Sustaining Economic Geography? Business and Management Schools and the UK’s Great Economic Geography Diaspora

Motivations for moving I: Push factors in UK Geography

A lack of entry-level EG jobs in UK Geography Departments: Doctoral and Postdoctoral Researchers in EG represent a combined 58% of all movers to B & M (2000–2015).

Motivations for moving II: Pull factors in UK Business & Management

Significant growth of B & M Schools in UK universities over the last two decades, yielding new job openings consequent from buoyant student recruitment, especially international Masters students.

UK economic geography is doing fine as an interdisciplinary nexus

Optimistically, the trends described in the EGRG report can be read as a positive intellectual move for EG from a sub-disciplinary to an inter-disciplinary field better suited both to today’s university funding landscape and to understanding complex economic phenomena which do not fit into neat disciplinary categories. This aligns with a view of EG as an interdisciplinary nexus of research activity that stretches well beyond Departments of Geography, to include researchers interested in geographies of economies, but who do not necessarily identify as ‘Economic Geographers’ (e.g. those who engage with the economy from socio-cultural and/or urban geography perspectives). We also need to recognise that EG knowledge production happens outside of academic ‘disciplines’ (and always has done), including consultancy, practitioner and online communities. It is important, therefore, not to privilege a simple linear model of knowledge production that runs from universities to the outside world and which idealises a ‘pure form’ of EG generated within Geography Departments. ⁵ Instead, we should recognise that EG has always taken the form of a more dispersed, rhizomatic knowledge community ranging across the boundaries of both Geography Departments and universities. Perhaps, therefore, B & M Schools should be seen as less of a threat and more as progressive interdisciplinary spaces for the development of EG; as an intellectual home for a range of like-minded researchers sometimes towards the margins of their own disciplines, encompassing not just economic geographers but also economic sociologists, heterodox economists, and critical accountants and lawyers, among others. There may thus be intellectual synergies within such schools that can exceed the possibilities of what is available within Geography Departments.

These arguments are persuasive, and there are undoubted intellectual opportunities associated with the movement of economic geographers into B & M. What is notable from the EGRG research, however, is that positive discourses of interdisciplinarity do not come through strongly, either in terms of an aspiration for moving, or in describing the reality of subsequent interactions once within a B & M School. The EGRG report identifies few movers who mentioned new collaborations, or new research frontiers and synergies; rather their new environment was typically presented simply as a space in which economic geographers could pursue the same or similar work and be rewarded for it, and that there were often only a few kindred spirits, from Geography or otherwise, to provide ongoing interaction. More prevalent were negative representations of the Geography Department environments they were leaving behind. This raises questions about the conditions through which intellectual synergies between EG and B & M might subsequently come to fruition.

Another set of issues relates to the labour market dynamics described in the EGRG report. Certainly, the academic mobility trend described is not a new phenomenon, with other groups of movers from Geography to B & M readily identifiable in 1980s and 1990s. And the problems of securing a first lectureship position and lack of opportunities for fresh PhD graduates may well be reflective of Geography more broadly as a discipline. Then there is the counterfactual question of what would have happened to EG without these opportunities to move? It may well be that there are now considerably more ‘economic geographers’ employed in UK universities than would have otherwise been the case. Gaining an academic job in a B & M School, while not being the first choice and maybe feeling a little alien at first, may be highly preferable to not being in a position at all.

While these are all valid observations, the EGRG study indubitably shows that the trend has intensified since 2000 and we suggest that the (growing) gravitational pull of B & M puts EG in a different position to other areas of human geography. Discursively, it is also evident that this contemporary movers phenomenon is described in far less positive terms than earlier phases of EG migration (when there were ‘too many economic geographers’ and there was a ‘wealth of opportunity’), with recent movers being concerned about the declining status of EG within human geography more broadly and a lack of EG posts to apply for in Geography Departments. Thus, while individually the contemporary moves make sense and sustain careers, in our view, the aggregate effects threaten the very foundations of UK EG. We now move on to consider three interlinked elements of that argument.

UK Economic Geography: Under threat?

