The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies
Abstract
Many articles in this and other journals over the last decade have considered such topics as flexible specialization, resurgent regions, world cities, co-operative competition and social capital. In this edition of Debates and Surveys , Ann Markusen argues that much of this recent regional analysis has increasingly retreated into a mode of discourse in which concepts lack substantive clarity. She also suggests that such fuzzy conceptualization makes it difficult for students and practitioners to operationalize and/or to subject this body of work to scrutiny by applying real world evidence. Descriptive characterizations of 'processes' are believed to have replaced the application of behavioural and structural causality, compounding these conceptual problems. With methodologies underdeveloped, the case study or anecdote approach to analysis is often used to illustrate theoretical contentions, while the results of more comprehensive tests and instances which do not uphold the theory are frequently ignored. Comparing with some of the classic texts which addressed the problems of regions and so were located in a concern with real world policy and political engagement, the article contends that these recent tendencies are symptomatic of a body of scholarship that is increasingly abstract. To illustrate the argument, the paper reviews three core areas of work; flexible specialization and its re-agglomeration hypothesis; world cities; and 'cooperative competition' in industrial districts à la Silicon Valley. Ann Markusen makes a claim for an 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 as well as quantitative techniques. Greater commitment to entering the policy debate and to making results accessible and informative to real world political activists and planners, it is argued, would substantially strengthen this body of research and its usefulness. This is obviously a provocative piece which we hope will spark off a debate on the definition and application of fuzzy concepts in regional analysis. Comments and replies are welcome.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital
Putnam, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 · Cited by 14,037
Becker, G. S. (1996) · doi:10.4159/9780674020658 · Cited by 1,379
Cited by
Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7 · Cited by 852
Firms in Territories: A Relational Perspective*
Dicken, P., & Malmberg, A. (2001) · Economic Geography · doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2001.tb00169.x · Cited by 411
Innovation and regional economic development: A matter of perspective?
Howells, J. (2005) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.014 · Cited by 296
Metadata
- Authors
- Markusen, A.
- Venue
- Regional Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 869-884
- ISSN
- 0034-3404 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0591
- OpenAlex
- W4234166432
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 57.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00343409950075506
- The paper
- Markusen, A. (1999). Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950075506
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.