Cited by 729Regional Development and PolicyHistorical Geography and Geographical ThoughtRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis

Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies

Markusen, Ann·2003·Regional Studies

Abstract

M ARKUSEN A. (2003) Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: the case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies , Reg. Studies 37 , 701-717. Regional analysis is increasingly populated by fuzzy concepts that lack clarity and are difficult to test or operationalize: flexible specialization, windows of opportunity, resurgent regions, world cities, cooperative competition. Many analyses rely on anecdote or singular case studies, while contrarian cases and more comprehensive and comparative inquiries are ignored. Methodology is often not discussed adequately. This trend has been accompanied by an increasing detachment from political and policy advocacy. In this paper, I define fuzzy concepts and relate their proliferation to an emphasis on process rather than institutions, agents and behaviour. To demonstrate my arguments, I review three highly acclaimed bodies of work - flexible specialization with its re-agglomeration thesis; world cities; and "cooperative competition' in industrial districts à la Silicon Valley. The paper makes the case for adherence to social science norms of conceptual coherence, causal theory (with both behavioural and structural components) and subjection of theory to the rigours of evidence, where the latter may encompass qualitative and quantitative techniques. Greater commitment to entering the policy debate and to making results accessible and informative to policymakers, regional planners and political activists would subst…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0034340032000108796

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The majority of other systemic approaches remain fuzzy due to a lack of empirical evidence of how they work and contribute to innovative and entrepreneurial activity.

    “The majority of other systemic approaches remain fuzzy due to a lack of empirical evidence of how they work and contribute to innovative and entrepreneurial activity (Markusen, 2003).”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Markusen, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Markusen, A.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Markusen, Ann
Venue
Regional Studies
Published
2003-08
Volume
37
Issue
6-7
Pages
701-717
ISSN
  • 0034-3404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0591
OpenAlex
W2000720590
Cited by
729
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 39
FWCI
283.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Regional Studies (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Regional Development and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Geographical Thought
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Regional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Keywords
fuzzy concepts, regional studies methodology, policy relevance, flexible specialization, global cities, cooperative competition, industrial districts, Silicon Valley, window of opportunity, conceptual coherence, causal theories, evidence-based research, regional policy, regional planning, case studies, operationalization of concepts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review