We concur with the merits of EG’s participation in the intellectual trading zones of a lively and open interdisciplinary landscape. However, sub-disciplines remain fundamental to that interdisciplinarity. There is a risk that the processes we identify in this paper are ‘hollowing-out’ EG within Geography Departments to such a degree that the sustainability of the broader project is being undermined. Our first argument, therefore, is that within UK Geography, EG is losing its critical mass in a process that is very hard to slow or stop, and still harder to reverse. The movers identified in the EGRG report are predominantly moving in one direction, and there is no discernible reverse trend. Once individuals have relocated, higher salary levels typically undermine the feasibility of returning to Geography, especially for those with young families, even if they ideally would like to move back for reasons of disciplinary affinity. These one-way movements are exacerbated by a wider post-2000 context in which (a) multiple senior EG colleagues have moved into university management; and (b) EG has seen the retirement of a range of influential figures including Peter Daniels, Peter Dicken, Ray Hudson, Roger Lee, Ron Martin and Linda McDowell, as well as absorbing the sad loss of Doreen Massey.

The net result is that the institutional landscape of EG in the UK has dwindled over the last 10-to-15 years. Based on an analysis of three successive RAE/REF cycles between 2001 and 2014, the EGRG report shows that places that were previously seen as bastions of EG – including Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Glasgow, Manchester, and the Open University – are now far less so, as a result of varying combinations of retirements, faculty moves into B & M, and lack of replacement hires. EG in the UK is now arguably concentrated in a small handful of Departments, most notably (in alphabetical order) Cardiff, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham and QMUL, in addition to some ‘nodes’ within the B & M landscape (notably Birmingham, Coventry and Southampton). While our main concern here is the implications for EG, is it also worth noting that something is being lost to Geography more generally at the same time in terms of both teaching and research. The danger is that some UK Departments may even find it difficult to maintain an EG curriculum at the undergraduate level, which may enhance a sense of isolation for economic geographers, thereby propagating more movements in what becomes a self-reinforcing dynamic.

Fewer and fewer UK departments, then, have a ‘critical mass’ of economic geographers – loosely defined here as a group of four or five researchers working on cognate economic issues. Such critical mass is important for engaging in substantive research programmes tackling big issues within the contemporary global economy. Wider networks matter, but ‘local’ critical mass is important in the generation of new ideas, theoretical innovations and, more pragmatically, the attraction of large grants. Such benefits are less obvious, or at the very least harder to accrue, in a context of isolated researchers in departments dominated by other forms of human geography. In turn, this raises concerns about sustaining a cadre of thought leaders at the centre of our discipline who can speak with authority about geographies of the economy, at a time when discussions around the economy are particularly pressing – for instance in relation to Brexit, the rise of economic nationalisms, corporate tax dodging, massive wealth inequality, uneven development and anti-globalization movements. A diminished EG within Geography Departments leaves Human Geography progressively less well positioned to contribute to major policy or media debates around the economy. ⁶ Neither is it realistic for these gaps to be filled by economic geographers within B & M who, apart from some exceptional contexts, are always likely to be in the minority.

The issue of critical mass relates to a second concern, namely, how does the migration trend have an impact on the kinds of EG being done, in B & M and Geography? The EGRG report suggests that certain kinds of economic geographers are likely to move, particularly those who do firm-based research and/or work on clusters/innovation. A potential risk, then, is that a certain kind of firm-centric EG gets reproduced within B & M schools, and other more critical/normative approaches get squeezed out or are left in isolated pockets in Geography Departments. The limited penetration of critical labour geography into B & M programmes offers a useful case in point. In its focus on worker resistance and agency, and ontological concern to see the making and remaking of economies through the eyes of workers (rather than the firms who manage their ‘labour’ as an input to production), labour geography is distinct from Human Resource Management approaches commonly found in B & M Schools. Encouragingly, some EG colleagues are now developing a critical labour agenda in B & M – this reinforced by the inclusion of Antipode on the all powerful ABS list – but the dominant pattern remains. The larger question, then, is whether this migration trend is blunting EG’s critical teeth?

