两极化的经济发展:1950 - 1980年代研究的方法论折衷主义

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
{"title":"两极化的经济发展:1950 - 1980年代研究的方法论折衷主义","authors":"","doi":"10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’","PeriodicalId":54733,"journal":{"name":"Networks & Spatial Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polarized Economic Development: Methodological Eclecticism of Research in the 1950–1980s\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’\",\"PeriodicalId\":54733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Networks & Spatial Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Networks & Spatial Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Networks & Spatial Economics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2023.1.121-146","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

20世纪50 ~ 80年代致力于两极分化发展的学术研究具有方法论折衷主义的特点。这套被普遍接受的规定(理论的“核心”)并没有在法国研究人员(主要是F. Perroux和J.-R。Boudeville)。随着研究人员数量的增加,这个问题开始恶化。由于对法国先驱出版物的错误解读,最引人注目的创新之一是“增长中心”一词的引入,它极大地取代了盎格鲁-撒克逊著作中最初的“极点”一词。除了术语列表的不合理扩展之外,出版物开始出现基于与F. Perroux的方法背道而驰的方法指南。事实上,科学方向显然已经陷入了“碎片化陷阱”。它也未能形成一套或多或少完整的辅助理论,形成两极化发展理论的“保护带”。结果,原始的方法基础(可以被描述为非正统)开始受到侵蚀,包括通过使用经济正统典型工具的研究。最终的结果是学术研究人员对原始概念的兴趣逐渐下降,相互竞争的异端理论落入了“关注的中心”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Polarized Economic Development: Methodological Eclecticism of Research in the 1950–1980s
The academic research of the 1950–1980s devoted to polarized development was characterized by methodological eclecticism. The set of generally accepted provisions (the ‘hard core’ of the theory) had not been formed in the framework of the original works of French researchers (primarily F. Perroux and J.-R. Boudeville). This problem of began to worsen due to the expansion of the number of involved researchers. One of the most notable innovations, which arose due to incorrect interpretations of the publications of the French pioneers, was the introduction of the term ‘growth center’, which greatly supplanted the original ‘pole’ terminology from the Anglo-Saxon works. In addition to the unjustified expansion of the list of terms, publications began to appear based on methodological guidelines that run counter to the ones of F. Perroux. In fact, the scientific direction has clearly fallen into the ‘fragmentation trap’. It also failed to form a set of more or less complete auxiliary theories that could form a ‘protective belt’ of the theory of polarized development. As a result, the original methodological basis (which can be characterized as heterodox) began to erode, including through studies using economic orthodoxy typical tools. The end result was a gradual decline in the interest of academic researchers in the original concept, and competing heterodox theories fell into the ‘centers of attention’
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Networks & Spatial Economics
Networks & Spatial Economics 社会科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
26
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Networks and Spatial Economics (NETS) is devoted to the mathematical and numerical study of economic activities facilitated by human infrastructure, broadly defined to include technologies pertinent to information, telecommunications, the Internet, transportation, energy storage and transmission, and water resources. Because the spatial organization of infrastructure most generally takes the form of networks, the journal encourages submissions that employ a network perspective. However, non-network continuum models are also recognized as an important tradition that has provided great insight into spatial economic phenomena; consequently, the journal welcomes with equal enthusiasm submissions based on continuum models. The journal welcomes the full spectrum of high quality work in networks and spatial economics including theoretical studies, case studies and algorithmic investigations, as well as manuscripts that combine these aspects. Although not devoted exclusively to theoretical studies, the journal is "theory-friendly". That is, well thought out theoretical analyses of important network and spatial economic problems will be considered without bias even if they do not include case studies or numerical examples.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信