A geographical political economy response to commentaries on ‘Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South’

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article articulates the thoughts and responses provoked by the welcome and constructively critical and thoughtful commentaries. They are grouped around the following themes: the purpose of concepts and theories; fragmentation and pluralism; explaining temporal and geographical complexity, difference and change; and situating origins, histories, geographies and politics. The argument is that Geographical Political Economy (GPE) provides one approach amongst others and can further evolve through continued openness to constructive critical engagement, dialogue and mutual learning in grappling with deindustrialization and other phenomena in a global setting. Highlights Geographical political economy (GPE) provides one approach amongst others to grappling with deindustrialization in a global setting GPE can further evolve through continued openness to constructive critical engagement, dialogue and mutual learning in the global North and South Understanding and explaining the differentiated geographical expressions of deindustrialization across the world can benefit from reflecting on the purpose of concepts and theories and the meaning and purpose of pluralism GPE provides one way to explaining temporal and geographical complexity, difference and change Situating GPE’s origins, histories, geographies and politics are integral to its use and further evolution