Our third interlinked line of concern relates to the ability of the discipline to reproduce itself within Geography Departments, through subsequent cohorts of teachers, researchers, mentors and scholars. For reasons described above, EG is only likely to survive as a vibrant intellectual field in the UK if key thought leaders continue to be produced and reside within Geography Departments. As documented in the EGRG report, individual movers have a variety of perspectives on the extent to which they are able to maintain and practice their identity as an economic geographer (should they want to). However, almost without exception, movers were clear that the PhD students they are producing within B & M Schools do not self-identify as economic geographers, even if their work may be inflected with EG ideas from their supervisor. In short, the idea that geographers in B & M will produce more economic geographers is unlikely due to the various rites of intellectual passage through which PhD students pass (from training programmes, joint supervision, internal seminars, internal upgrade, engagement with PhD peers, viva examination and subsequent patterns of publication) in a B & M School environment.

To try and quantify this element, the 87 movers identified the EGRG report had supervised approximately 50 students to completion in B & M, a significant number given the size of the UK EG community. Of course, not all would have got academic jobs post-graduation, but this is still a large pool of potential talent lost to Geography Departments. At the same time, there are fewer economic geographers and associated PhD students in Geography Departments, meaning that over time the ‘conveyor belt of intellectual talent’ moving to B & M Schools may also dry up. In the most pessimistic reading, the last 15 years may represent a one-off movement of academics to a well-resourced and expanding B & M sector that will not necessarily realign intellectual agendas there, yet yield a profound effect on Geography Departments. Overall, it is the production of the next generation of economic geographers that is our gravest concern. Our sense is that if the effects of the migration trend have not yet been fully felt, they will play out over the next 10–20 years. We know that EG is a relatively small field, and a handful of iconic and inspirational individuals can make a huge difference. But, it is increasingly hard to see where the next generations will come from.

So what next?

How one responds to the second big question will depend on where one stands in relation to the arguments set out above. Collectively, our stance leans more towards a pessimistic reading, and as such, we are in favour of at least considering possible interventions. Moreover, trying to energise and provoke debate within EG circles within and beyond the UK has intrinsic merit, even if one is generally unconcerned about the ‘movers’ phenomenon. The EGRG report, and this accompanying commentary, represent first steps by drawing attention to the trend, naming it, and mapping out its key parameters. But what else can be done? First, we need to continue to monitor this trend and its impacts, moving forward. We must assess the extent to which, and in what ways, the ‘reproduction’ issues we identify above start to bite over the next decade and beyond. For example, what could the trends mean for the future of the remaining EG nodes in the UK? A related endeavour is to open out this debate from its current UK focus to gauge to what extent it is UK-specific, and whether similar tendencies are evident in other national institutional contexts. For instance, respondents taking part in the EGRG study suggested that the movers trend is not replicated in the USA, where quantitative-leaning and less heterodox business schools are not interested in hiring economic geographers - despite the influence of the ABS list. And what about our potentially changing relationships with B & M in other key centres of EG worldwide, including Germany, Singapore, Canada, Australia and Sweden?

Beyond direct research, however, there are perhaps two sets of interventions that we might seek to make and which we can broadly term intellectual and institutional. With regards the former, the time would appear ripe for developing and (re)asserting a vibrant core intellectual agenda in EG in the UK that has the potential both to spark the imagination of students and young researchers and to make major contributions to intellectual debates around Brexit, regional development, inclusive economic growth and the like. Building upon Jamie Peck’s metaphor of contemporary EG being a (ring) donut (Peck and Olds, 2007), with multiple divergent subfields working at various disciplinary interfaces but lacking a clear centre, perhaps it is time to debate, redefine and subsequently mobilise the core of our discipline. Even if one looks across the handful of UK departments that retain critical mass in EG, there are significant differences in foci and approach. So how to discern a core intellectual project that integrates across those departments?

Clearly, it is not for us to steer such a debate. But to provoke discussion, what seems to us to have been lost (and not just in the UK, it has to be said) is a core focus on explaining systematic patterns of uneven development (see also Phelps et al., 2017), which now must be an increasingly global project that necessarily engages with the global South. A tendency to focus on individual places, regions and case studies (and largely on western formal economies) has seemingly weakened the wider analytical purchase of EG. ⁷ For instance, inequality and how it is produced has become a big topic in intellectual and political/popular circles and yet with some notable exceptions (e.g. Danny Dorling) economic geographers are seemingly not contributing to the understanding of what are fundamentally geographical processes. EG has also witnessed a retreat from ‘big picture’, systemic accounts, underpinned by the analytically strong geographical, political economy – or what Peck (2016) terms ‘macroeconomic geographies’. The powerful tools offered by previous generations of scholars – such as Massey’s spatial divisions of labour and Dicken’s conceptualisation of firms and globalization dynamics – would still seem to offer so much and yet are arguably under-utilised by contemporary economic geographers.

