly emerging systems of flows and nodes and their network aggregates are shaping our understanding of how social relations and space are intertwined (see Crang, 2002). Not surprisingly, much recent discourse in the social sciences, human geography, and urban theory focuses on metaphors such as the `network society' (Castells, 1996). Yet the notion of the network is not really new at all; analyses of flows and mobility occupy a long-standing prominence in geography (Leinbach, 1976). Current developments in freight and logistics networks mirror those observed by economic geographers in relational production networks (Coe et al, 2004), even if the core transport science does not make explicit reference to these developments. Likewise, economies have in fact never been restricted to isolated locales [or `states' (compare von Thu« nen, 1826)]; rather, local development has for long been recognized as something that is related to development elsewhere (Lipietz, 1993). In this respect, a major determinant of local economic development across space has been the geography of transport. Thus for example, among the traditional approaches to spatial theory, such as Weber's (1909) location choices of industry, Hoover's (1948) treatise on transport costs, Ullman's (1954) concept of trade flows, or Isard's (1956) attempt to create a general theory, spatial differentiation was always more or less directly linked to transport conditions and costs, and the opportunities or frictions to overcome the limitations given by them. However, the traditional transport cost-based determination perpetuated a certain construction of the world on the basis of `physical' and technological features, such as the size, density, and distance of flows. Probably the best example of this simplified view of the world is given by the gravity model (see Black, 2003, 162f ). It attempted to èxplain' and predict the degree of spatial interaction (and thus spatial distribution) according to size and distance, size being regarded as directly, and distance as inversely, correlated with interaction. Moreover, spatial features such as the development of market areas, regional convergence, or corporate location behaviour were interpreted as being dependent mainly on transport costs, somehow mediated through particular conditions of accessibility and infrastructure provision. Improvements in transport technologies, the massive enlargement of infrastructure and falling transport costs, not least thanks to cheap oil, changed the role of transport in the second half of the 20th century. Paradoxically, these improvements were very effective in putting transport out of consideration in economic geography. Guest editorial Environment and Planning A 2006, volume 38, pages 1401 ^ 1408