To put it even more bluntly, and whilst not denying the major advances of the labour geographies agenda, does EG also need some redress by researching firms and their activities and how they drive patterns of uneven regional development both within and across countries? Such concerns are critical to understanding contemporary economic debates (e.g. crisis of globalisation, unbalanced growth and inequality, uneven regional development, corporate power, trade disputes, etc.). Surely something is lost if we cede this ground entirely to B & M Schools? The corollary of these arguments is that we need to reassert the core principles and distinctiveness of an EG approach to show how we can add value to other disciplines. That is currently hard to do in a world of fragmented plurality and may mean raising our sights intellectually to make some programmatic statements about what we do, why it is distinctive, and why it matters in the UK context. Without some measure of coherence, it is hard to ‘sell’ the project both to future researchers and department and institutional leaders in charge of hiring decisions. ⁸ In turn, this may mean re-tooling geographical political economy for today’s world of rapid environmental change, decarbonisation, accelerating global shifts of production and consumption, continued financialization, rising economic nationalism/austerity in some contexts, and new forms of regionalism in others. The notion of putting the jam back into the centre of the EG donut may seem a rather flippant metaphor in this context, but that is exactly what we are proposing!

Institutional interventions are perhaps harder to conceptualise and to our mind are only likely to succeed in combination with the intellectual initiatives just described. In supporting the research carried out by the EGRG, the RGS-IBG has already signalled its interest and concern in what is going on. Indeed the RGS-IBG would seem to have a vested interest in retaining the integrity of Geography as a rounded discipline and one that is able to offer critical commentary on a range of pressing societal issues. Within the RGS-IBG, the EGRG is the obvious starting point for initiatives, but while relatively stable and strong in terms of membership numbers (236 in 2017), for well over a decade now AGMs and organised events have struggled for attendees, indeed even populating the EGRG committee has itself been problematic. Nonetheless, EGRG events may be an important forum for identifying key issues and forging collective statements, and to engage with economic geographers now working in B & M Schools.

In the UK context, one concrete suggestion is for the few remaining departments with critical mass in EG – Cardiff, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, QMUL – to form a network-within-the EGRG-network and initiate some such activities. Clearly, these are places where there is departmental and presumably wider institutional backing for EG research and what it offers. This could be extended to include certain B & M Schools such as Coventry, Birmingham and Southampton where there are discernible clusters of self-identified economic geographers. A coordinated funding application for a rotating seminar or PhD training series, for instance, might allow an extended conversation on the issues we raise here, and in time possibly build to a large research programme application that brings together a network of researchers, not all UK-based, but with the UK at the core on a big picture topic (e.g. inequality, uneven regional development, links to Southern economies, or a post-Brexit UK in the global economy). Similar initiatives might target EG PhD students to bring them together for collective ‘disciplinary’ training. And given that the patterns of cross-disciplinary labour mobility identified in the EGRG report include a sizeable cohort of female colleagues moving out of an already male-dominated discipline, our conversations, networking and capacity building efforts also need to address this issue through meaningful engagements with the RGS-IBG Gender and Feminist Research Group. These may be small steps, but might provide somewhere to start.

Connecting up the hotspots of UK EG will already necessitate forging connections across Geography Departments and B & M Schools. According to some movers documented in the EGRG report, there are reasons to be positive here, with cross-disciplinary EG connections within universities getting off the ground in some instances, reinforced by the research impact agenda. Specifically, some colleagues reported new engagements with their former respective Geography departments about how they might work together, share modules, and encourage geography and B & M students on different undergraduate courses to engage with one another. But whether such links are being initiated more from the B & M School end, possibly with a view to future staff recruitment, is less clear. The overarching labour market dynamic is never far beneath the surface, and it is hard to see how to intervene to try and slow it. More economic geographers in leadership positions might steady the ship, but there is an ever-smaller pool to draw on. Overall, it seems likely that the battle of ideas will have to be won before broader institutional conditions can be reworked.